Sign in to follow this  
Guest

FS2002/04 with PENTIUM 4 or XEON processor with 1MB Cache

Recommended Posts

I am planning on building the most powerfull and best computer for gaming. I understand that the P4 is optimized for games but will the XEON Server processor be the best for FS2002/04? Has anyone tried FS2002 on a XEON processor?Also, Has anyone tried WIN 2003 SERVER with FS2002.ThanksAbe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Whoa there. A server computer is definately not the best gaming computer. If you got a dual Xeon system, be warned in advance that not a lot of things support duals (such as FS2002 or perhaps FS2004), and only 1 CPU runs the show and the other just does nothing. The Xeon is just a P4 with added cache and is better quality than the regular P4's (its the best in the batch). They are also pretty expensive and requres a special motherboard to fit it (most are dual CPU too last time I looked).So best bet is to stick with the P4 instead of the Xeon, because parts are a lot cheaper and run games just as well (or better) for the most part. Also, get XP Pro instead of 2003 server because it is also a LOT cheaper, and you will not need 95% of the features in 2003 server (because of the massive load of server utilities/services and other stuff not needed in home computers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I understand that it will not take advantage of both processors, however will there be an added advantage with the massive cache and server chip technology. I already have XP PRO. I also noticed that you have LINUX. Have you or anyone made a cluster set-up with windows or LINUX. The new PC upgrade magazine had LINUX MANDRAKE running at 9 GHZ with 3 cpu's. WOW. Abe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cash no object??? Do yourself a favor. Wait a few weeks, pick up the new P4 running on an 800 Mhz FSB. Pair this with 1 Gig of some Corsiar XMS DDR 400 and a radeon 9800 and you'll be sittin pretty on top O' the mountain...For a little while at least. Opterons are nice but ya know what...Can you find one. Besides the cost advantage of AMD over intel is very quickly vanishing when it comes to their high end CPU's.P.S. Try and keep hardware questions in the hardware Forum. Keeps the clutter out of here and keeps this forum Organized.Bobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont really know how to make a cluster, one of my friends has though. I think his cluseter has like 7 old Pentium 133 computers that people gave to him over the years. Well, it gives off nearly 1GHz, but its not too useful, just a project he wanted to do. Doesn't seem all that hard, but I dont have any other Linux capable PC's to do this on (all older comps - 8088, 80286). Pretty sure I could manage it with Debian if I did make a cluster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Cash no object??? Do yourself a favor. Wait a few weeks, pick>up the new P4 running on an 800 Mhz FSB. Pair this with 1 Gig>of some Corsiar XMS DDR 400 and a radeon 9800 and you'll be>sittin pretty on top O' the mountain...For a little while at>least. Opterons are nice but ya know what...Can you find one.>Besides the cost advantage of AMD over intel is very quickly>vanishing when it comes to their high end CPU's.First of all, you're wrong on the price comparisons... Check out pricewatch.com for the proof. AMD is still significantly cheaper than Intel on the high-end. Secondly, there's a reason there aren't any Opterons available yet - the darn things just came out barely over a week ago! Of course no one has one yet...Anyway, the Opteron is actually looking like the CPU to go for if gaming is your thing. There are quite a few folks inside AMD pushing for the CPU to be marketed as a gaming processor, and not just a server CPU. Or, if you prefer Intel, the Prescott (direct competitor to Opteron and successor to the current P4) should be out later this year as well. If you're in the market for a new CPU, now is definitely a good time to buy from a bang-for-your-bucks standpoint, I won't argue that; however, if it were me buying a new CPU, I'd wait - for Opteron to start ramping up, for 400MHz FSB Bartons, for P4 to ramp up even higher, and possibly even for Prescott.-Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max,As a builder of high end gaming machines for select clients I do watch the prices. That's how I make money. XP3000+ goes for $317. P4 3.06 goes for $380. $63 is no longer considered a huge price difference compared to the cost difference that used to exist between the two. AMD is no longer a Budget performer once you go to the CPU's that are going to perform alongside a P4. I am fully aware the Opterons only came out a week ago. Have you tried getting your hands on a 2800+ or a 3000+. Not as easy as you make it seem. I cannot and will not compromise buy buying from little known suppliers just to save a few bucks. When your talking the money that the above gentleman was talking does $63 make a hill of beans?. System vendors get the goods first. Always have always will. I'm not saying the Opteron is not a very capable CPU. My point was based on whats available right now as far as ease of supply and price the P4 still cannot be beat. Benchmarks may in the next few weeks prove otherwise but that still remains to be seen.Bobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Max,>>As a builder of high end gaming machines for select clients I>do watch the prices. That's how I make money. XP3000+ goes for>$317. P4 3.06 goes for $380. $63 is no longer considered a>huge price difference compared to the cost difference that>used to exist between the two. AMD is no longer a Budget>performer once you go to the CPU's that are going to perform>alongside a P4. I am fully aware the Opterons only came out a>week ago. Have you tried getting your hands on a 2800+ or a>3000+. Not as easy as you make it seem. I cannot and will not>compromise buy buying from little known suppliers just to save>a few bucks. When your talking the money that the above>gentleman was talking does $63 make a hill of beans?. System>vendors get the goods first. Always have always will. I'm not>saying the Opteron is not a very capable CPU. My point was>based on whats available right now as far as ease of supply>and price the P4 still cannot be beat. Benchmarks may in the>next few weeks prove otherwise but that still remains to be>seen.>>BobbyBobby, $63 may not mean much to you but it means a lot to poor college students like myself (and I'm sure I'm not alone on this) and could be the deciding factor on whether or not to upgrade. As far as availability on the AXP 2800+ and 3000+ goes, I've seen them around for quite awhile now, and I'm not just talking about online availability, I mean local stores where one can actually walk in and see the CPUs "on the shelf" so to speak. I don't exactly live in a major market here either, unless you would put the twin cities in the same category as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, or any other major city where they tend to get pretty much everything before everyone else. "the P4 can't be beat on price" huh? Didn't you just admit it was beaten on price? Go look at pricewatch again - the P4's beat on price at literally every single speed grade by the Athlon XP. "As a builder of high end gaming machines for select clients Ido watch the prices. That's how I make money." So in other words, the higher the component price, the more money you make ;) I can see why you push the more expensive P4 over the AXP then. Fair enough though, nothing wrong with making a profit. I'm not trying to start a pissing contest here or anything, just putting in my two cents.regards,Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max,Not taking it as a pissing contest. Fact is even a "Poor" college student surely would have the sense to say is $63 that much when I'm spending almost 400. Sure the 28 and 3000+ are around now. 2 months ago that was a different story. As far as me making money, I make it becuase I build machines that do exactly what I say they will or run games and apps exactly how my customers want them to. When your building a machine that runs in the 2800-3500 dollar range it's pretty easy to convince someone to spend a couple of extra bucks for the performance difference. I push the P4 becuase of it's performance, not to make money. My markup is the same regardless of which CPU I choose so wouldnt it make more sense for me to push the AMD?? Fact is until the Benchmarks are in the all around best performer between 2 and 3 Ghz level or rating is still the P4. The Opteron may change that.....At least until Prescott shows up. The added benfit of that is watch the prices on both the XP and the 533 P4 Plummet.Bobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bobby,as I said before, there's nothing wrong with making a profit, and I wasn't knocking you for it. As for benchmarks, I don't exactly trust every benchmark that's put out there (nor am I implying that you do) due to different testing methodologies and implementations. Take for example the whole Sysmark 2002 fiasco last year. It was revealed that Sysmark 2002 was totally biased towards the P4 in such a way that it didn't even measure real-world performance. Apparently, the only purpose of Sysmark 2002 was to make the P4 look good in comparison to the Athlon XP. This has now been revealed to be true of any Bapco benchmark coughIntelfrontcough at least to a certain extent. I no longer trust any benchmarks from Bapco for this reason. 3dmark 2003 is another example of a benchmark that doesn't measure "real-world" performance. Nvidia gave Futuremark (makers of 3dmark2k3) a hard time about their implementation of shaders in 3dmark2k3, and claim it's totally inefficient and is only done to lower the scores of today's high-end video cards so that scores of future video cards will scale linearly.Even if a benchmark isn't rigged and actually does measure "real-world" performance, who's to say what's being measured is truly indicative of a CPU's performance in any situation other than that specific benchmark, or that what's being measured will ever be of any use to users? As far as I'm concerned, the only good benchmarks are those that use actual applications to test performance, like benchmarks built in to said apps. This is why all games and other graphics/cpu-intensive apps should have benchmarks built into them. Remember back in the days of FS2k when people would use 3dmark2k to find out how better to tune their systems for FS2k? Wouldn't it be great if there was an actual benchmark built into future FS versions so that users wouldn't have to rely on 3rd-party benchmarks to gauge FS performance? Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at with all this is that not every benchmark is a good indicator of the kind of performance you'll get in anything but said benchmark. If you must use benchmarks to test system performance, try to use benchmarks that are based on real-world apps and not just code that's supposed to simulate real-world performance. Of course, by "you" I don't mean you specifically, Bobby, I just mean people in general. I'm sure you don't need any advice from me on how to run your business :)regards, Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What software would you use on the WINDOWS side to CLUSTER the PC's? I am going to built a 9 ghz cluster for my FS2002 machineAbe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this