Socket 754 CPU Q?

[blakex]

I just got a new Socket 754 board and am currently debating on which chip to throw in it.

From what I gathered from other threads, GHz is the main determinant of folding speed, so would L2 cache help a lot? I know 64 bit processing won't really help at all, but they do have some Sempron 64's that are cheaper than the exact same Sempron (32) at Newegg.

And if I just go with GHz...what's the price to performance ratio? (I couldn't really get much from the spreadsheet).

Using Newegg as a reference (will likely go elsewhere cheaper), you can get:

2.0GHz @ $137
1.8GHz @ $89
1.6GHz @ $66

Each of the above has varying L2 cache - does 256 vs. 128 make a huge difference?

Does the doubling in price from 1.6 to 2.0 justify the increase in performance, or should I just get the cheapest and wait a few months for prices to drop even further and throw another processor in another board?

I know this is probably debated somewhere, but I couldn't find an exact thread with the exact answer.

 

[SmokeRngs]

You're probably better off going for the fastest one you can afford or are willing to spend. I would try to stay with something with at least 256k cache, though. Folding isn't that dependent on cache but 128 seems a little low. Then again, the 1 Ghz Duron I have only has 128 and it seems to do fine with putting 600+ PPW with bigpacket WU's.

If a 256k cache version isn't much more I'd probably go with that to be safe.

 

[blakex]

If a 256k cache version isn't much more I'd probably go with that to be safe.

At 1.6 GHz, 128k is $67 while 256k is $70, so no problem there, however, 1.8GHz and 2.0 do not offer 256k options at this time.

So 1.6GHz with 256k L2 is cheap and easy, whereas 2.0GHz gives a massive speed bump and lower L2 at double the price.

Decisions...decisions...decisions...

 

[[H]ugh_Freak]

Like Smoke said, GHz is the most important thing for FAH. The cache size doesn't really make a that much difference on Athlons, at least for folding. For general usage programs, if its going to be your main box I'd say get the 1.8 or 2.0. FAH isn't general usage though so It's really not gonna make a huge difference.

 

[blakex]

Like Smoke said, GHz is the most important thing for FAH. The cache size doesn't really make a that much difference on Athlons, at least for folding. For general usage programs, if its going to be your main box I'd say get the 1.8 or 2.0. FAH isn't general usage though so It's really not gonna make a huge difference.

Nah - the computer in my sig is my main computer - this would be for folding ONLY - so I guess GHz is the way to go.

 

[blakex]

Thanks for all the input.

I went with the $90 1.8 GHz Sempron 3000. Should do well for me folding. Gotta scrounge up some RAM now (I think I can cannabalize 512 MB from my old box which has 2x512).

 

[ICE_9]

In the same sense, has anyone pitted a current Celeron D processor against one of the P4s arround the same GHZ? Celeron D's have the 533 FSB as well as some of the P4s. Difference is 256K cache and 512K cache.

I would be willing to test a Celeron D 2.4 GHz against my P4 2.4 if someone would get me one.

 

[Smoky]

ICE_9, Celeron D's are decent performers, but as they are based on Prescott, they put out quite a lot of heat... So an old Northwood P4 or a brand new Sempron is probably a better idea

 

[muddocktor]

As far as cache size is concerned, on a few wu's (the p147x/1481 in particular) the cache size does make a sizable difference in folding speed. I have 2 socket 754 3000 DTR Claw rigs and 1 socket 939 Winchester and the 2 DTR rigs outfold the winnie big time on those wu's. I can't say what kind of falloff you would see with a Sempie though as I don't have any of those.