Extremely OT: computer questions

[lostpacket]

I just got a dual p3 board (abit vp6 - had the bp6 before running dual celerons...overclocked of course!) and one 1Ghz processor (overclocked to 1.3) with 512MB Ram (4 128's), and Raid 0 with 2 9GB ata 66 drives, running Windows XP Pro.

I can only upgrade either to another processor or 1.5GB ram right now. I am at a quandry with what I should do.

I use programs that have intensive CPU cycles (3D and multimedia programs) as much as ram intensive (games mostly).

Yes all programs use both cpu and ram, but which, in anyones opinion, would give the best performance boost? I'm from the school of thought "always add more ram!". And I know a 2nd processor isn't supposed to help much unless the program you're running supports it.

But I have noticed a HUGE difference in even running games (like EQ and UT) using 2 processors. I boot in 98se and play, then into 2k or XP and play the same game.

In the end, the system will be dual 1ghz, 2 gb ram, raid 0 scsi drives. Just have to decide which to do first.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[RavenCT]

Ummm.... this has what to do with SEQ? :o

Seriously, the only apps that will benefit from a second processor are ones that are fully multi-threaded and run under Windows NT4, Windows 2000, or Windows XP (If your talking MS OS's).

You would have to find out from the vendor if the apps/games you run would do better with more RAM or an additional CPU.

If you already have 2GB of RAM in the machine, I'd say go with the CPU... But that's my 2cp

Oh, you might want to consider mirroring the drives (RAID 1) if you have the money, that will give you a performance increase from the OS standpoint. Two drives can read two sectors faster that one can read those same two sectors.

(Coming from an MCSE BTW)

[fryfrog]

well, 512mb of ram is actually a nice amount of ram. i personally would go for the second processor and MAYBE toss in another 512mb of ram just for the fun of it.

as for raid 0 vs. raid 1, i'm sorry but you are wrong. raid 0 is faster than raid 1. raid 1 is for redundance, raid 0 is for speed.

you WILL benefit from having a 2nd cpu, and the apps don't have to neccessarily be multi-threaded. if you happen to ever run two programs at once, you WILL benefit. say for instance that you want to play everquest in a window and perhaps use photoshop. the os will balance eq onto one cpu, and photoshop onto the other. it just gets better and better as you open more apps.

so, you have to ask yourself one simple question: do i open more than 1 cpu intensive app at a time?
if the answer is yes, a 2nd cpu will help you a lot. if the answer is no, go with the ram.

from personal experience, i love dual cpus. i have a bp6 with 366@550 cpus and i love the multi-threaded speed. i also have a dual p2 300, but that isn't much of a computer to start with. my personal work stations are single cpu 800mhz durons, BUT if i had the cashola for a dual cpu workstation i would do that. dual amds with 512mb of ram it would be, probably 1.3ghz durons since they are cheap.

if you really wanted everything and speed, you might be able to sell the vp6 w/ all its stuff and get 2 amd processors and ddr ram for about the same price...

[lostpacket]

I said it was extremely off topic hehe I trust you guys more than people on EQ message boards (not that I don't have friends - just trying to get as much input as possible ;)

Thanks for the help!

[Cryonic]

Win9X and ME will gain NOTHING from the second processor. Unlike NT, 2K and XP, the Win9x and ME series are not coded to handle SMP. For 98se and ME you probably wouldn't get much benefit going over 512MB RAM as they were not optimized for that much RAM.

Only in NT, 2K and XP would you benefit from more than 512MB RAM and/or 2 or more processors.