Maya for 3D Printing - Rapid Prototyping
In this course we're going to look at something a little different, creating technically accurate 3D printed parts.
# 1 17-07-2006 , 09:51 AM
gster123's Avatar
Moderator
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Manchester Uk
Posts: 6,300

Which Processor

As some of you guys might know i'm in the process of getting a new PC but i'm a bit stuck on which processor to choose, I've narrowed it down to 2, these are,

AMD 64 x 2 4800

or

AMD Opertron 2.0 GHz (170)

Now all I really know is that the Operton is more of a server processor when in comparison to the 64, so would this be more of an advantage???

Do you guys have any opinions on the above and what would you go with??

I wont be using the PC for gaming, just Maya, PS, After efects etc.

Cheers for any info that you might have

# 2 17-07-2006 , 01:17 PM
Tubby
Guest
Posts: n/a
AMD 64 x 2 4800, Dual core - easy to find and cheap. Most current Mobos support it. Current tech (this week anyway remember AM2 has just been released).

AMD Opertron 2.0 GHz (170), Dual core - Not as easy to find and not cheap (Thou there are some deals about), Very limited mobo support Link to AMD Mobo Recommends

# 3 17-07-2006 , 01:26 PM
Redmer's Avatar
Subscriber
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Holland
Posts: 139
Athlon™ 64 FX-60 (processor)
is the one i would go for
in combination with
Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe (motherboard)
GeForce 7950 GX2 Xtreme (PCI-E 16x)(2x in SLI mode)
that is the comp i would go for if i would have to buy a new one


------------------- WIP ------------------


--------------- Finished Work -------------
Apache Helicopter
Armoured Personal Unit
Apache Finished
Ferrari 360
Mech
# 4 17-07-2006 , 02:45 PM
gster123's Avatar
Moderator
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Manchester Uk
Posts: 6,300
I'd love to go with the FX-60's but my pocket wont strech to that level!

Cheers for the replys, but does anyone know which of the two processors has the best number crunching??

# 5 17-07-2006 , 04:31 PM
Subscriber
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 240
the opteron is a "workstation" processor, so it would perform better in that instance. It also has multiple hyperthread links, as opposed to the 1 in the 64. If it's just to be used for graphics, I'd go for the opteron if u have the money. If u ever think you'll go into gaming with it though, I'd go for the 64, as it's better for that.

# 6 17-07-2006 , 05:03 PM
esion's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 255

# 7 17-07-2006 , 07:55 PM
Subscriber
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 240
i want a boxx!! but they only have leasing for businesses...so u have to pay in 1 lump sum, which i don't have user added image

# 8 18-07-2006 , 06:46 AM
gster123's Avatar
Moderator
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Manchester Uk
Posts: 6,300
Cheers for the responses, I think that i'm going for the 64's just on the factor of money and i found that (according to a review) that the 4800 64 is just a little quicker than the 175 (2.2Ghz) Opteron.

I would love a boxx (In fact I was thinking of the Boxx 1400 series, but found that its exactly the same as the AJP 900 64 series but quite a few pounds more expensive) but alas there out of my price range.

# 9 21-07-2006 , 08:52 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 408
Intel Core Duo 2.

Its really hard for AMD to beat Intel when Intel actually tries... I mean, Intel makes most x86 assemblers... kinda unfair.

# 10 21-07-2006 , 11:20 PM
publicFunction's Avatar
Senior Software Developer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Livingston, Scotland
Posts: 1,701
I agree,

I am a Senior Support Analyst by day and AMD make poor quality processors. There biggest calling is their price. Its Intel all the way for me.

Xeon or the new Dual Cores are the best for workstations. Intel processors will stand up to a good old beating and last, they also have an internal thermal controller that stops the chip form overheating.

The AMD v Intel Video that floats about the web shows it (the one where they remove the heat sink from the processors), Toms Hardware did it as far as I could recall. The AMD popped its core with milliseconds, but the Intel lasted a good 15 - 20 seconds longer.

Says it all for me. My tip avoid AMD and pay the extra for an Intel, you won't regret it.


Chris (formerly R@nSiD)
Twitter
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will truely know peace - Jimmy Hendrix
Winner SM VFX Challenge 1
3rd Place SM SteamPunk Challenge (May 2007)
# 11 22-07-2006 , 07:31 AM
dragonfx's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,257
...

# 12 22-07-2006 , 07:55 AM
dragonfx's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,257
i was thinking that if i could actually install a nvidia 7900 gaphics card, 2gb ram and a 500Gb HDD in the new core duo mac mini i would probably buy it and make it tri bootable with mac os, windows and linux...

too sexy a dream...

Posting Rules Forum Rules
You may not post new threads | You may not post replies | You may not post attachments | You may not edit your posts | BB code is On | Smilies are On | [IMG] code is On | HTML code is Off

Similar Threads