AMD processor questions

After recently upgrading my motherboard and video card, dropping in a stronger power supply, I'm toying with the idea of getting a faster CPU. I currently am running an Athlon64 X2 5400 at stock speed of 2.80ghz. My new mobo will support the Phenom quads. I was also looking at the new X3 triple core Phenom, the 8450. Three cores and it runs at 2.10ghz and has 3 x 512 cache. More info here http://www.malabs.com/product.asp?product_sku=31560&item_no=HD-8450BOX&show=b&pass=&shopid= and here http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_15331_15332^15615,00.html and here http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_15331_15332^15347,00.html
and here http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103254&Tpk=amd+8450 it seems to have really positive reviews at Newegg. And it's cheaper than an X2 6400. The other Phenoms (the quads) cost more, naturally, by at least $50. AMD has also released some other X3 chips, the 8650 and the 8750 (there seems to be some conflicting info about the 8550; it's missing from AMD's chart in the 3rd link above; I've read it's a quad, I've read it's an X3, I've read it replaced the 8450 which is still totally available everywhere). So- how about some input on the Phenoms, both the tri's and the quads, and if upgrading from an X2 5400 2.80ghz to one of the Phenom flavors would be worth it financially and performance-wise. I mainly use the PC for some gaming, lots of web stuff (downloads and surfing), some music, lots of CD and DVD burning and processing, and lots of video encoding.
Any and all input is welcome.

THANKS!

[dlb]

(I don't need the Intel fanatics to tell me to dump my motherboard and CPU and go with a new Q series chip like a Yorkfield Q9770. I don't know about the rest of you, but I just don't have the dough to dump a perfectly good almost brand new mobo/CPU and plunk down $1500 for a CPU)

 

In order for multicore processors to be used, the software has to recognize and utilize multiple processors. I need to revisit this subject, technically, myself; but, will give an example from 1999. Then, about the only vendor of multiprocessor software was Adobe. Both Photoshop and Premiere would use one processor for disk I/O and the other for imaging or renderring. So, if you were using those packages, a second processor helped greatly. On the otherhand, IE, Word, Powerpoint, Quickbooks, and on and on, didn't have a clue so the second processor sat there, twiddling its thumbs. In that era, too, I ran into numerous servers where one processor was doing 95% of the work because you had to manually "load balance" the O/S.
At this point, it is my understanding that Vista has some support for multicore and XP's is very limited. Even with that, it is still going to be very software specific and I still question whether multiple cores of a slower processor really helps.

Since your inquiry is driven by the desire to boost performance, let me try a different direction, altogether.

One of the slowest components in any computer is still the storage subsystem ( hard disk drives ). Whenever you are working with temporary files, the poor thing is thrashing its brains out performing an even slower function of seeking (8-12MS) between the location of the original file and the temp file. You can massively alter that performance bottleneck by adding another drive excusively for tempoary files and setting the software to use it. If it is on another controller channel (SATA makes this easy, on IDE its a little trickier), you also knock out the 1MS overhead while you change drives. Multiple drives will also let you stream data between the two and effectively adds another two lane road for data.

All of my computers have at least 3 drives; one is Windows and programs, one is exlusively Temp files, and one is my data. Because the drives are way larger than is ever needed for temp files, the balance of the temp drive is for archival backups on a second partition.

I haven't found a benchmark that will show the speed improvement of the system; but, in 1998 I had a client who created mailing lists from analysis of an entire state's demographics and the second drive dropped the time from 9 hours to 1.5. Video editing also shows a similar boost (Premiere lets you specify the "scratch" drive) and, while it takes some digging to find which variable specific software uses for temp files, I'll bet gaming would show a significant impovement, as well.

For Windows, its System Properties -> Advanced -> Environment Variables.

 

Very informative. Thank you!

 

If you do upgrade your processor, I would love to hear about both percieved and real improvements in speed. As I said, I need to revisit the technical aspects of multiprocessor computing.