Re: New PC, looking for suggestions
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:20 pm
I used to occasionally upgrade CPUs, keeping motherboard/ram/etc. Haven't done that in 5+ years, ever since my Athlon64 3800+ x2 (socket 939?) was just before AMD changed their socket style, and I couldn't get anything faster. All the computers I've put together since then have stayed as-is in the CPU+MB front from initial build; I've changed up storage, RAM, and video card. But, I'm getting a pretty good CPU+MB, and just not touching things. I don't see that much value in swapping out CPU over time, and trying to find someone to buy the old CPU.
For me, the AMD vs Intel decision mainly comes down to initial cost vs total consumption. AMD is cheaper, but the chips run hotter and consume more power. Living in Texas, where we have the AC on for months, the less computer heat the AC has to remove, the better. The rule of thumb for data centers is that for each 1 watt of computer power, you spend 2 watts of cooling. So, I think that over time, the extra initial price of Intel will pay back in less total power consumption -- of both the computer and its cooling.
Also, per here, roughly a year ago, game benchmarks weren't showing a meaningful benefit past 3 real cores. This might have changed slightly in the past year, but the general rule is that multithreaded programming is hard for anything other than embarrassingly parallel apps like video encoding or rendering. BZ2 is still uses about 1.05 cores. There's a little background thread action for Gamespy networking, and ogg decoding, but 99% of the time, BZ2's background threads are waiting for work. Rewriting BZ2 to be really multithreaded would be 3-4x the work of adding DX9. If you're doing a ton of those apps that really benefit from multithreading, great, get more cores. If not, 3-4 cores will probably be sufficient for a while.
Although a lot of gamers decry 'consolification', the X360/PS3 are more multithreaded than your average desktop PC, so you have to aggressively multithread the app to perform on those systems. (X360 is triple core plus hyperthreading, and PS3 is hyperthreaded CPU + 5-6 SPUs). That generally ports back to the PC decently for anything better than an Intel Atom.
-- GSH
For me, the AMD vs Intel decision mainly comes down to initial cost vs total consumption. AMD is cheaper, but the chips run hotter and consume more power. Living in Texas, where we have the AC on for months, the less computer heat the AC has to remove, the better. The rule of thumb for data centers is that for each 1 watt of computer power, you spend 2 watts of cooling. So, I think that over time, the extra initial price of Intel will pay back in less total power consumption -- of both the computer and its cooling.
Also, per here, roughly a year ago, game benchmarks weren't showing a meaningful benefit past 3 real cores. This might have changed slightly in the past year, but the general rule is that multithreaded programming is hard for anything other than embarrassingly parallel apps like video encoding or rendering. BZ2 is still uses about 1.05 cores. There's a little background thread action for Gamespy networking, and ogg decoding, but 99% of the time, BZ2's background threads are waiting for work. Rewriting BZ2 to be really multithreaded would be 3-4x the work of adding DX9. If you're doing a ton of those apps that really benefit from multithreading, great, get more cores. If not, 3-4 cores will probably be sufficient for a while.
Although a lot of gamers decry 'consolification', the X360/PS3 are more multithreaded than your average desktop PC, so you have to aggressively multithread the app to perform on those systems. (X360 is triple core plus hyperthreading, and PS3 is hyperthreaded CPU + 5-6 SPUs). That generally ports back to the PC decently for anything better than an Intel Atom.
-- GSH
