Faster CPU, or Hard Drive? - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

Raiin Maker

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Oct 2005

England

Blood On The Worlds Hands

W/

05 Apr 2008 at 20:35 - 1

I'm addicted, my PC is barely over a year old and its almost not the same one i bought. I won't rest until my PC has had a complete overhaul, however there are money issues.

Firstly my current hard-drive is 7,200 RPM.

Replacing my motherboard is a must, due to the fact my IPod regularly crashes, and my current one has no Firewire, meaning hours of waiting to get it back. It also has no PCI-E 2.0 port, meaning my graphics card is currently being held back by it, I'd also like the opportunity in the future to SLI my cards, should it be cheaper than buying a new 9800+ card.

My CPU is a 2.4Ghz AMD 4600+. What i am looking at is the 3.2Ghz 6400+ Black Edition.

Now would a new processor be faster than a either 10,000 or 15,000 RPM hard drive? I'm reluctant to buy the hard drive as its more expensive than the CPU, and it also means i have to once again re-install my entire PC, but this time making sure any unnecessary programs aren't installed, due to the limited size of the faster hard drives.

Should fate smile kindly upon me i may be blessed with the good fortune of being able to buy both, however until this non-believer gets on his knees and prays I'm afraid he's going to have to compromise.... for now.

Malice Black

Site Legend

Join Date: Oct 2005

05 Apr 2008 at 20:37 - 2

CPU. 7500rpm HDD is plenty fast enough for regular use.

BlueNovember

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Sep 2005

WTS GW2 items for Zkey

Mo/

05 Apr 2008 at 20:53 - 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiin Maker

I'm addicted, my PC is barely over a year old and its almost not the same one i bought. I won't rest until my PC has had a complete overhaul, however there are money issues.

Heh. Sounds like a software clean out would be a lot cheaper. Hard to justify doing a major overhaul on a pc ~1 yr old.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiin Maker

Replacing my motherboard is a must, due to the fact my IPod regularly crashes, and my current one has no Firewire, meaning hours of waiting to get it back.

Surely buying a firewire card would be cheaper?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiin Maker

My CPU is a 2.4Ghz AMD 4600+. What i am looking at is the 3.2Ghz 6400+ Black Edition.

Unless you're playing the latest games at top spec or doing some serious media editing you really don't need a processor above what you already have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiin Maker

Now would a new processor be faster than a either 10,000 or 15,000 RPM hard drive?

The hard drive. It's the only mechanical part of the pc involved in the data read/manipulate/write cycle, and thus always a massive bottleneck. You may want to consider the significant different in heat and noise output with a faster drive though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiin Maker

I'm reluctant to buy the hard drive as [it] means i have to once again re-install my entire PC

You could use software such as Norton Ghost or Partition Magic to clone your old drive onto your new drive. No re-installation necessary. (Do not do this if you replace your motherboard though; windows would have a fit).

GL HTH

Brianna

Insane & Inhumane

Join Date: Feb 2006

05 Apr 2008 at 20:56 - 4

You'll benefit way more from the new processor, the 6400 is pretty nice, I have a 6000+ and I love it.

FXCW

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Feb 2008

London,UK

Passionate Kiss of Nosferatu

R/

05 Apr 2008 at 21:12 - 5

You could always splash out on a solid state HD

Admael

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2005

California

Xen of Heroes

05 Apr 2008 at 21:29 - 6

The 6400+ Black Edition has no HSF because it's AMD's attempt to target overclockers. It has an unlocked multiplier allowing you to do just that, so unless you plan to overclock, stick with the standard 6400+ which includes a HSF (cheaper too).

I've said awhile back, all 7200 RPM drives are not the same. Recently, Seagate (and WD) released a 320GB 7200.11 drive on a single platter. What this means to you is low noise and vibration. Also, essentially, the burst (useless lol) speed, random access/seek time are superior to older 7200 RPM drives too.

Loviatar

Underworld Spelunker

Join Date: Feb 2005

05 Apr 2008 at 23:01 - 7

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueNovember

The hard drive. It's the only mechanical part of the pc involved in the data read/manipulate/write cycle, and thus always a massive bottleneck. You may want to consider the significant different in heat and noise output with a faster drive though.

disagree completely.

my WD enterprise edition with 320 gig/SATA/16 MB buffer works great with 4 gigs of good fast dual channel DDR2 memory.

that is enough to buffer the 7200rpm drive

turning down a hotter CPU for a hi speed brag HD is nuts for any practical use including gaming

also none less than MAXIMUM PC MAG stated the latest SATA big cashe drives were perfect except for the big pocket spenders who want bragging rights

Raiin Maker

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Oct 2005

England

Blood On The Worlds Hands

W/

05 Apr 2008 at 23:16 - 8

I've already got a pretty good HSF, and my current idle of my CPU is 25 degrees. (note that this case has useless airflow, only the PSU is drawing any heat out from the case).

I will have a new case by the time i purchase the CPU, and the chances are i will over clock it upon the release of some new games.

I am a fairly intense gamer, thus my desire for better parts, so its not like they aren't going to be used to the full.

Blackhearted

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Jan 2007

Ohio, usa

none

Mo/

05 Apr 2008 at 23:23 - 9

If you already have a "pretty good" heatsink, which i would assume means it isnt the stock one, why not just overclock if you need the extra power? If that x2 is of the brisbane core it'll take it rather easily.

Raiin Maker

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Oct 2005

England

Blood On The Worlds Hands

W/

05 Apr 2008 at 23:34 - 10

Because at the moment over clocking my CPU would most likely melt my machine.

Like i said earlier while my fans may be good, my case is basically a box, with the only air coming out of it being that from the PSU. Over clocking my CPU at the moment would most likely melt/crash my PC.

Apart from gaming i take Media Studies as an A-Leveling, editing massive movies with lots of effects can take its toll, epically when i like running scans and other stuff in the background as well.

Another reason i could do with a new CPU is because i have lots of spare PC parts lying around, and if i were to replace a few from my current machine i could actually make a second computer, which while i personally am not in great need of, the rest of my family do still have an old 2ghz single core.

Numa Pompilius

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: May 2005

At an Insit.. Intis... a house.

Live Forever Or Die Trying [GLHF]

W/Me

05 Apr 2008 at 23:35 - 11

Another vote for processor. Your harddisk should be a complete non-issue unless you have 512MB RAM or less.

eggrolls

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Jan 2007

06 Apr 2008 at 00:18 - 12

Especially since you're going to be editing movies, I'd go for a new processor. At least a dual-core, or a quad core if you think you can utilize more than 2 cores at once (like gaming while encoding/rendering/etc).

Since you're replacing your motherboard, going Intel is also an option, especially if your HSF is also compatible with LGA775.

Quaker

Hell's Protector

Join Date: Aug 2005

Canada

Brothers Disgruntled

06 Apr 2008 at 02:29 - 13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiin Maker

..Firstly my current hard-drive is 7,200 RPM.

I don't think you'd see any noticeable real-world performance increase by going to a higher rpm drive. You'd be better off, price/performance-wise, to get two 7200rpm's in a RAID0 array. (It's also more techy sounding.

)

Quote:

My CPU is a 2.4Ghz AMD 4600+. What i am looking at is the 3.2Ghz 6400+ Black Edition.

Since you're planning to change your motherboard anyway, you may want to consider either an Intel Core 2 Dual or Quad core. They have the performance edge in the upper end (although, it would mean more dollars). Or you could go for a Phenom.

Since you say you're not going to overclock it, I would agree that you may as well get a regular 6400+ (or Phenom) with the stock HSF. If for no other reason, than at least you'll have a fan to go with the old cpu & mobo, which you could sell or give to someone.

Admael

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2005

California

Xen of Heroes

06 Apr 2008 at 03:24 - 14

I didn't want to confuse you before, but might as well give you all the facts since it's been brought up.

The B3s have been released!!! That includes AMD's Phenom 9550 (195USD), 9750 (215USD), 9850 Black Edition (244USD).

Brianna

Insane & Inhumane

Join Date: Feb 2006

06 Apr 2008 at 03:27 - 15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admael

I didn't want to confuse you before, but might as well give you all the facts since it's been brought up.

The B3s have been released!!! That includes AMD's Phenom 9550 (195USD), 9750 (215USD), 9850 Black Edition (244USD).

Those are AM2 socket right? (Didn't check)

So If i wanted to get one of those, I could easily just ditch my 6000+ and put one in? Or is it not that easy?

Blackhearted

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Jan 2007

Ohio, usa

none

Mo/

06 Apr 2008 at 03:44 - 16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

Those are AM2 socket right? (Didn't check)

So If i wanted to get one of those, I could easily just ditch my 6000+ and put one in? Or is it not that easy?

They're AM2+, an upgrade of sorts over normal AM2. From what i've read before AMD says that AM2+ cpus should work in normal AM2 boards, and vice versa. But you probably should check the site of your motherboard manufacturer just to be sure if your board could handle it.(if it's not an AM2+ board)

Admael

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2005

California

Xen of Heroes

06 Apr 2008 at 04:01 - 17

You can put an AM2+ chip into an AM2 board, but it will only run at HT2.0 instead of HT3.0

Same with the AM3 processors. You can put them into an AM2/AM2+ board but you can't put an AM2/AM2+ processor into an AM3 board.

Brianna

Insane & Inhumane

Join Date: Feb 2006

06 Apr 2008 at 04:13 - 18

So It's backwards compatible in other words.

My mobo manual says this: Accommodates AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core/Athlon 64/Sempron Processors.

Supports up to 2000 MT/s HyperTransprot (HT) Interface speeds.

So.. what's that mean?

EDIT: Sorry for sort of highjacking, just thought I'd ask.

Admael

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2005

California

Xen of Heroes

06 Apr 2008 at 04:39 - 19

No problem, but we're going to go into a bit of detail here.

AMD chips have no FSB, per se, and uses HT technology as a replacement for their modern chips (Intel on the other hand, got rid of HT after Pentium->Core).

Basically describes the amount of data (in the form of packets) that can be moved (MT's per second).

Your board supports 1GB HT, or 2000 MT/s, meaning even if you get a Phenom, it'll just run at that speed... (The new Phenoms rum at 4000 MT/s)

Brianna

Insane & Inhumane

Join Date: Feb 2006

06 Apr 2008 at 04:42 - 20

So in other words It'd be a bad idea to get it, wasn't going to - just asking for informational purposes.

Since you mention Intel, is a Core 2 Duo 2.6Ghz better than an AMD Athlon 6000+?

deluxe

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Feb 2006

Monkeyball Z

S.K.A.T. [Ban]

Mo/

06 Apr 2008 at 05:17 - 21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

So in other words It'd be a bad idea to get it, wasn't going to - just asking for informational purposes.

Since you mention Intel, is a Core 2 Duo 2.6Ghz better than an AMD Athlon 6000+?

I Would take the cheapest Core 2 Duo over the latest Athlon, it's just not in the same league. Phenom and Core 2 Duo are in the same league, but still intel beats amd there.

I Dont Do Coke

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Jan 2008

Japan

06 Apr 2008 at 05:45 - 22

And not to mention that Core 2s overclock better and more.

Blackhearted

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Jan 2007

Ohio, usa

none

Mo/

06 Apr 2008 at 06:04 - 23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admael

AMD chips have no FSB, per se, and uses HT technology as a replacement for their modern chips (Intel on the other hand, got rid of HT after Pentium->Core).

I think you're mixing Hypertransport and Hyperthreading up a bit here. Intel has never used Hypertransport on their cpus. The HT you're thinking of that they ditched between the Pentiums and the Core 2 is the hyperthreading kind. Which trys to act like a (kinda) second cpu of sorts, not an FSB.

Brianna

Insane & Inhumane

Join Date: Feb 2006

06 Apr 2008 at 06:11 - 24

So.. It's really that bad for AMD now is it?

Well, guess I'll make an Intel based computer next time, but for now this one runs really fast so I'm not complaining.

Maybe the OP can take or leave a few things from that, who knows.

Master Ketsu

Desert Nomad

Join Date: May 2006

middle of nowhere

Krazy Guild With Krazy People [KrZy]

R/

06 Apr 2008 at 06:27 - 25

HDD makes a difference, but not as big as CPU clockspeed, RAM, and you graphics card. Go for Processor upgrade. A video card with plenty of dedicated RAM on it is also a good bet.

Admael

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2005

California

Xen of Heroes

06 Apr 2008 at 06:45 - 26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackhearted

I think you're mixing Hypertransport and Hyperthreading up a bit here. Intel has never used Hypertransport on their cpus. The HT you're thinking of that they ditched between the Pentiums and the Core 2 is the hyperthreading kind. Which trys to act like a (kinda) second cpu of sorts, not an FSB.

Actually I did get it confused because both HT were released around the same time and I keep forgetting because Intel keep promising to bring back HTT.

Anyways I'm not saying AMD is "that bad" because in theory having the FSB built directly into the processor makes AMD chips faster, in theory.

But as far as performance vs price goes: Intel is hands down the best.

Brianna

Insane & Inhumane

Join Date: Feb 2006

06 Apr 2008 at 06:57 - 27

Well, I noticed that all high end gaming boards have Intel sockets, I've yet to find one with AMD, so originally that told me something.

And most gamers usually seemed to go with Intel anyway, and I've been meaning to give them a shot again - I remember 10 years ago or so I started hating them a lot for some reason, and went AMD every since.

But as you all know days and ages change, who knows, some day maybe ATI will dominate the gamer's choice market, etc. But I'm sure not giving up my Nvidia chips for a long time.

Admael

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2005

California

Xen of Heroes

06 Apr 2008 at 09:16 - 28

About a week ago, Intel released the Skulltrail (it's not named Skulltrail anymore, but I refuse it to call it whatever Intel calls it).

Along with the D5400XS Skulltrail, released a second QX Penryn, the QX9775.

Before I get into specs, I'd like to say, nothing on the AMD market (gaming or otherwise) compares with this setup.

The downside is, it costs 3700 USD for the board + processors. *ONLY*
So you can rest assured it's a pure gaming system.

So smooth sailing for Intel? Nope. They give this board FBDIMM support.
Seriously, Full Buffered DIMMS? Who uses those? DDR2, no less.

Anyways, I don't have much faith in AMD either, ATI seems like it would be a good way to go... but I wonder with Larabee in the near future, is there any room left for ATI/AMD?

Gaming boards for AMD?
AMD 790FX

EDIT: Oh right, specs

D5400XS Skulltrail:
NB: Intel 5400 Skulltrail
FSB Standard: 1600
Memory Standard: DDR 800/667 (FBDIMM)
PCI-e: 4 (1.1 @ 16x, Crossfire or SLI)

QX9775 "Penryn" Yorkfield
FSB: 1600
Clock: 3.2GHz
L2 Cache: 12MB (6k x2)
Vcore: 1.212v (ouch)
Therms: 150W (ouch)

Blackhearted

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Jan 2007

Ohio, usa

none

Mo/

06 Apr 2008 at 16:11 - 29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

But as you all know days and ages change, who knows, some day maybe ATI will dominate the gamer's choice market, etc. But I'm sure not giving up my Nvidia chips for a long time.

Nvidia's current dominance has made them lazy and their driver support pretty bad. Aside from barely releasing any new, non-beta drivers, they also refuse to fix huge bugs their competitor does not have.

Brianna

Insane & Inhumane

Join Date: Feb 2006

06 Apr 2008 at 16:18 - 30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackhearted

Nvidia's current dominance has made them lazy and their driver support pretty bad. Aside from barely releasing any new, non-beta drivers, they also refuse to fix huge bugs their competitor does not have.

Yeah I noticed, their new lineup of GPU's is pretty lame, I'm sticking with my 8800's, the 9 series is a waste of cash.

Also I have had no driver issues on my part - but I know other people are, pretty annoying none the less.

But yeah Admael, I heard about that stuff being released, but there is no way I'd pay that much, something like a simple Intel dual core and a 790i would be sufficient for a ''Super Gaming Rig'' on my part.

Admael

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2005

California

Xen of Heroes

06 Apr 2008 at 20:09 - 31

E8400 and 790i?

It's kinda sad when the mobo cost more than the processor.
I'd go with the E8400 and 750i. It's essentially the same board as the 780i without the Tri-SLi, and you keep DDR2 memory.

Pasha the Mighty

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Nov 2007

South Park, Colorado

OtDL

D/A

06 Apr 2008 at 21:18 - 32

e8400 rules! If you have a fast cpu, then you could consider getting a 10k hdd for your programs, it will speed up your boottime and startup time for games, but imho it's a bit of a waste. Invest it in a 1 TB hdd and put that to good use.
@Brianna: the 9900gt is supposed to be as good as the 9800gtx, and the 9900gtx and 9900gx2 are supposed to be amazing. Let's just hope they are!

Admael

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2005

California

Xen of Heroes

06 Apr 2008 at 22:20 - 33

The E8400 does rule, but I'm afraid it stops there. Intel doesn't find AMD as worthy competition anymore, so they're slowing innovation and raising prices.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=486

Quaker

Hell's Protector

Join Date: Aug 2005

Canada

Brothers Disgruntled

07 Apr 2008 at 03:34 - 34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

So in other words It'd be a bad idea to get it, wasn't going to - just asking for informational purposes.

Since you mention Intel, is a Core 2 Duo 2.6Ghz better than an AMD Athlon 6000+?

For most things, yes. But the AMD 6000+ is probably cheaper and better than the Intel processor of the same price.

If you want bang-for-the-buck, go AMD. If you just want bang, never mind the buck, go for Intel. Of course that`s today (or yesterday) - tomorrow could be different.

Admael

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Sep 2005

California

Xen of Heroes

07 Apr 2008 at 08:07 - 35

If you're referring to the Conroe E6750, that thing will light your house on fire. Safety hazard for sure, so steer clear

But the E6750 (333x8) is faster than the X2 6000+ (200x15).

And I shit you not, they just dropped the price on the E8400. It costs about $60 more than the X2 6000+.