Which processor would be better?

[jgassner2]

Hello,
I am building a system that will be used for 3D modeling with autodesk building systems. I was wondering which processor would be better; an Intel Core 2 Duo Conroe 2.66GHz or an AMD Athlon X2 5200+ Windsor 2.6 GHz? I heard that the Intel is great for overclocking but I thought I would see what you guys think. Also, if you have any other suggestions on what I should put in it would be great. Thanks.

 

[felixc]

It looks like you are going to use your machine as a serious workstation, and not as a toy. I suggest that you do not make your choices as a function of overclockability. Overclocking stresses the parts more in making them run hotter, and it also makes them work under unspecified timings. It may run rock solid, but it may also ruin your work in subtle ways, six months from now.

 

[jgassner2]

Very true felixc, I didn't even take that into consideration.

Maybe I should have been more descriptive. The PC I am using right now does the job. It just takes about 5 minutes to say, zoom in on a specific part. The computer is basically an HP Pavillion with a Quatro card and extra RAM. The video I don't think I will have a problem with. I did notice that when working with the program I had major bottlenecks with the processor and the memory. I have never seen a 1.8 gig page file before on a desktop before it crashed. Quite a site. So if anyone knows good processor/mobo/memory combinations let me know. Thanks.

 

[Johnthephoneguy]

the Core 2 Duo is your better bet, today anyway. intel has a leg up on AMD with the core 2 duo's, the prices are really reasonable when you compare them

JohnThePhoneGuy

"If I can't fix it, it's not broke!

 

[paparazi]

Intel Core2 Duo (Conroe) or quadro (Kentsfield) without a doubt and that's coming from an AMD fan.
See:

http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage_uk/

If Stability and reliability are paramount then Intels latest version of the "BAD AXE" motherboard won't disapoint.

http://www.intel.com/products/motherboard/d975xbx/index.htm

AMD are playing catch up at the moment, Intel are simply superior in eveyway at the "TOP END" of the market, just read a few reviews on Tomshardware and anandtech and you will see just how much of a march they have on AMD ATM.

Martin



We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[kmcferrin]

Clock for clock (and you're asking about a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo versus a 2.6 GHz AMD X2), the Intel will be faster. For your particular application I suspect that either processor will be sufficient, but I would go with the Intel in this case just to be sure. I suspect that most likely you are going to be limited by memory and video card performance. If your Quadro card is one of the more recent ones then you should be in good shape there. If it's 2 years old or something then you can probably get a significant boost from a newer card.

My guess is that your biggest limiting factor will be memory. Depending on the size of your models I would recommend 3GB of memory. If your application is available in a 64-bit version that runs on a 64-bit OS (presuming Windows), then you could go with 4GB or more.

 

[wahnula]

Yes, memory will be very important. All new boards are dual-channel so you pair the RAM, exact duplicate make model etc or just buy a dual channel kit(s). My vote is for the Core2 Duo also, it works FAST and stays cool, less fan noise!

Depending on your Matrox card's specs I also agree that you can get a better card in mid-line PCI-E today. The AGP bus is going legacy in a hurry, you will limit your options if AGP is a requirement. Might as well get a new case & PSU too!

You would probably benefit greatly from a RAID1+0 array, or RAID 0 with a regular backup plan.

For stability it's hard to beat an Intel board.

Tony

 

[felixc]

Five minutes to zoom on a part? Holy cow! That must be frustrating. There's a bottleneck somewhere. What is the system doing during that time? Is it accessing the disk? How much memory is present in your system? Have you tried adding more memory? Can it be that your software can not use all the available memory?

 

[jgassner2]

Thanks for all of your support. I appreciate the amount of feedback.

The system is running 2 Gigs of DDR2 PC2 4200 ram. What I think is happening is that the amount of transactions between the processor and the memory is great. Disk activity is minimal, so I know that the hard drive is not the bottleneck. I thnk that since the buses between the processor and the memory are slow paired with a motherboard that has no ability to adjust memory timings plays a big part in everything. As for the video card it is relativly new. I don't remember the exact specs though. If anybody knows of any better processors for the job than what I have listed please let me know. Also, any input for ram makers/types would be great.

 

[cdogg]

jgassner,
It looks like you upgraded the RAM in this laptop. Did you do so making sure that you preserved "dual-channel"? If not, then you are starving the CPU by limiting the bandwidth across the FSB to the memory controller.

It should tell you in the BIOS whether or not it's using dual-channel. If it's not that, then I would consider a fresh install of the OS to get things back up to speed.


~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884