rec.autos.simulators

CPUs- what's the deal?

Malc

CPUs- what's the deal?

by Malc » Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:09:41


I'm guessing everything will kick off again once Microsoft release a
64bit mainstream OS & MSOffice.

imo the change to 64bit isn't as pressing as the change from 16 to 32bit
was back in the Win95 days, and even that took several years.

There's only so much market pressure that can be applied by computing's
equivalent of hotrodders (people who have to have the latest & greatest
no matter what), what's needed is a few 'killer apps' that really push
64bit (or just more powerful processing in any form) into the
mainstream, and it's anyone's guess what that will be & when ;-)

Malc.

Bill Worre

CPUs- what's the deal?

by Bill Worre » Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:57:45

Don,

I think maybe this is your lucky day!  Check out this article on anandtech:
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Looks like a good time to upgrade to socket 939 with a new .09 Athlon 64
3000+ for under $200 (plus new mobo) and overclock it to FX-53 speeds.  I
think I need to start looking at switching from my current Intel setup to a
new AMD setup! :)

On the Intel side of CPU's, I was also thinking development seems to have
slowed down. The Intel 2.4B that I got almost two years ago for just under
$200 is still around and selling for about $150.  I would've thought that
we'd be seeing 5+ GHz by now, but I guess they're looking at making the
processors more powerful at lower clock speeds.



>> Anyone else noticed that CPUs have pretty much stagnated in the last 2
>> years?  Have AMD and Intel run out of ideas?  Is there anything
>> promising on the horizon?

> Don't know about Intel as I am an AMD guy and really don't keep up with
> Intel's progress.

> AMD, imho, is definitely on the move. Their new 64 bit processors, from
> what I have seen, are kicking Intel's ***in benchmarks.

> We are pretty much in a transition mode, with lots of new technology on
> the horizon. The only reason I have not updated to a 64 bit processor, is
> I am waiting for socket 939 to become more readily available and cheaper.
> Socket 754 I understand is pretty darn good, and 64 bit amd cpu in socket
> 754 spanks socketA 32 bit processors pretty good. But with 939 on the
> horizon, I would rather wait and make the jump to it.
> We are at the bottom of the curve on these new 64 bit processors, and
> especially socket 939.

> Socket A indeed, has stagnated, as they have reached the upper echelon on
> it, and no where left to go.  AMD's Barton 32 bit processors, in socket A,
> still have a lot of longetivy to them.  My XP 2800+ running at 3200+
> speeds, still gives me great performance in anything I throw at it, and
> scores around 6400 in 3dmark 03.

> We also have pci express on the horizon, to take the place of both reg pci
> and agp.

> I am just going ot wait, until the bugs get settled in some of this new
> technology, and upgrade then. Although, with the reasonable price on
> socket 754 boards and processors, it is tempting to go ahead and upgrade.
> If my system was *** now, I would not hesitate to do so.

> Hardware wise, things will be very different in a couple of years.

> --
> Don Burnette

Stephen F

CPUs- what's the deal?

by Stephen F » Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:00:42


Intel adopting their notebook CPU architecture will be an intersting step.
My 1.6 GHz Pentium-M benchmarks faster than a 2.2 GHz P4.

Mitch_

CPUs- what's the deal?

by Mitch_ » Sat, 16 Oct 2004 01:47:57

Something isnt right.  You are the "exception not the rule."

Nothing beats CPU cycles.

Mitch


> Yes I have.


> not see that much of a gain. the only thing that saw a big increase in was
> NR2003.  Granted I was all ready running a ATI 9700 pro video card.

> MadDAWG

Stephen F

CPUs- what's the deal?

by Stephen F » Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:31:17




>> Anyone else noticed that CPUs have pretty much stagnated in the last 2
>> years?  Have AMD and Intel run out of ideas?  Is there anything
> promising on
>> the horizon?

> I'm guessing everything will kick off again once Microsoft release a
> 64bit mainstream OS & MSOffice.

> imo the change to 64bit isn't as pressing as the change from 16 to 32bit
> was back in the Win95 days, and even that took several years.

> There's only so much market pressure that can be applied by computing's
> equivalent of hotrodders (people who have to have the latest & greatest
> no matter what), what's needed is a few 'killer apps' that really push
> 64bit (or just more powerful processing in any form) into the
> mainstream, and it's anyone's guess what that will be & when ;-)

> Malc.

Agreed.  Given enough memory, even my current ThinkPad notebook is running
my finite element analyses much faster than my old Silicon Graphics
dual-processor Octane.  Even for heavily non-linear analyses, the current
generation of PCs is more than adequate.
Malc

CPUs- what's the deal?

by Malc » Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:54:08




> > Anyone else noticed that CPUs have pretty much stagnated in the last
2
> > years?  Have AMD and Intel run out of ideas?  Is there anything
promising
> on
> > the horizon?

> Yes I have.


did
> not see that much of a gain. the only thing that saw a big increase in
was
> NR2003.  Granted I was all ready running a ATI 9700 pro video card.

I went from an XP2000 (133) to my current XP3000 (166) a while back &
didn't notice much performance difference, although I was (and still am)
much happier with the cooler temps. I put the XP2000 in my second PC
though, and going back it feels slower & the difference is plain to see
when you can compare directly.

Malc.

Don Burnett

CPUs- what's the deal?

by Don Burnett » Sat, 16 Oct 2004 01:43:14




>> Anyone else noticed that CPUs have pretty much stagnated in the last
>> 2 years?  Have AMD and Intel run out of ideas?  Is there anything
>> promising on the horizon?

> Yes I have.


> and did not see that much of a gain. the only thing that saw a big
> increase in was NR2003.  Granted I was all ready running a ATI 9700
> pro video card.

> MadDAWG

I find that a little suprising.

I upgraded from a XP 1600+, to an XP 2400+, then to an XP 2800+ Barton ( I
know, but with the price so cheap why not), and I definitely saw difference
in each 3 steps. Of course, I overclocked each one to their upper limits.  I
also went from 9700 Pro to 9800 Pro during this time as well.

--
Don Burnette

John Simmon

CPUs- what's the deal?

by John Simmon » Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:44:15




> > Anyone else noticed that CPUs have pretty much stagnated in the last 2
> > years?  Have AMD and Intel run out of ideas?  Is there anything
> > promising on the horizon?

> Don't know about Intel as I am an AMD guy and really don't keep up with
> Intel's progress.

> AMD, imho, is definitely on the move. Their new 64 bit processors, from what
> I have seen, are kicking Intel's ***in benchmarks.

Yup.

What's really cool is that the current 939 motherboards are already
compatible (if you believe the marketing spin) with the dual-core 939
CPUs that will be released next year.  And AMD just released the 939
90nm version of the AMD64 3000 at a price point less than $200.

I'm currently running an AMD XP3000 and will be upgrading to AMD64/PCI
Express next summer.

Don Burnett

CPUs- what's the deal?

by Don Burnett » Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:55:27

Thanks for the link Bill.

Very interesting, and, very tempting!

--
Don Burnette


> Don,

> I think maybe this is your lucky day!  Check out this article on
> anandtech: http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> Looks like a good time to upgrade to socket 939 with a new .09 Athlon
> 64 3000+ for under $200 (plus new mobo) and overclock it to FX-53
> speeds.  I think I need to start looking at switching from my current
> Intel setup to a new AMD setup! :)

> On the Intel side of CPU's, I was also thinking development seems to
> have slowed down. The Intel 2.4B that I got almost two years ago for
> just under $200 is still around and selling for about $150.  I
> would've thought that we'd be seeing 5+ GHz by now, but I guess
> they're looking at making the processors more powerful at lower clock
> speeds.




>>> Anyone else noticed that CPUs have pretty much stagnated in the
>>> last 2 years?  Have AMD and Intel run out of ideas?  Is there
>>> anything promising on the horizon?

>> Don't know about Intel as I am an AMD guy and really don't keep up
>> with Intel's progress.

>> AMD, imho, is definitely on the move. Their new 64 bit processors,
>> from what I have seen, are kicking Intel's ***in benchmarks.

>> We are pretty much in a transition mode, with lots of new technology
>> on the horizon. The only reason I have not updated to a 64 bit
>> processor, is I am waiting for socket 939 to become more readily
>> available and cheaper. Socket 754 I understand is pretty darn good,
>> and 64 bit amd cpu in socket 754 spanks socketA 32 bit processors
>> pretty good. But with 939 on the horizon, I would rather wait and
>> make the jump to it. We are at the bottom of the curve on these new 64
>> bit processors, and
>> especially socket 939.

>> Socket A indeed, has stagnated, as they have reached the upper
>> echelon on it, and no where left to go.  AMD's Barton 32 bit
>> processors, in socket A, still have a lot of longetivy to them.  My
>> XP 2800+ running at 3200+ speeds, still gives me great performance
>> in anything I throw at it, and scores around 6400 in 3dmark 03.

>> We also have pci express on the horizon, to take the place of both
>> reg pci and agp.

>> I am just going ot wait, until the bugs get settled in some of this
>> new technology, and upgrade then. Although, with the reasonable
>> price on socket 754 boards and processors, it is tempting to go
>> ahead and upgrade. If my system was *** now, I would not
>> hesitate to do so. Hardware wise, things will be very different in a
>> couple of years.

>> --
>> Don Burnette

Steve Simpso

CPUs- what's the deal?

by Steve Simpso » Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:55:18

That may be true but as far as racing simulations go, the current generation
of CPUs are really dragging the chain.  It's like the people that made the
current crop of sims were expecting CPUs to be much faster by this stage
too...

Sales1 at Gamestee

CPUs- what's the deal?

by Sales1 at Gamestee » Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:01:23

Yep

64 bit is a goer but only once the game code is all changed. 64 bit CPU's in
32 bit emulation mode = slower processing for the same clock speed.
regards


Bruce Mckow

CPUs- what's the deal?

by Bruce Mckow » Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:47:57

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:01:23 +1000, "Sales1 at Gamesteer"


>Yep

>64 bit is a goer but only once the game code is all changed. 64 bit CPU's in
>32 bit emulation mode = slower processing for the same clock speed.
>regards

AMD64 can run 32bit games/code  just as fast, or faster, than a native
32bit Intel cpu.
Slas

CPUs- what's the deal?

by Slas » Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:11:23

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:01:23 +1000, "Sales1 at Gamesteer"

>Yep

>64 bit is a goer but only once the game code is all changed. 64 bit CPU's in
>32 bit emulation mode = slower processing for the same clock speed.
>regards


This is true, but only if the CPU is 64-bit only, which the current
ones are not. They're hybrids, and perform 32 bit tasks every bit as
well as anything else currently out. An Athlon64 is not going to be
slower than a P4 just because it has a 64 in the name.

-Slash
--
"Ebert Victorious"
       -The Onion

MadDAW

CPUs- what's the deal?

by MadDAW » Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:54:51


I think its just fine. IMO the software has alot to do with it. As we all
know Papy games are CPU hogs and that is the one spot where I did have a
noticable differance. For most of my games I have been running a low screen
res to keep cpu load down while increasing the FSAA and AF to take advantage
of the video card.  I don't play F1C or some of the others that seem to big
CPU hogs.

MadDAWG

Steve Simpso

CPUs- what's the deal?

by Steve Simpso » Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:38:08

Running a low resolution has no effect on the CPU.  In theory if you've got
a very slow CPU and a very fast video card there'll be no difference in
speed between 640x480 and 1600x1200


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.