Happy 640 User

[Monte]

Well I am pretty happy.

I picked up a P4 640 (3.2/800/2M) cpu for an system I wanted to have EMT 64 and SSE3 on and to tell you the truth I was not expecting much from it. I have been using a P4 Extreme Edition Gallatin core socket 775 running 3.6 with 300mhz fsb for a while and have been extremely happy but it lacked SSE3 and EMT64.

I was not expecting to overclock this 640 much but I was playing around after reading some posts and I set it up to 16x250 (4.0GHZ) with the Zalman cooler I had and it runs as stable as then come and quite cool (50c). I have heard that if I use X64 XP it might not work with the CPU being overclocked so I was going to fiddle with it then but 4ghz for the price I paid is great. Can not wait to stick OSX on it

FYI I am using a Abit Fatal1ty AA8XE mobo with 2 gig Corsair XMS Pro DDR2 PC4300 ram and 6800GT on this system. Very nice preformance from this cpu, nice one if you can find it for your price range you should be happy.

 

[visaris]

If you want some really good 64-bit OS support, give linux a try. I only mention this because you talked about installing OS X, and that usually means one is open-minded about their OS choice. I run 100% 64-bit software on my Dual, dual-core Opteron 265 box, and love it. I find 64-bit support to add anywhere from -5 to %20 in speed, and on average (and only on the things I've bothered to test), 64-bit support adds around a 10%-15% boost.

I feel sorry for a lot of windows users. It seems a shame to be stuck either using a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit chip, or using a problematic 64-bit version whith shitty driver support.

Hell, why not quad-boot. You could run Win32, Win64, OS X, and Linux.

 

[Monte]

Yeah I had thought about it but I just don't know dick about Linux and I just wonder how much enjoyment you can get out if it if you can't tweak it

I have a powerbook and love it but OSX is pretty but not the best function of SOME apps to me. I am going to start looking for apps that run 64bit and see which they tend to run best on but if I put OSX on here I might as well do a Linux as well. Which one would be the best to fiddle with? I have Mandrake 10.1 and Suse 9.2 laying around here but I never installed them. Wonder what the latest is now and if I can get a upgrade.

Thanks
Monte

 

[visaris]

Which one would be the best to fiddle with? I have Mandrake 10.1 and Suse 9.2 laying around here but I never installed them. Wonder what the latest is now and if I can get a upgrade.

SuSE and Mandrake are both good, but they aren't really all that tweakable. I'm a huge Gentoo fan, and I find it to be the most customizable of any distro I've tried, and it's usually a few percent faster as well. Some people find Gentoo to be a little to much to handle. Most of Gentoo's reputation comes from the dificulty to install, but once you have it set up, it's very easy to manage. Next to Gentoo I would reccomend Debian. Vida-linux is Gentoo based with an easy installer, might be worth a try. After that they all seem to merge together in my mind: SuSE, Mandrake (Mandriva), Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Fedora, Knoppix, etc. They all seem pretty much the same (for the most part) to me when I use them. Ask someone else if you are looking for the best easy to use desktop distro.

 

[mrgstiffler]

Yeah, Gentoo can be a little overwhelming the first couple times you install it. But a few more installs later and you can pretty much do it in your sleep. The website has an EXCELLENT guide to follow. And after everything's installed and configured, it's an extremely powerfull system...

 

[Scali]

I feel sorry for a lot of windows users. It seems a shame to be stuck either using a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit chip, or using a problematic 64-bit version whith shitty driver support.

But on the other hand, applications like 3dsmax, PhotoShop, Cubase etc aren't available on linux... You just can't have it all.
64-bit Windows will mature eventually... I'm not so sure if all these applications will ever come to linux though.
OS X has less of a problem there, a lot of professional/commercial applications are available on OS X aswell, some even exclusively on OS X...

I use FreeBSD myself (almost linux), but only for things it's good at, like web/mail/ftp serving. I'd rather use 32 bit Windows on the desktop because the applications that matter to me are so much better than the equivalents for FreeBSD/linux.

 

[ScHpAnKy]

But on the other hand, applications like 3dsmax, PhotoShop, Cubase etc aren't available on linux... You just can't have it all.
64-bit Windows will mature eventually... I'm not so sure if all these applications will ever come to linux though.
OS X has less of a problem there, a lot of professional/commercial applications are available on OS X aswell, some even exclusively on OS X...

I use FreeBSD myself (almost linux), but only for things it's good at, like web/mail/ftp serving. I'd rather use 32 bit Windows on the desktop because the applications that matter to me are so much better than the equivalents for FreeBSD/linux.

Not to mention the endless amounts of games that absolutely won't run on linux, simply put, Linux in it's current state is not a proper desktop OS.

 

[visaris]

Not to mention the endless amounts of games that absolutely won't run on linux, simply put, Linux in it's current state is not a proper desktop OS.

Oh, I don't want to start any wars here, but Linux not having any games has nothing to do with the OS itself. There is no technical reason why modern games would not run well/fast/etc on Linux.

I think the proper way to say what you are getting at is: The software/game market, in it's current state, will not allow Linux to be a good OS for gaming.

But sure, however you say it, you are right. Maybe people, for whatever reason, are latched on to certain peices of software, and some of that software just won't run in Linux.

 

[Mushroom Prince]

Oh, I don't want to start any wars here, but Linux not having any games has nothing to do with the OS itself. There is no technical reason why modern games would not run well/fast/etc on Linux.

I think the proper way to say what you are getting at is: The software/game market, in it's current state, will not allow Linux to be a good OS for gaming.

But sure, however you say it, you are right. Maybe people, for whatever reason, are latched on to certain peices of software, and some of that software just won't run in Linux.

I second that.


I think the best thing anyone can do is get as much boxen running nix as possible. The only way the gaming industry will consider linux is if enough people are using to.

Spread the love

 

[Scali]

Oh, I don't want to start any wars here, but Linux not having any games has nothing to do with the OS itself. There is no technical reason why modern games would not run well/fast/etc on Linux.

Considering the fact that Doom3 on linux is about 20% slower than on Windows, I think there are some technical reasons why modern games won't run well/fast/etc on linux (yes I know about Quake 3, but how come Doom3 doesn't? I know why Quake 3 does).
Fact of the matter is that the linux design does not allow games to be scheduled as efficiently as they are on Windows, and the AGP/driver support leaves a bit to be desired. Other than that, OpenGL support is a bit behind on Direct3D in terms of features, developer support, driver support etc. And for the rest of DirectX, there is hardly any substitute at all.
And then there are the development tools themselves, that are just far more mature on Windows, making linux development harder, take longer and be more expensive. Combine that with the small userbase and the relatively low performance, and only a geek like Carmack would actually bother to develop a game for linux (which he probably funds largely from his own pockets).

 

[visaris]

Considering the fact that Doom3 on linux is about 20% slower than on Windows, I think there are some technical reasons why modern games won't run well/fast/etc on linux (yes I know about Quake 3, but how come Doom3 doesn't? I know why Quake 3 does).

Doom3 was written and designed for windows, and later (almost as an afterthought) ported to linux. I don't know anyone (or do I?) who bases the performance of an OS on the quality of third party software that runs on that OS. Do you want me to list some games that run faster for me in linux, when emulated through Cedega? When game software is properly written for Linux it performs just as well as its Windows counterparts. Performance is not the reason linux isn't ready for gaming. Trust me. I've been playing windows and linux games for the past three years. The only reason few games are written for Linux is market share.

Fact of the matter is that the linux design does not allow games to be scheduled as efficiently as they are on Windows

Now that is simply untrue.

and the AGP/driver support leaves a bit to be desired.

That's very true of ATI cards, but nVidia has some pretty fast/solid Linux drivers. All in all, it's not really a problem. Again, as a linux and windows gamer for years, the only real issue I see is market share.

Other than that, OpenGL support is a bit behind on Direct3D in terms of features, developer support, driver support etc. And for the rest of DirectX, there is hardly any substitute at all.

I have herd this before, and you may be right. However, Half-Life 2 runs fine in linux (emulated in Cedega), and all the effects work great. The big issue is the package argument you alluded to. DirectX is a nice package with lots of features that don't really have anything to do with graphics. In that sense, DirectX > OpenGL. However, I read an interview with a game designer a while back, and he was quoted as saying that almost %50 of CPU time spent in a typical game is wasted on making inefficient Direct3D calls. He said that using OpenGL would have solved the problem, but management had forced the use of DirectX. I wonder how true this really is.

And then there are the development tools themselves, that are just far more mature on Windows, making linux development harder, take longer and be more expensive. Combine that with the small userbase

Probably true.

and the relatively low performance

From first hand experience, I call bullshit on that one. But one could argue about it all day I suppose.

and only a geek like Carmack would actually bother to develop a game for linux (which he probably funds largely from his own pockets).

Perhaps.



I'm not trying to say that game designers should stop what they are doing and start making all their games for linux. That would certainly be a horrible business decision, for a number of reasons.

All I'm saying is that Linux can do everything the most modern, advanced games require, and that there is nothing technically wrong with Linux which would prevent a great game being developed for it. I've written a lot of software for both Windows and Linux, and I've been a Windows and Linux gamer for quite a while. If someone tries to claim that Linux can't handle a demanding game, I'm going to call bullshit, and tell the person making invalid claims that they don't know what the hell they are talking about.


And how to get this back on topic:
P4 640... yeah.

 

[Scali]

Doom3 was written and designed for windows, and later (almost as an afterthought) ported to linux.

suuuuuuuure.... Read some of Carmack's plans to learn the truth.

Now that is simply untrue.

Actually it's true. The linux kernel doesn't know anything about graphics or games or anything at all, nor does X, which is usually run as the basic interface for OpenGL.
With Windows and fullscreen Direct3D, the kernel shuts down all of the GUI and other parts of the OS that cannot be used when in fullscreen anyway, and it boosts the fullscreen application (if you want to experiment, just add a fullscreen Direct3D/DirectDraw window to pretty much any application, and you'll see its performance will go up slightly, I found that out when I was writing a decoder for GIF images/animations).
Linux does no such thing.

That's very true of ATI cards, but nVidia has some pretty fast/solid Linux drivers.

Still, even on NVIDIA systems, Doom3 is 20% slower than on Windows.

However, Half-Life 2 runs fine in linux (emulated in Cedega), and all the effects work great.

ALL the effects? Last time I looked, Cedega translated all Direct3D calls to OpenGL calls, and some Direct3D features are just not available in OpenGL at all, or at least not emulated in Cedega.

However, I read an interview with a game designer a while back, and he was quoted as saying that almost %50 of CPU time spent in a typical game is wasted on making inefficient Direct3D calls. He said that using OpenGL would have solved the problem, but management had forced the use of DirectX. I wonder how true this really is.

Badly designed applications will indeed have a lot of calling overhead. OpenGL traditionally has had lots of calling overhead, so modern drivers are optimized with queing etc to make even badly designed applications run well. With Direct3D you have to do all this yourself, which means you have to batch batch batch. When you do that, there is no problem with Direct3D in any practical situation. Nevertheless, Microsoft is addressing the calling overhead problem in the next version. Ironically enough it seems that Doom3 is actually more CPU-heavy than eg Half-Life 2 and FarCry.

All I'm saying is that Linux can do everything the most modern, advanced games require

I'm not too sure about that. Half-Life 2 and FarCry are quite a bit more advanced than Doom3 graphically. And Unreal Engine 3.0 will be more advanced still. I don't think linux/OpenGL can reach those levels at this moment.

If someone tries to claim that Linux can't handle a demanding game, I'm going to call bullshit, and tell the person making invalid claims that they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Well, let me see you counter the scheduling/kernel things first. You called bullshit, but didn't back anything up.

 

[visaris]

EDIT: I really shouldn't waste my time with Linux vs. Windows wars.

 

[Scali]

I figured as much, no arguments. Usually the case, linux guys just think their OS is better, they don't actually know how the stuff works. I happen to develop both Direct3D and OpenGL, and use both Windows and FreeBSD/linux, so I do.

 

[visaris]

I figured as much, no arguments. Usually the case, linux guys just think their OS is better, they don't actually know how the stuff works. I happen to develop both Direct3D and OpenGL, and use both Windows and FreeBSD/linux, so I do.

Oh, can it. Only you would try and claim victory when your oponent decides not to futher an argument you started in the wrong forum.

Second of all, I don't really care how missinformed you are. It's not my job to educate you. I have a life I need to get back to. Go ahead and spout off all the bullshit you want here: I really don't care anymore.

~ Visaris -- out.

 

[Scali]

Oh, can it. Only you would try and claim victory when your oponent decides not to futher an argument you started in the wrong forum.

Second of all, I don't really care how missinformed you are. It's not my job to educate you. I have a life I need to get back to. Go ahead and spout off all the bullshit you want here: I really don't care anymore.

~ Visaris -- out.

Nice, so you just claim you're right, without even trying to back up why? At least I've given technical facts to support my standpoint. Unless you invalidate those (calling it 'bullshit' does not count), I will indeed consider myself right. Which you seem to call 'victory'. In which case I will call you a loser. You act like one too, with all the insulting language you use, instead of actually arguing the point.

 

[visaris]

Nice, so you just claim you're right, without even trying to back up why? At least I've given technical facts to support my standpoint.

You made the claim that "Fact of the matter is that the linux design does not allow games to be scheduled as efficiently as they are on Windows"

And then "backed up" your claim by saying that windows automatically raises the priority of the foreground fullscreen app, and Linux does not.

Your "backup" information about automatic features of windows is irrelevent because Linux supports priority scheduling as well. In fact, process and thread priority is an acient technology that has been around for years. Why you think this is some magic windows-only feature is beyond me. There is nothing stopping a game being written for linux which gives itself an appropriately higher priority when it runs fullscreen. Therefore, your claim that the Linux design does not allow efficient scheduleing is complete and total bullshit.

Perhaps you need to be informed about standard scientific and debate procedure. When someone makes a claim, they need to back it up. You claimed that the linux design does not allow efficient scheduleing. I have yet to see you provide a single peice of valid evidence to that effect.

And second of all, if you are hell-bent on bashing linux, why don't you move your comments to the Linux forum? I see no reason to continue this discussion here.

 

[Scali]

And then "backed up" your claim by saying that windows automatically raises the priority of the foreground fullscreen app, and Linux does not.

I used more arguments than that. You just appear to ignore them, and attack one argument in a false context. Funny you should bring up debate procedure.

With Windows and fullscreen Direct3D, the kernel shuts down all of the GUI and other parts of the OS that cannot be used when in fullscreen anyway, and it boosts the fullscreen application...

This is what I said linux does not do. Not just raising the priority.
Try again.

There is nothing stopping a game being written for linux which gives itself an appropriately higher priority when it runs fullscreen. Therefore, your claim that the Linux design does not allow efficient scheduleing is complete and total bullshit.

There is a difference between setting a high priority and scheduling efficiently. I already gave some arguments that relate to that difference. You just ignored them.
By the way, calling 'bullshit' on everything is not very scientific either. Sounds more like a 12-year old who just figured out how to install linux rather than a software engineer who actually knows what he's talking about.

 

[Curious142]

Man, talk about hijacking a thread. If anyone wants to discuss the P4 630 they'll have to go somewhere else.

CB

 

[Scali]

What's there to discuss about the 640? It's a good CPU, it overclocks nicely, and the TS is happy (that's the most important thing, no matter what anyone says). I think the starting post pretty much said it all.

 

[mrgstiffler]

What's there to discuss about the 640? It's a good CPU, it overclocks nicely, and the TS is happy (that's the most important thing, no matter what anyone says). I think the starting post pretty much said it all.

It's his thread, not yours. You can take your argument over to Operating Systems and have at it.

CPL|Monte: Did you try going past 4GHz? You said you heard it might not work, but you never know unless you try...

 

[Scali]

It's his thread, not yours. You can take your argument over to Operating Systems and have at it.

It's not my argument either. I just added some arguments to someone else's point.

 

[Monte]

heheh Hijack away, its all fun.

Yeah I ran the 640 at 4.06 for days till I got a few BSODs doing some simple things like accessing a HD or something dumb. It might be cooling or something else, I will fiddle with it this next week and see whats up.

I got pulled into some home (backyard) projects that are going to take all my time this week but next week I will be installing x64. I think if I can get all the drivers I need for the Abit Fatal1y AA8XE mobo I will stay there for a bit. I want to put OSX on it too but that is just for fun. Hell I might end up using OSX more for day to day then have XP for gaming/misc havent descided yet.

After doing some looking at Linux I am going to count it out simply because I just do not have the time to learn the OS the way I should, and that install deserves it.

 

[Scali]

heheh Hijack away, its all fun.

Well it's given me some ideas anyway, which I may act upon. In which case, everyone will see in a few weeks/months what exactly those ideas are.