Urgent PC upgrade advice

[Cotterik]

_____________________________

Hey guys I'm needing an upgrade for my system in the next month because I'm a gamer and i can no longer play all the new games on full settings.

I'm considering upgrading my motherboard,processor,memory and graphics to this:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0GHz Socket AM2 1MB, BOXED w/fan

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-M57SLI-S4,nForce 570 SLI,ATX ,Socket-AM2,GbLAN,DDR2,Firew, 2xPCI-Ex16

Memory: Corsair XMS2 6400 DDR2, 1024MB PC6400 64Meg x 8, CAS 5-5-5-15, 800MHz, 240pin

Graphics: Sapphire Radeon X1800XT 256MB GDDR3, PCI-Express,ViVo,Dual-DVI-I,Lite-Retail

For those of you who are experienced. Is it worth paying an extra £100 for the X2 dual core processor? and investing in the DDR2 Memory? Any other comments?

Thanks for the help

[P3RG4R3C]

What's your current configuration if I may ask?

[Cotterik]

Processor: AMD Athlon 3200+ 2.2GHz

Motherboard: (realy dont know, about 4 years old. AGP. integrated sound etc)

Memory: Corsair 1gig pc3200

Graphics: Sapphire Radeon 9600XT 256MB

[Alastor]

_____________________________

Hey guys I'm needing an upgrade for my system in the next month because I'm a gamer and i can no longer play all the new games on full settings.

I'm considering upgrading my motherboard,processor,memory and graphics to this:

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0GHz Socket AM2 1MB, BOXED w/fan

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-M57SLI-S4,nForce 570 SLI,ATX ,Socket-AM2,GbLAN,DDR2,Firew, 2xPCI-Ex16

Memory: Corsair XMS2 6400 DDR2, 1024MB PC6400 64Meg x 8, CAS 5-5-5-15, 800MHz, 240pin

Graphics: Sapphire Radeon X1800XT 256MB GDDR3, PCI-Express,ViVo,Dual-DVI-I,Lite-Retail

For those of you who are experienced. Is it worth paying an extra £100 for the X2 dual core processor? and investing in the DDR2 Memory? Any other comments?

Thanks for the help

I am looking at building a new system and considering similar hardware. I settled on the X2 3800+ Socket 939. I like the idea of the multi-tasking benefits of the dual cores and think it is worth a little extra for daily computing. I have a dual processor machine at work and it is great.

I am in no hurry to build a new system so I am waiting on the new duel core Intel processors. It seems as though they have the performance edge but I wonder if they will be priced competitively.

I decided against the AM2 because I do not think that DDR2 is worth the premium over DDR. Some of the DDR2 800 modules are on par with the current low latency DDR 400 modules but why pay more for the same performance? If you are going to over-clock then that is different story, but for out of the box performance I cannot rationalize it.

Here is a comprehensive review of a lot of processors, it makes it easy to compare different models.

http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/625/

[Gtek-i]

...my cousin could give some advice but unfortunatly I don't know a lot about computer stuff. YAY!!! 500TH POST!

[adamfraser]

Go to the local shop's Forum, Here. (http://forums.kustompcs.co.uk/index.php?) Youll get answers pretty quick, and are a very helpful bunch of guys.

[Cotterik]

cheers guys. I'll see what answers i can get.

[NuclearCrap]

Not worth the X2 for that price, I'd rather go for a 3700+ San Diego S939. And what the hell are you gonna do with an ATi card on a SLI motherboard? Lol, get a Crossfire motherboard or just get nVidia graphics card. :D

And try finding another XMS with lower timings, works best with AMD. :)

[Cotterik]

ok but why wouldnt you go for the X2? and that motherboard was a random pick-off for an example. Im sticking with Ati for now.

when you say lower timings work best with AMD how do you mean?

[my porsche]

Not worth the X2 for that price, I'd rather go for a 3700+ San Diego S939. And what the hell are you gonna do with an ATi card on a SLI motherboard? Lol, get a Crossfire motherboard or just get nVidia graphics card. :D

And try finding another XMS with lower timings, works best with AMD. :)
Was that english?! :eek:

[clutch-monkey]

Was that english?! :eek:
it was english, just not as we know it.

[Souljah]

Ok..,...My advice if your going 2 run a Windows operating system It's allways(and i mean always) better 2 run it on A Pentium procceser cuz it programmed for(on) a pentium procceser....the procceser acts a different way, but thats more technical 2 get into....and then get a mainboard with an intell chipset....but yeah i know there is a price diffrent.....if you decide 3 go for the x64 or whats its called make sure 2 get a mainboard thats supports it...i would look for an ASUS mainboard wit ATI chipset....but thats what i would do....

[Alastor]

and that motherboard was a random pick-off for an example. Im sticking with Ati for now.

I think his point is that if you are sticking with an ATI graphics card should not waste money on an SLI motherboard unless you plan on running a pair of nVidia cards in the near future. You are paying more for SLI support, and if you are not going to use it you are wasting your money. If you want dual ATI graphic card support you need a Crossfire motherboard.


when you say lower timings work best with AMD how do you mean?

Again speculating but the AMD on-die memory controller will benefit greatly from a lower latency memory. DDR2 has plenty of bandwidth but tends to have poor latency compared to DDR.

[NuclearCrap]

Lol believe me, 3700+ and X2 3800+ isn't much different in performance. Keep in mind that not every software's fully compatible with dual-core technologies yet, and you're saving yourself 100 bucks and some headaches. 3700+ San Diego is very easy to overclock and it has tons of potential at it, and overall it's a great processor for the money. Anyway I wouldn't recommend switching to AM2 yet, S939 still has a long way to go if AMD doesn't just give up on the entire platform.

[Cotterik]

ok cheers. I'll have a look at the prices for the 3700+ and 3800+ on an ASUS pci motherboard.

The only other thing i need to know, is what memory am i best going for? I know now that its probably not worth choosing the AM2 option for DDR2 and just going for the 939 but which memory should i opt for? thats all i need to know :) cheers

[Cotterik]

I've gone back and taken a look at the options, and the 3700+ has a cache memory of 1mb whereas the 3800 has 512. So i took your advice and went for that. So this is my updated list. Any comments?

Asus A8N-VM CSM, nForce430+GeForce 6150, Socket-939, m-ATX,GbLAN, Firew, PCI-Ex16

AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 2.2GHz Socket 939, 1MB, BOXED w/fan

Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2 DDR-DIMM 2048MB Kit w/two matched CMX1024-3200C2 DIMMs

Sapphire Radeon X1800XT 256MB GDDR3, PCI-Express,ViVo,Dual-DVI-I,Lite-Retail

that comes to just under £480

[Guest]

Ok..,...My advice if your going 2 run a Windows operating system It's allways(and i mean always) better 2 run it on A Pentium procceser cuz it programmed for(on) a pentium procceser....the procceser acts a different way, but thats more technical 2 get into....and then get a mainboard with an intell chipset....but yeah i know there is a price diffrent.....if you decide 3 go for the x64 or whats its called make sure 2 get a mainboard thats supports it...i would look for an ASUS mainboard wit ATI chipset....but thats what i would do....erm, what? the AMD's are normally a LOT quicker, and when you talk about ATi chipsets i hope you dont mean IGP's!

[Cotterik]

ok so ive pretty much decided on everything now. im just still wondering on whether to opt for the AM2 chipset for DDR2 ram or not. I can pay an extra 50 for the 4200 processor but with 'value' memory in an upgrade package. Is it worth me doing that or spending less money for the 3700 but with better memory?

Rik

[Lagonda]

it was english, just not as we know it.
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/d/dfb/trek/spkkrk.jpg
It's life Jim, But not as we know it.

[Lagonda]

Ok..,...My advice if your going 2 run a Windows operating system It's allways(and i mean always) better 2 run it on A Pentium procceser cuz it programmed for(on) a pentium procceser....the procceser acts a different way, but thats more technical 2 get into....and then get a mainboard with an intell chipset....but yeah i know there is a price diffrent.....
Bullshit mate.

And try writing some proper English.

[Zytek_Fan]

If you want to overclock get an Opteron 144 ;)

[NuclearCrap]

If you want to overclock get an Opteron 144 ;)

Opteron 144 is no good if he doesn't get serious about overclocking, he'd be happier with a 3700+ San Diego.

[Cotterik]

the question is, would i be happier with the 3700 than i would with the x2 3800 with the am2 socket and ddr2 ram?

[NuclearCrap]

the question is, would i be happier with the 3700 than i would with the x2 3800 with the am2 socket and ddr2 ram?

3700+ can easily match X2 3800+'s performance with less than 10% overclock, and that can easily be done with softwares. AM2 socket is no better than S939 as of now. And as I mentioned before, there are still some software compatibility problems with dual cores and you'll need to find certain patches to fix the problems, no matter it's AMD or Intel.

[Cotterik]

however it doesnt make my system future-proof if i choose 939. thats the problem I have.

[Lagonda]

the question is, would i be happier with the 3700 than i would with the x2 3800 with the am2 socket and ddr2 ram?
Is that 3700 single core and the X2 dual core ? I can't see why you would even consider the 3700 ? For those 400mhz ? and that extra cache ?* AM2 seems to be more future proof + lower latency memory controller. Stretch the budget and get a dual core with some more cache. You don't really need dual CPU compatible software, the OS should take care of threading. But of course Windows threading management isn't all that wonderfull.

Multitasking is incredible on dual CPU systems. I've had it for years now on my PowerMacs and I wouldn't even consider a single CPU system anymore.

*disclaimer: did some quick research and those two things seem to be the main differences. I don't know too much about AMD's line up.

[Cotterik]

well, people advised me to stay with the 939 processors. but yeah im choosing the Am2 with the dual core 3800 processor and ddr2 6400 800mhz memory. It seems to be the best way to go. you agree?

[Lagonda]

And what is the main reason to stay with 939 sockets ?

[NuclearCrap]

And what is the main reason to stay with 939 sockets ?

Just because AM2's newer doesn't mean it's more future-proof than S939, S939 has too much unused potential.

Dual-cores are good, but unless you're getting the better X2 models like the X2 4200+, it's just stuck right there with the performance of single core CPUs. 3700+ has a much better cost/performance ratio than X2 3800+, plus the San Diego core of the 3700+ makes overclocking a whole lot easier. :)

A slightly bigger L2 cache means a whole lot more performance. :)

[Cotterik]

but without AM2 i cant have ddr2 ram. i may pay £45 more for the 4200 X2. you reckon?

EDIT: the 3700+ is £145 cheaper than the X2 4200+ so im wondering if its worth the extra money or not

[Zytek_Fan]

but without AM2 i cant have ddr2 ram. i may pay £45 more for the 4200 X2. you reckon?

EDIT: the 3700+ is £145 cheaper than the X2 4200+ so im wondering if its worth the extra money or not
You'll notice a difference when multitasking with multithreaded support apps, and multithreaded support games

[Lagonda]

but without AM2 i cant have ddr2 ram. i may pay £45 more for the 4200 X2. you reckon?

EDIT: the 3700+ is £145 cheaper than the X2 4200+ so im wondering if its worth the extra money or not
The multitasking is absolutely worth it. Seriously. Those few FPS extra you'll get in non-multithreaded games with a single core CPU aren't worth it. For me it's a no brainer, dual core > single core. AFAIK the X2 4200 will absolutely destroy a 3700. Also, the overclocking part.. You've got to ask yourself the question if you are even interested in overclocking ?
Personally I think that single core isn't worth it. Take it from me, I've got years of experience with dual CPU machines. Once you go dual you never go back.

[Cotterik]

but i was told this:

"ok your not going to want an athlon 64 if you go am2 as they have a performance hit, as am2 uses high latency ddr2 which is not appropriate. in a few months i'm sure the new athlons will have a differant architecture as the memory controller is outperfomed by the new intel duo.
amd will have to redesign to compete. but surely if you go am2 you are going to want to see a performance gain. this will not be the case if you choose am2+amd right now.
if i were you i would go s939 and buy some really good pc4000 ddr to go with a half decent athlon 64. then sit back and watch it fly.
ddr2 needs to work in conjunction with the cpu to be of any worth and at the moment it does not, unless you go down the intel duo road."

[Lagonda]

You know if you have some time. Upgrade to the Intel Core 2 Duo, which will be released somewhere in August IIRC. It totally kills anything that AMD currently offers.

[Cotterik]

nah im sticking with amd. the decision i have to make is. 939 or am2. basically.

it means either move on to the dual core with ddr2 memory, or stick with single or dual core with ddr memory. both dual cores on either 939 or am2 are at the same price.

[Lagonda]

To be honest I think that the latency is absolutely negligable.

[Zytek_Fan]

nah im sticking with amd. the decision i have to make is. 939 or am2. basically.

it means either move on to the dual core with ddr2 memory, or stick with single or dual core with ddr memory. both dual cores on either 939 or am2 are at the same price.
In just about every side by side comparison of AM2 and 939, there is barely a noticible performance gain between AM2 and 939. If you do get an AM2, get a cheap one, then when the 65nm dual core AM2s come out get one of those ;)

[Cotterik]

yeah im considering getting the base 3800 AM2 for now then when the better ones come out and the software is compatible. its all around the same price, but in a few years i can buy a dual core when it matters. which is important

[NuclearCrap]

The multitasking is absolutely worth it. Seriously. Those few FPS extra you'll get in non-multithreaded games with a single core CPU aren't worth it. For me it's a no brainer, dual core > single core. AFAIK the X2 4200 will absolutely destroy a 3700. Also, the overclocking part.. You've got to ask yourself the question if you are even interested in overclocking ?
Personally I think that single core isn't worth it. Take it from me, I've got years of experience with dual CPU machines. Once you go dual you never go back.

A few FPS? I got an extra 15-20 FPS in F.E.A.R after overclocking. :p

Of course dual cores are faster, but single cores remain best at cost/performance. The single core 4000+ is fast as hell, fewand believe me dual cores can't be much better at multitasking. My 3500+, or fake FX-57 lol, gives me smooth gameplay even with so much background programs (like the ones in systray) and even drive defragmentation and/or virus scan. Although some stupid Norton pop-ups would ruin my game and no better or worse hardwares can help it. :D

You said you have years of experience on dual cores, but you seem to underestimate single cores a lot. :rolleyes:

Dual cores usually get a huge advantage in benchmarks, but when it comes to real apps, they're just slightly faster than same model single cores (such as X2 3800+ vs 3800+), and you won't notice it with human eyes. :cool:

As long as you go for 3700+ or better on single cores, you're fine. :)

Edit: Wow I managed to use 5 different smileys for the first time. :D

[Lagonda]

A few FPS? I got an extra 15-20 FPS in F.E.A.R after overclocking. :p
Does this really make a difference ? If he buys a modern CPU I would think that any game would run at a good framerate anyway, no ? With or without overclocking.


You said you have years of experience on dual cores, but you seem to underestimate single cores a lot. :rolleyes:
I don't underestimate them but trust me difference in speed while multitasking is absolutely HUGE with dual CPU or dual core systems (or even quad core). I have a single CPU system as well and the difference is absolutely huge compared to the multi CPU systems.

As for gamers. Now that multi CPU (or core) systems become more and more apparent in the Wintel world games should quickly move to a codebase that's optimized for multiple cores. So another point goes to the Dual core chip when it comes down to being future proof.

But then again for gamers multitasking probably doesn't matter all that much. Since you would be doing only 1 thing at a time. I don't game so I wouldn't know. I'm a graphics guy (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign etc.). For anything else but gaming dual CPU or dual core or quad core is heaven sent.


Dual cores usually get a huge advantage in benchmarks, but when it comes to real apps, they're just slightly faster than same model single cores (such as X2 3800+ vs 3800+), and you won't notice it with human eyes. :cool:
I don't know. Maybe Windows isn't threaded that well. I speak from a Mac point of view. The Mac OS and all the apps are all highly threaded and take 100% advantage of dual or quad cores. But Win XP Pro supports multiple CPUs so it should be threaded well enough. If the OS is threaded well enough you should see a significant speed difference. When apps get optimezed the speed gap widens even more.

Maybe multithreading/multitasking with dual CPUs isn't that great on Windows as it is on the Mac today but you can be sure that it will soon be completely supported. Because of this I would absolutely go for a Dual system. It's future proof and using a machine with dual CPUs is a lot more fun and relaxing than a single core system. You never have to wait for anything. Quad core is amazing but you'd have to go Dual Intel Woodcrest for that if you want that on Windows. ;) And that is way beyond his budget I'm afraid.

[Alastor]

Of course dual cores are faster, but single cores remain best at cost/performance. The single core 4000+ is fast as hell, fewand believe me dual cores can't be much better at multitasking. My 3500+, or fake FX-57 lol, gives me smooth gameplay even with so much background programs (like the ones in systray) and even drive defragmentation and/or virus scan. Although some stupid Norton pop-ups would ruin my game and no better or worse hardwares can help it. :D

It really depends on what your doing with the machine, and that is something that Cotterik has failed to mention.

As I already stated at work I run a machine with dual 3Ghz processors. There are plenty of processes that are running it the background but I do not really count that as multi-tasking.

When I multi-task I run CFD or FEA on one processor, and then Lotus Notes, IE, Excel, Word, etc on the other processor. I never have any performance problems, something that would not be true if I had a single processor saturated by the analysis software.

This may be an exceptional case, but given the choice I would never choose a single core/processor over a dual setup.


nah im sticking with amd.

Is there any particular reason you are sticking with AMD? Currently, reviews are indicating that the Core 2 Due E6600 will be about 20 USD (~$316) more than the 3800+ X2. The performance increase however is significant.

It is in French but here is another review between the Athlon 64s and Core 2 Duo processors:

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/306/merom-et-conroe-test-des-core-2-duo/page11.php

[NuclearCrap]

As I already stated at work I run a machine with dual 3Ghz processors. There are plenty of processes that are running it the background but I do not really count that as multi-tasking.

I believe I said more than just running processes in background.


Is there any particular reason you are sticking with AMD? Currently, reviews are indicating that the Core 2 Due E6600 will be about 20 USD (~$316) more than the 3800+ X2. The performance increase however is significant.

It is in French but here is another review between the Athlon 64s and Core 2 Duo processors:

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/306/merom-et-conroe-test-des-core-2-duo/page11.php

That difference would lower to almost nothing when he runs max settings, plus those aren't coming out for another 2 months or so and we don't really know if they're reliable. And I think Cotterik would use the machine for gaming or else he won't bother to look at high-end gaming graphics card.

And Lagonda, buying a dual-core CPU now won't make anything more futureproof since when it comes to a time where dual-cores are really needed, there'll be much better and suitable dual-cores than today's dual-cores of headache (anything that bothers and you're stuck with Google for hours, especially on Windows; versus a Mac where you don't have to download and setup so much craps). And a single core 3700+ is capable of going far beyond the performance of FX-57 for only many times cheaper. We're still in the very early stage of dual-cores that are actually better in cost/performance. Money is what makes our computers futureproof, but not newer technologies that don't worth the price, yet. :D

[Cotterik]

For Alastor. I mostly want my performance for gaming. Thats what i do most. and the most modern ones at that. But yeah i want everything to be able to run smoothly. Which it does at the moment just with a few strains.

My decision so far has become this: I buy an AM2 socket motherboard that supports dual core but only fit in a single core, saving £100 until I can actually benefit from dual core in a years time when vista is out and things will start developing more. By then the dual cores I may be looking at now, will be cheaper.

The only decision I have to make is this: ddr2 6400 or ddr2 5300?

I understand 6400 has higher latency but it runs at 800mhz compared to the 667mhz of the 5300. Im not very experienced with memory. Any help?

[NuclearCrap]

For Alastor. I mostly want my performance for gaming. Thats what i do most. and the most modern ones at that. But yeah i want everything to be able to run smoothly. Which it does at the moment just with a few strains.

My decision so far has become this: I buy an AM2 socket motherboard that supports dual core but only fit in a single core, saving £100 until I can actually benefit from dual core in a years time when vista is out and things will start developing more. By then the dual cores I may be looking at now, will be cheaper.

The only decision I have to make is this: ddr2 6400 or ddr2 5300?

I understand 6400 has higher latency but it runs at 800mhz compared to the 667mhz of the 5300. Im not very experienced with memory. Any help?

Nice choice on the CPU. :)

And about the memory, the difference in performance between these latencies aren't significant, and because you have AM2, you want to go for whichever has lower timings. :)

[Souljah]

Bullshit mate.

And try writing some proper English.

Try doing some research and find out what windows is programmed on,,,,,its always been programed on a pentium proccesor.....but i know you cant feel the difference,,,,call microsoft and ask whats it's programmed on.....

[NuclearCrap]

Try doing some research and find out what windows is programmed on,,,,,its always been programed on a pentium proccesor.....but i know you cant feel the difference,,,,call microsoft and ask whats it's programmed on.....

But the fact is that Intel is inferior in performance to AMD, and just because Windows is programmed on Intels won't help to outperform AMD. Although history will be re-written when the new Intels come out a couple months that already have better results than AMDs in recent tests. You should be the one doing the research and learn more than just the basics before disagreeing. :rolleyes:

[Cotterik]

okay so my original plan was to fit a single core into a dual-core compatible motherboard to be able to upgrade in the future but ive been told to spend the extra 100 quid now and get the 2.0ghz 3800 X2 rather than the 2.4ghz 3800 AM2

confused :confused:

[NuclearCrap]

okay so my original plan was to fit a single core into a dual-core compatible motherboard to be able to upgrade in the future but ive been told to spend the extra 100 quid now and get the 2.0ghz 3800 X2 rather than the 2.4ghz 3800 AM2

confused :confused:

X2 3800+ is the low-end model of AMD's dual-core line, not worth the money unless you really want that X2 badge. As far as I know the price of the X2 3800+ is too expensive for what you get. That somebody told you to get the X2 because it's slightly better in performance and it's dual-core, but he assumes that you're willing to spend the money. The new Intel Core 2 is just the beginning of cheaper, higher performance dual-cores, but not the low-end AMD X2 models.

[Cotterik]

so should i stick with my original plan, to get a single core AM2 3800 2.4ghz on a dual core-compatible motherboard and update in the future?

[NuclearCrap]

so should i stick with my original plan, to get a single core AM2 3800 2.4ghz on a dual core-compatible motherboard and update in the future?

Go for the 3700+, it's basically the same except for the clock speed since the single core 3800+ is just a 10% overclock of the 3700+ that goes for a higher price. With 1Mb L2 cache, you get a FX57 when your 3700+ reaches 2.8Ghz, and I've seen lots of people going beyond that. :)

[Cotterik]

they dont do the 3700 on the am2 socket

quick question:

is http://www.xtsit.com a trustworthy site? they sell the 3800+ x2 for £50 less than any other website? cheers

[NuclearCrap]

they dont do the 3700 on the am2 socket

quick question:

is http://www.xtsit.com a trustworthy site? they sell the 3800+ x2 for £50 less than any other website? cheers

Oh I forgot. Yea those San Diego cores are all retiring (3700+, 4000+, FX55, FX57).

And about the price, it's all because of the AMD price drop. If you are really going to dual-core, pick up at least X2 4600+ ($300) which can be easily overclocked to FX62. :)

I'm trying to get a 3700+ San Diego right now. :p

[Cotterik]

4600 is way over my price range :rolleyes: i can overclock a 3800 fine

[NuclearCrap]

4600 is way over my price range :rolleyes: i can overclock a 3800 fine

The X2 3800+ doesn't have the same core specs as X2 4600+ and up. (Not talking about clock speed here)

With 2x 512k L2 cache the X2 3800+ will never perform like those 2x 1Mb models even at the same clock speed. That's why I'm moving from my 3500+ to 3700+ just for the L2 cache. For example, at 2.8Ghz the 3700+ will be exactly the same as the FX57 while the 3500+ won't. So there's no way you're gonna get high-end performance unless you go for at least X2 4600+ which is basically a FX62 after overclock. :)

Otherwise just stick with single core, for now. :D

[Cotterik]

i'm moving to the new AM2 socket. Not only do they not supply the 3700 in that socket but they dont supply each core with more than 512k until you get to the 4800 which, although has a total of 2mb cache, is upto £200 more. I realy cant afford to be paying that much, as you can imagine.

[Souljah]

But the fact is that Intel is inferior in performance to AMD, and just because Windows is programmed on Intels won't help to outperform AMD. Although history will be re-written when the new Intels come out a couple months that already have better results than AMDs in recent tests. You should be the one doing the research and learn more than just the basics before disagreeing. :rolleyes:
belive i i know more then the basics....it's about how the procceser is built.....and how it will handle it's input.....try reading about how intell/amd proccesers are built...meaning the inside of it....

[NuclearCrap]

belive i i know more then the basics....it's about how the procceser is built.....and how it will handle it's input.....try reading about how intell/amd proccesers are built...meaning the inside of it....

LOL!!!!! :D :D :D

My stomach hurts too much to explain for him, but I guess anyone who know even a little more about the basics can say that his theory about current Intels outperforming AMDs on Windows is wrong. Just ROFL. :D

[PsychoChimp22]

Im doing the same thing now Cotterik, I settled on a few parts.
The mobo is a DFI LanParty UT NF4, great for overclocking :)
The VGA is an eVGA 7900 GT KO (256), it will have me set for a year or two
Also getting 2x1024MB PC3200 XMS.

And about the A64 X2 you want, the reason that you might want to go single now is because the games out right now (mainstream atleast) arnt programed to use both, so other than multitasking programs (which my 3500+ does fine) there isnt a HUGE benefit now. Im probably going to wait a year or so to get a duel core, because by the time theyre really worth it they'll be waay cheaper. The A64 3700+ SanDiego was a great suggestion, 1MB L2 cache, good out of the box clock speed, lowish power consumption - my friend just got one a few months ago, pwns.

[Cotterik]

yeah, i agree on all terms exept they dont do the 3700 on the am2 socket which im moving to, to make my pc future-proof

[Guest]

belive i i know more then the basics....it's about how the procceser is built.....and how it will handle it's input.....try reading about how intell/amd proccesers are built...meaning the inside of it....you sir win the prize!

[NuclearCrap]

yeah, i agree on all terms exept they dont do the 3700 on the am2 socket which im moving to, to make my pc future-proof

AM2 is still underperforming and doesn't look like it would beat S939 anytime soon. With me doing the expensive car washes in the house and selling all the soda cans, I'll have the money before San Diegos get discontinued. :D

Stick with S939 for now, AM2 isn't gonna be a beneficial upgrade for quite a while. :)

Better off futureproofing the graphics part by saving money now so you can move on DX10 hardware when the time comes. All the current GPUs are gonna be useless in at most 3-4 years because DX10 isn't backwards-compatible, And only for that amount of time game developers are gonna let us run the new games in DX9 mode. The next mainsteam card is gonna be a great buy. :)

[Cotterik]

by the looks of it, most 3700 939 san diegos are already discontinued :rolleyes: i just dont wanna have to change my motherboard and memory AGAIN in another year or so. If i move to am2 now with ddr2 memory i can just update the components instead of having to spend a load twice. if you get me.

[NuclearCrap]

by the looks of it, most 3700 939 san diegos are already discontinued :rolleyes: i just dont wanna have to change my motherboard and memory AGAIN in another year or so. If i move to am2 now with ddr2 memory i can just update the components instead of having to spend a load twice. if you get me.

If you're still persistent about the AM2, then get a cheap single core for now, I'm positively sure that a 3500+ has no chance of bottlenecking the X1800 once you overclock it. :)

The lower-end X2 just has no real benefits over single core, if you look at the specs.

[Zytek_Fan]

by the looks of it, most 3700 939 san diegos are already discontinued :rolleyes: i just dont wanna have to change my motherboard and memory AGAIN in another year or so. If i move to am2 now with ddr2 memory i can just update the components instead of having to spend a load twice. if you get me.
My same strategy

[Cotterik]

so the on-going question is:

do i go for the single core am2 3800, or the x2 3800 (dual core) which is £100 more? the first option lets me save money while waiting for the multi-thread software programs to develop, and then upgrade in a few years time.

[Zytek_Fan]

so the on-going question is:

do i go for the single core am2 3800, or the x2 3800 (dual core) which is £100 more? the first option lets me save money while waiting for the multi-thread software programs to develop, and then upgrade in a few years time.
Wait until the 65nm X2s come out to get an X2. Another option would be to wait until July 27th and get a Core 2 Duo E6300 ($183).

[Cotterik]

what's the 65nm?

[Zytek_Fan]

what's the 65nm?
The process type. With a 65nm AM2 it will have reduced power consumption, less heat, and the 65nm X2's will have 1mb of L2 cache on each core.

[NuclearCrap]

so the on-going question is:

do i go for the single core am2 3800, or the x2 3800 (dual core) which is £100 more? the first option lets me save money while waiting for the multi-thread software programs to develop, and then upgrade in a few years time.

The only difference between the single core 3800+ and 3500+ is just clock speed, so basically they're the same. X2 3800+ has 512k more in L2 cache, but it isn't a beneficial upgrade over single cores compared to X2s with 2x 1Mb L2 cache. :)

At least S939 still gets a cheap $300 X2 4600+ which is the same as a lower clocked FX60. :D

Is there anything on the 65nm being on S939? It's way too possible and AMD might just do it.

[Cotterik]

hmm when is the 65nm released?

[NuclearCrap]

hmm when is the 65nm released?

December 2006 or early 2007 for AMD.

[Cotterik]

hmmm thats quite a while to wait and articles ive read state that entry-level versions will have 512 cache, only the 4600< have 1mb. so thats still over my price budget.

[Zytek_Fan]

hmmm thats quite a while to wait and articles ive read state that entry-level versions will have 512 cache, only the 4600< have 1mb. so thats still over my price budget.
Get a cheap AM2 for now, and when the AM3's (65nm AM2's) come out, get one of those ;)

[Cotterik]

yeah, im thinking of a single core 2.4ghz 3800 £100 less but for single threaded applications its technically faster. compared to the X2 2.0ghz 3800. so yeah.. ill do that.

but for the AM3 sockets, do you need to buy a new motherboard? or will it fit in an am2 motherboard

[Zytek_Fan]

yeah, im thinking of a single core 2.4ghz 3800 £100 less but for single threaded applications its technically faster. compared to the X2 2.0ghz 3800. so yeah.. ill do that.

but for the AM3 sockets, do you need to buy a new motherboard? or will it fit in an am2 motherboard
The AM3 will work in AM2 mobos

[NuclearCrap]

yeah, im thinking of a single core 2.4ghz 3800 £100 less but for single threaded applications its technically faster. compared to the X2 2.0ghz 3800. so yeah.. ill do that.

but for the AM3 sockets, do you need to buy a new motherboard? or will it fit in an am2 motherboard

The 3800+ is a 3500+ clocked at 2.4Ghz, save yourself $30 with the 3500+. :D

[Cotterik]

I understand the 4000+ X2 has been discontinued. however its the only one that has 2x1mb cache memory. now they all have 2x512.

can somebody explain cache memory for me? would i benefit greatly from 2x1mb? one website still stocks it. cheers

[Zytek_Fan]

You won't notice a big difference, but larger L2 cache CAN help you in games.

[Cotterik]

ok. so in that case. am i better off going for the dual core 4000+ 2.0 2x1mb cache or the single core 3800 2.4 512 cache? the 4000 is more expensive but is clocked at .4 ghz lower. ?

[NuclearCrap]

ok. so in that case. am i better off going for the dual core 4000+ 2.0 2x1mb cache or the single core 3800 2.4 512 cache? the 4000 is more expensive but is clocked at .4 ghz lower. ?

You can eventually overclock the X2 4000+ to 2.8Ghz for FX-62 performance with that 2x 1Mb L2 cache. No point of getting any AMD dual-cores with less than 2x 1Mb L2 cache.

[Cotterik]

i'd need a mighty fan :p

[NuclearCrap]

i'd need a mighty fan :p

Not unless you live here where it's 41C........ :(

8:18pm and still 33C..........I'm going crazy. :D

[Cotterik]

I just went onto www.scans.co.uk and they are selling their dual core (X2) amd 64 AM2 processors for around half price. thats the 3800,4200,4600 and 5000. all of which have 512x2 cache memory. the 4400, 4800 and 4000 models (1mbx2 cache) are not for sale. dont know why. however at that price it seems stupid to pay a little for just for the cache if i can get a 4600 rather than a 4000 on another website.

What i realy want to ask is..

Is the cache size important? I want my new system to most importantly handle the latest games. I'll be snapping up an x1800XT with it. I know the 4600 has 512x2 cache but 3 models up from the 4000 which has 1mbx2. I'm just confused as to which is more important for me.

[Cotterik]

well? :p

[Cotterik]

I'm ordering an amd x2 5000. Cant wait!

Crucial DDR2 6400 memory

ati x1800xt graphics

Tagan 580W PSU

Asus M2N-E motherboard

[NuclearCrap]

Why did you even bother to get a motherboard with nVidia chipset if you're gonna run the ATi X1800XT? Change the motherboard, and make sure you get 2x 1Mb L2 cache for the CPU. And I'd say Antec power supplies if you want excellent reliability, or PC Power & Cooling if you want superb power and reliability for hell of a lot more money.

[Zytek_Fan]

Why did you even bother to get a motherboard with nVidia chipset if you're gonna run the ATi X1800XT? Change the motherboard, and make sure you get 2x 1Mb L2 cache for the CPU. And I'd say Antec power supplies if you want excellent reliability, or PC Power & Cooling if you want superb power and reliability for hell of a lot more money.
There is no ATI chipset AM2 boards

[Cotterik]

^^ what he said

and all the 2x1mb cache dual core processors are discontinued as of this month. There is a 50% price reduction on the rest. That makes the x2 5000+ £199 rather than £400 which is a bargain if i ever saw one. It also beats the fx-62 without overclocking on many tests. The cache is obselete in most cases. If i can get that kind of performance for that money. I'd be stupid to try and find a discontinued processor for more money than the 5000+ which outperforms it anyway.