Unofficial Tex Murphy

Well, I am at work (the boring non fun one) and decided that with all this new whiz bang technology coming out I should share some valuable information with my friend here so that I can help people get the best out of what technology has to offer nowadays.

This guide is useful for hardcore gamers all the way through to TOGs, and if it is not in your best interest to buy a whiz bang machine in the future you may treat these guides as Modern PC 101.

Anyway, here goes:

Part 1: CPUs
_________________________


Of course, when looking for a new processor you cannot bypass the fact that you will be looking for one of two brands: Intel and AMD…


Intel Processors:

For Intel, processors these days range between the Celeron (low budget mainstream) all the way to the Pentium D (Intel’s latest dual core CPU offering). Intel processors have been praised for their stellar performance in workstation style applications, but you will rarely find hardcore gamers with Intel CPUs, purely due to the fact that AMD owns the gaming market in terms of gaming performance. Anyway, lets have a look at a quick rundown at all Intel has to offer and how each model benefits the user:


Intel Celeron:

This is Intel’s low-budget mainstream offering. This processor is catered to the home/office user who really only needs the PC for surfing the net, sending e-mail and listening to the odd Mp3… however, as a gaming CPU, this is probably the least favourable processor of the lot (Intel and AMD)… its lack on on-die cache and lack of features make it painfully slow for video, gaming and any other medium scale demands. Even with the most whiz-bang graphics accelerator around, your computer’s performance will be servery limited by this CPU.

The Celeron D is pretty much the same except for a faster Front Side Bus memory controller (FSB) @ 533 mhz, supporting PC4400 Ram arrays and a 90nm process technology… but the bottlenecks caused by all other aspects of this processor make the Celeron D a souped up Celeron with no real benefits, except for the ability to load e-mail quicker.

Pros: Really cheap
Cons: Gaming with even the best hardware is a painful experience. No multitasking. No 64-but support.
Speeds: Usually between 2.4 and 3.2Ghz
Price: Between $60-120


Intel Pentium 4 and Pentium 4 with Hyper Threading:

Well, considering that if you were going to buy a Pentium 4 you might as well get one with Hyper Threading, we will talk about that…

Hyper Threading is a great technology from Intel, which makes multi-tasking much less of a headache. Hyper threading basically works by filling the gaps created by the processing of one application with the execution of another in a parallel fashion, rather then a serial one. The idea is kind of like a zipper, where each process takes it turn in efficiently calculated intervals to pass through the CPU. The end result is a fully utilised CPU.

From my personal experiences with Hyper Threading, it is a great tool. Especially if you like to surf the net whilst you are rendering a video… or hosting a game server, and playing on it at the same time. However, HT does NOT double the speed of the processor. As said above, it merely fills in the gaps created by one process with the other. So don’t expect to be able to turn your 3.6ghz HT processor into a 7.2Ghz supercomputer.

Now, for gaming, the Pentium 4 with HT is a very respectable gaming processor. The P4 is also available in as high as 3.8Ghz… that means you should not have to worry too much about limiting you other whiz-bang hardware.

If you are fortunate enough to be able to afford a P4 Extreme Edition, which comes with a whopping 2mb Level 2 cache and a 90nm process technology, you will be pretty close to heaven. However, its lack of 64-bit computing allows AMD Athlon 64 equivalents to maintain the gaming performance crown.

Pros: Hyper Threading. Very Fast. Great for design applications, and games.
Cons: Can run very hot. More expensive than their AMD equivalents. No 64-bit support
Speeds: Usually Between 2.6 and 3.8Ghz
Prices: Between $120 (2.4Ghz) to a whopping $1,000 for the 3.4Ghz EE


Pentium D and PD EE:

Welcome to Intel’s flagship. The Pentium D in all its Dual Core 64-bit goodness! Intel, along with AMD have started a revolution with their new range of Dual Core CPUs.

Now I know that you are thinking, why dual core when we can just use HT. Well remember what I said above, HT uses a swap style execution process to run multiple threads through one processor. Imagine of you could have 2 cores, both running at 3.4Ghz, without the need to calculate parallel threading. Not only that; imagine two 64- bit cores each capable of HT! The opportunities are making you woozy aren’t they? Basically, the main benefits of a dual core processor are as follows:

For gaming: When game designers are able to implement dual processor support into their games, you could have one processor dedicated to AI and one dedicated to physics! With simple HT this was not possible because you cannot run two separate threads of information from the one application. With Dual cores you can!

For workstations: Aside from the fact that most workstation applications already support dual processors, with dual cores, you could hypothetically render a film whilst you are editing it. Or render an animation in 2X the speed! Which would not be done with HT because once again, HT only works when swapping to separate application threads.

The processor is not a 6.8Ghz processor per say, but you will be able to run two processes, this time within the same application at 3.6Ghz without compromise.

As for the Extreme Edition Pentium D… it’s like the PD (no, not Pandora Directive) with the sunroof option… it supports HT on each processor… the normal Pentium D does not. So technically, you could run 4 separate applications at once without compromise. However, this spears rather impossible considering that the computers memory is already handling 2 separate instructions. However it is a nice touch… in theory.

Get ready for a hefty price tag though, these babies are not cheap:

Pros: 64-bit support. Very fast. 2 cores… duh! HT X2 on the Extreme Edition.
Cons: Expensive… not to many current application support dual cores, especially not gaming.
Speeds: Between 2.8-3.2 Ghz X2
Prices: $260-$1050 (EE)


AMD Processors (Advanced Micro Devices):

AMD has been dubbed the undisputed leader of the gaming market… you would actually find it hard to spot a hardcore gamer not using and AMD. AMD processors range between the Sempron (mainstream) to the FX and the X2 (High end).

One word comes to any gamers mind when AMD is topic if processors… “Overclocking!”

AMD are stellar overclockers, and with their latest flagship, the FX-57… they have proclaimed this processor a viable overclocker. For the first time in history a company has the confidence to encourage it’s users to overclock their processor, and because they run a lower clock speeds and lower temperatures, overclocking on stock components is as simple as raising the FSB or multiplier using the overclocking software that comes with your mainboard.

AMD processors don’t need to run at high clock speeds to be able to process efficiently. In fact, you rarely find and AMD processor above 2.4Ghz. So why are they called 3000+, 3800+ and 4000+ and so on…?

Well, AMD figured that if they marketed their processors based purely on clock speeds, to the average Joe they would appear inferior. And considering nowadays clock speeds only account for 50% or the processors key workload, they decided to base their numbers purely on performance…. mainly based on a kind of Intel equivalency index.

For example: an AMD Athlon 64 3200+, even though it runs at 2.2Ghz, is roughly the equivalent of an Intel 3.2Ghz. Or at least that was the case 2 years ago… now optimisations in the AMD processor range are so advanced that an Athlon 64 3200+ is more comparable to a P4 3.8, thanks to its 64-but technology and other enhancements.

Another great thing about AMD is the prices. AMDs are usually vastly cheaper then Intel CPUs, yet they don’t show any compromises on performance.

Anyway, lets take a look at some of the AMD models:


Sempron:

This is a fairly new model from AMD that was designed to replace the Athlon XP range. It uses a 32-bit technology, and has between 256k and 512k of on die cache. These processors are efficient, and run significantly cooler than their Intel equivalents. They overclock fairly well and are great for the mainstream/semi-pro gamer/user. An AMD Sempron can best be compared to an Intel Pentium 4. However, P4s tend to be better in design applications like Photoshop or Adobe Premiere purely dur to the fact that they support HT and design applications crave clock speed above efficiency. The Sempron is a great, cheap processor for the home user who wants to not only check e-mail, but also game at satisfactory speeds.

Pros: Runs cool and quiet. Can overclock well. Tends to perform better in games then it standard P4 equivalent. Very cheap… and leaves the Celeron behind in ruins!
Cons: No real multitasking support. Generally slower then a P4 in design applications. Can cause limitations upon other hardware such high end graphics accelerators. No 64-bit support.
Speeds: 2200+ to 3300+
Prices: $58-$130


Athlon 64:

AMD was the first to embrace 64-but computing on the PC. The AMD 64 have been known for their stellar gaming performance and overclocking abilities. They are also relatively cheap.

Whilst a lot of games don’t fully support 64-bit computing the AMD 64 is a solid performer. If you were looking for a relatively cheap processor with amazing gaming performance the A64 is a valuable asset. They are capable of both a Level1 cache of 128kb and a Level2 cache of 1mb for great efficiency, and you can overclock a 3200+ to as high as 3600+ speeds on standard air-cooling.

Even though the gaming performance of the A64 can almost always top its Pentium Equivilant (even without HT) it still lacks multitasking support. Also, you are sill better of with a high end P4 for design applications… however, AMD 64 processors provide several speed advantages in Windows XP compared to the Pentium 4 and are a more future proof option.

For the conscious pro gamer who wants excellent performance, without the hefty price tag, the AMD Athlon 64 is worth every penny.

Pros: Great for gaming. Great performance/price ratio. Overlock like blazes! 64-bit support. Performance enhancements available with Windows XP 64-bit edition.
Cons: No multitasking support. Often only marginally slower in design applications compared to Intel.
Speeds: Between 3000+ (2.1Ghz) and 4000+ (2.4Ghz)
Prices: $119-$450


Athlon 64 FX:

Proclaimed the “Gods of gaming” the FX series is just un-matched in gaming performance. In fact, there is not one single processor Pentium that can top an FX. The models come in 4 flavours, FX-51, 53, 55 & 57, ranging between 2.2Ghz and 2.8Ghz. What makes the FX so fast is not only its high performance on-dye Cache levels (similar to the Athlon 64) but its integrated DDR memory controller. Any gamer would tell you that the speed in which the processor can communicate with the Memory and other hardware such as the Video Accelerator is very important, and the FX range handles such demanding gaming requirements with ease, coupling the integrated memory controller with it’s Hyper Transport technology.

However, such performance comes at a price. The FX is basically AMD’s Extreme Edition, but with 64-bit support. However, if you ask any gamer what is the best processor man can buy for gaming, he would tell you without a doubt: “The FX-57”.

Now all this talk of gaming, lets get to the home application user. The FX range is probably the first in the AMD range to provide viable competition to Intel in design applications. However, with every new FX processor, there is another Intel Extreme Edition around the corner. However, considering that the FX range can match the Intel equivalents with single threaded computing it stands to reason that a designer with a love of gaming could find the FX range a valuable consideration. Especially when if you are spending this kind of money on a CPU (Intel) you might as well spend the same kind of money and get stellar gaming performance on the side.

However, all things aside, the FX is not a multi-threaded processor, a hence will not multitask as well as it’s Intel equivalent. However, it becomes a decision of whether you value fast single threaded computing compared to multi-threaded computing. Of course, you decision may swing either way depending on your needs.

Pros: Unbeatable in gaming performance. Can match Intel for single threaded design applications. 64-bit capabilities. The FX-57 proclaimed the world’s best overclocker.
Cons: Expensive. No Multi-tasking.
Speeds: 51 (2.2Ghz) 53 (2.4Ghz) 55 (2.6Ghz) & 57 (2.8Ghz)
Prices: $500-$1,200


Athlon 64 X2

AMD not only was the first to implement 64-bit computing into PCs but also lead the dual core revolution with the Athlon 64 X2 range. Some would say finally AMD have a processor capable of processing multiple threads at once, and about time. It was always AMDs philosophy that multithreading should be done on multiple processors, hence their push for Dual Opteron workstation setups… but that’s another story.

Lets take a brief look at the X2 which ranges between 4200+ (2X 2.2Ghz w/512kb X2 on-dye cache) and 4800+ (2X 2.4Ghz w/1024kb X2 on dye-cache).

Now there is where things get interesting, AMD was always just behind Intel in workstation applications, mainly due to its lack of multi-threaded support. But now that both the X2 and the Pentium D are on par… how do they both fair? Funnily enough, both are fairly even. Each have 64-bit computing and 2 physical processors. The only difference is AMDs X2 runs a lot cooler and at lower clock speeds, and has the ability to overclock comfortably. The differences in performance between the Intel and the AMD dual core processors depends on what type of applications you use, you if you are in the market for a dual core, I suggest reading a few program specific reviews to muster up a discission as to which processor suits you and your needs.

However, gaming is a different story. AMD, as stated above, has always has stellar gaming performance with it’s single core 64 bit processors. The X2 is no exception. It’s performance & overclockability make it a great choice for future conscious gamers looking forward to dual-core gaming with engines capable of taking advantage of it such as the upcoming Unreal Engine 3. However, the X2 is still behind the FX range in gaming purely due to the fact that no games at this stage support multiple CPUs and so according to most games you are gaming with only 1X AMD Athlon 64 processor. However, the X2 is a valuable upgrade for a current Athlon 64 user wishing to prepare for the next generation of Dual Core compatible games.

Pros: 2X very fast cores. Finally, multi-threaded support! Great gaming performers for current and upcoming dual core compatible games. Runs at lower temperatures. Overclockability.
Cons: Not as fast as the FX-55 with gaming and single threaded computing. Pretty darn expensive.
Speeds: between 4200+ (2X 2.) and 4800+ (2X 2.4Ghz).
Prices: $585-$1065


In conclusion...

We’ve just about covered what both Intel and AMD have to offer in CPU land. There are of course other workstation processors out there, such as the Xeon and Itanium from Intel and the Opteron for AMD… but of course, these processors are workstation models and are impractical for anything except high-end CAD-CAM, design and server applications.

In the end, the best way to decide which processor best suits you is to follow this method.

1. Find your price range/limitation
2. Determine your needs
3. Assess your wants
4. Determine which processor best suits you
5. RESEARCH (reviews, benchmarks and forums)
6. Decide

IF you follow this guide, you should be pretty much safe when it comes to choosing the right CPU for your needs.

I hope this guide has proved beneficial for everyone and if there are any questions, just post them here!


Coming up next: Part 2: Motherboards and Memory

Cheers,

-Cub.

Wow, I have an AMD chip and always thought Intel were the better players generally in the PC market. This is a brilliant guide. Thanks Cub

i kinda followed something like this when i upgraded not too long ago (a couple months).

I looked for middle range cost as i was running a 1gb athlong with 512 ram and a geforce 3.

For around $1000 (including stuff like the case and other small extras), i was able to get a 3gb athlon with a gb of ram and a geforce 6600.

The only thing i need to make my upgrade complete is to buy a new HD and a copy of XP.

That's a nice guide. Just got one thing to say. I think you have to say that the AMD Sempron replaced the Duron (their previous low-price CPU), and some of the Athlon XPs. It's sort of in between. I would call it a respectable improvement of the Duron CPU, while still maintaining an impressively low price tag.

The motherboard guide will be interesting to read. There-in lies the main reason why I still go with Intel myself, their chipsets. My other main reasons for not buying AMD are mostly gone today. That would be fragile CPU cores (I've seen loads of broken AMD cores), and heat problems.

AMD cores have never had heat problems, not since the K7... and Intel cores now run significantly hotter than AMD CPUs... in fact there is not one AMD CPU that runs hotter than a P4 or higher equivilant. That has always been a strong point of AMD lately.

Also, the Duron was the equivilant of Intel's Celeron... it was significantly slower then the Athlon XP range and was intended for abandon in 2002. The new Sempron range is an improved Athlon XP, with a higher on-die cache size on wider ranges of models (up to 512kb compared to the Durons crummy 64) and better support for PCI-express. The Duron compares to an Athlon XP the same way that a 486 compares to a Pentium II. However, the Sempron is a refresh of the Athlon XP but it is more efficient with newer hardware, has lower clock speeds, runs significantly cooler. However, the Sempron is not quicker than some of the older Athlon XP hybrids like the Barton Core, which boasted more on-dye cache with higher clocks giving more raw performance.

Sorry if I sounded at all "in your face" here, it was not my intention ... but that's generaly how things have progessed in terms of AMD lately.

Also, most Intel and AMD systems are built on VIA or other chipsets. There is not such thing as a specific AMD brand motherboard or an Intel brand motherboard. You are referring to their socket compatability. The chipset only makes up a small portion of the motherboard. But that will all come in Part 2.

-Cub. =o)

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!

BTW, what did you just say?

Excuse me if the following sounds grumpy or in your face, but I havn't slept in 29 hours.

Well as I said the heat isn't an issue in favor of Intel anymore. The AMD Athlons (not XP) could be murder though. They didn't make for quiet computers for sure.

Yes Duron were the Celerons of AMD. But I don't quite see your point of Sempron vs Athlon XP if you in the end conclude that they are slower than the later Athlon XPs? This was more or less what I was trying to say.

No I am not referring to the motherboard's socket compatibility. VIA, SiS, Intel and nVidia are the main motherboard chipset manufacturers today. VIA and SiS make chipsets both for Intel and AMD. nVidia have just recently started making chipsets for Intel. And Intel of course make chipsets only for their own CPUs (btw, there are Intel brand motherboards, but not AMD, but that's irrelevant).

Motherboard chipsets make up a HUGE part of any motherboard. My point here was that Intel historically have made the very best chipsets. Not for specified performance/price, but for stability and compatibility.

I have been selling computer components for three years, and it is my very firm opinion that the customers that are have trouble with chipset drivers, BIOS upgrades and hardware compatibility issues are almost exclusively those that aren't running Intel chipsets. I would never buy a SiS chipped motherboard for either AMD or Intel (they are usually very fast to ship chipsets with new features, and this has it's drawbacks). Via I might buy if it's a very tried and proven chipset (they have made a few stinkers). The newer nVidia chipsets for AMD are mostly decent. I would avoid the older Intel 848p chipset (due to lack of performance/features compared to it's cousins of the same generation), but that's about it.

Please note that these are just my very biased opinions. But I have to say that apart from general compatibility and expansion slots, the chipset is in my opinion the most important aspect when you buy a new mainboard. It's the one part you can't upgrade/change, and it greatly affects how well your PC runs.

Ok, but the REAL question is what sort new hardware system (CPU, mainboard, sound card, video card, OS, etc) is best for running Tex Murphy?

HeinzHarald wrote:Yes Duron were the Celerons of AMD. But I don't quite see your point of Sempron vs Athlon XP if you in the end conclude that they are slower than the later Athlon XPs? This was more or less what I was trying to say.

Never said that Semprons were slower then XP's... I said they were slower then XP hybrids like the Barton. I also said they run at lower clock speeds, but lower clock speeds do not mean that the processor runs slower.

I guess I should have phrased what I said about chipsets more accurately; they are important but they do not occupy the bulk of what is required in terms of overall system makeup. What I mean by that is, problems with the motherboard are never chipset specific, they are usually caused by bad combinations of hardware and so on... chipsets don't fry on their own... it takes things like the PSU and overclocking to do it. I can't really comment on the stability of Intel chipsets because I have never owned one, but from my experiences with most other chipsets (including Nvidia's Nforce3/4 chipsets which are the best performers hands down, thanks to their high tolerance of extra voltages) I found that for the non-performance user, the chipset is the LEAST important factor for the standard home user. For the performance user you will get those who like to flash their BIOS, increase the BUS voltages etc... so yes it is important, but this guide was not initially aimed at those who need to configure a chipset, and hence it is not the most important factor... but I think you for your concerns and insights into such intricacies.

Lastly, Intel CPUs are not good overclockers, and most overclockers use AMD based chipsets, and so understandably Intel based chipsets don't need to account for extra voltages or BIOS configuration fluctuations. Perhaps this is the reason why Intel chipsets are so stable, they are marketed to users and coupled with CPU's that do not push it further than it needs to be. Also, as far as I know, most Intel chipsets lock their BIOS and CPU multipliers so they they simply cannot be touched. Other Chipsets allow this to expand their market into the gmaing sector (the most profitable PC market). So in a sense, Intel chipsets are stable becuase they simple don't do anything else but run stock, without any option... which for the low-end home user is a good thing I guess.

Lastly... what have you bed doing the last 29 (maybe more now) hours?

-Cub. =o)

P.S....

DrPaul wrote:Ok, but the REAL question is what sort new hardware system (CPU, mainboard, sound card, video card, OS, etc) is best for running Tex Murphy?

A pentium 3 is a good start. Modern PCs are too advanced for the game engines and optimal operating Systems for Tex Murphy... for example, the LAST OS that can run Tex Murphy flawlessly is Windows ME... but it will only support HDs up to I think either 87gb or 137gb, and does not fully support DDR ram... on top of that, driver support with older OS's for new hardware sometimes start at Win 2000. Also, the PD and UAKM engine have no FPS limitation, which means that the faster the computer you have, the faster the game runs in Movement Mode... if you run a 4ghz machine in Movement Mode, you will be out of control.

If you want Tex Murphy to run best... find an old Pentium 3, or an AMD K7... whack in a 40GB HDD, find 256mb or SD-RAM, install Win 98, or ME, and run the games of the HDD using Virtual Drives.

How about sound? That's always been the biggest problem for me. The old computers usually had separate sound cards and their own IRQ. But the new systems seem to have sound on the motherboard and this seems to cause IRQ conflicts which then cause system crashes.

Do you have any tips for setting up the sound (both hardware and settings)?

The best thing to do would be to pick up a sound card like and SB Live! value (which sells for practicaly nothing nowadays)... becuase it has built in SB16 emulation, which is supported by all the Tex games.

On board sound cards do cause a bit of a conflict, but it should not be an IRQ issue. But of course, anything can happen.

Like new OS's, new sound cards have began ditching their legacy support, and most on board soundcards never had legacy support to begin with.

Doing the little twek with the Tex Murphy ini file does help a bit, but stability becomes a question when you begin forcing compatability.

I will put together a gude for bulding the optimal Tex Murphy gaming machine if you like... I am doing one next week, and am happy to provide a log and some pictures if you like.

-Cub. =o)

Cubase wrote:Never said that Semprons were slower then XP's... I said they were slower then XP hybrids like the Barton.

Ok. I include Bartons when I say Athlon XP. But never mind that.

What I mean by that is, problems with the motherboard are never chipset specific.

My point was that they absolutely can be chipset specific to some extent. Most notably when new features are added that aren't fully developed yet. Like when we got AGP 8X a couple of years ago. I sold some of the very first SiS chipped motherboards with AGP8X support, and of course some of the first graphics cards with AGP8X support as well. And it wasn't until months later with countless BIOS upgrades that people finally got them running properly. People were experiencing lock-ups, black screens and other problems. Sometimes you weren't even able to set it to 8x. One customer actually had to increase the AGP voltage quite a bit to solve his problems. Sure it was the combination of hardware (motherboard and graphics card) that caused it, but the combination shouldn't have caused any problems if you looked at the specifications at least.

And wasn't it the first batch of nForce chipsets that had problems with Seagate harddrives a few years back? I'm not a 100%, but I think it was.

Perhaps what I'm saying is that it's a good idea to avoid features/chipsets that hasn't been around for at least half a year. And Intel have historically been rather cautious when it comes to adding features.

Lastly, Intel CPUs are not good overclockers, and most overclockers use AMD based chipsets, and so understandably Intel based chipsets don't need to account for extra voltages or BIOS configuration fluctuations.

Yes. Some of the problems I have seen is most likely due to AMD users overclocking their systems. But to which extent this is the culprit I don't know.

I can overclock my P4 2.26GHz on i845G chipset with ease though. Both memory and CPU. But I don't know how the latest ones from Intel fare at this. Anyway I always recommend against overclocking if it isn't to save an old computer for another six months.

Edit: I fully agree with your choice of sound card. I've got an SB Live! myself (not Value, but it's the same, only mine got some extra digital i/o ports), and the SB16 emulation works great.

Sigh. Thinking about this stuff always depresses me. Buying something knowing full well you'll have to replace it in a few years.