Please explain...
- Thread starter RacerX
- Start date
- Status
Heyyo,
[EDIT]
Ok, he fixed the links, so I removed me saying they weren't working and so this post is mainly just rambling.
Now, the diff in the L2 cache is that that's your secondary cache, I think it's used to load your hardware. Now, the more L2 cache, the better your system preformance. The diff isin't actually that big. for the amd semptrons and athalonXP's. I'm quite surprised by that. But the price gap's the best part. the Intel celerons, on the other hand, seriously suck. some people call them celery cause they're not good for much.
My cpu rating goes like this:
AMD FX series
AMD Athlon64
Intel P4
AMD AthlonXP
AMD Semtron
Intel Celeron
Now, for some people, they might have a diff order. Some are intel fans, some are amd. I like to base my findings on price/preformance ratio. But sometimes I just go by brue preformance, otherwise the AMD fx series of processors wouldn't be ontop.
Well, I hope I helped somewhat...
Oh, but for Hl2 mapping n' such? I bet an Intel P4 would go a few seconds faster than an AMD. But if a few seconds ain't life or death, and you wanna save some cash? I'd go AMD. Intel's tend to do better in applications such as encoding mp3's or movies or running your word processing program. Probably goes the same for map compling.. but then again, that does touch on the 3d side of computing, which AMD is king. AMD's are the best cpu's for gaming, so maybe for compiling levels, AMD's would to better than Intel. In the end, as I've said, the difference between AMD and Intel for mapping and compiling would only be a few seconds at the most, so it's up to you which you wanna crank out the cash for.
[EDIT]
Ok, he fixed the links, so I removed me saying they weren't working and so this post is mainly just rambling.
Now, the diff in the L2 cache is that that's your secondary cache, I think it's used to load your hardware. Now, the more L2 cache, the better your system preformance. The diff isin't actually that big. for the amd semptrons and athalonXP's. I'm quite surprised by that. But the price gap's the best part. the Intel celerons, on the other hand, seriously suck. some people call them celery cause they're not good for much.
My cpu rating goes like this:
AMD FX series
AMD Athlon64
Intel P4
AMD AthlonXP
AMD Semtron
Intel Celeron
Now, for some people, they might have a diff order. Some are intel fans, some are amd. I like to base my findings on price/preformance ratio. But sometimes I just go by brue preformance, otherwise the AMD fx series of processors wouldn't be ontop.
Well, I hope I helped somewhat...
Oh, but for Hl2 mapping n' such? I bet an Intel P4 would go a few seconds faster than an AMD. But if a few seconds ain't life or death, and you wanna save some cash? I'd go AMD. Intel's tend to do better in applications such as encoding mp3's or movies or running your word processing program. Probably goes the same for map compling.. but then again, that does touch on the 3d side of computing, which AMD is king. AMD's are the best cpu's for gaming, so maybe for compiling levels, AMD's would to better than Intel. In the end, as I've said, the difference between AMD and Intel for mapping and compiling would only be a few seconds at the most, so it's up to you which you wanna crank out the cash for.
Crap, sorry. Here's the three cpu's. The last two cost the same, but the first is $40 less. Suggestions?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16819103539
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16819103465
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16819103531
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16819103539
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16819103465
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16819103531
Heyyo,
Ahh, I see. Now, the main diff between the 3 is their cores. The san diego, newcastle, and venice cores. Now, these cores do have preformance differences. The venice core is the newest, so the best of the 3. the venice core is the 3rd one.
Now, the diff between 512KB L2 cache and 1MB L2 cache shouldn't be life-threatening. If anything only a couple extra seconds when compiling your level, you won't even feel the difference when actually mapping the level. So yes, I say go for the 3rd cpu if you can cause it'll preform the best between the 3. The top one will probably run the slowest between mainly cause it's got a slower speed. Again, the preformance difference won't be huge since it's just a few MHz slower at the most. So if ya wanna save like ~$40 USD, and you don't mind compiling maps15 seconds slower than if you paied out that ~$40 USD then go for the top cpu you showed me.
That's one thing to remember from newer computer parts, especially cpu's the preformance diff will be very minimal if the speed difference is less than 700MHz. If above you'll probably see a small preformance boost.
Ahh, I see. Now, the main diff between the 3 is their cores. The san diego, newcastle, and venice cores. Now, these cores do have preformance differences. The venice core is the newest, so the best of the 3. the venice core is the 3rd one.
Now, the diff between 512KB L2 cache and 1MB L2 cache shouldn't be life-threatening. If anything only a couple extra seconds when compiling your level, you won't even feel the difference when actually mapping the level. So yes, I say go for the 3rd cpu if you can cause it'll preform the best between the 3. The top one will probably run the slowest between mainly cause it's got a slower speed. Again, the preformance difference won't be huge since it's just a few MHz slower at the most. So if ya wanna save like ~$40 USD, and you don't mind compiling maps15 seconds slower than if you paied out that ~$40 USD then go for the top cpu you showed me.
That's one thing to remember from newer computer parts, especially cpu's the preformance diff will be very minimal if the speed difference is less than 700MHz. If above you'll probably see a small preformance boost.
- Status
