Thats the really funny thing, it's probably the worst buy in the whole A64 line up. If you want a 1Mb cache, nice overclocking chip, you get an opteron, for a lot cheaper, if you want budget, you hit the Venice 3000/3200+. It doesn't overclock any better than any chip, and it costs a lot, it's a complete waste of time.Originally Posted by KingJimi
Of course it's brilliant if your Storm, because you A, have one, and B, you can get awesome screenshots in windows of them!!!!!!!!!
If I were You, I would consider to wait for the new high-end cards from nVIDIA & ATi. So you could buy bigger performance for the same money, or buy a card from the current lineup cheaper.Hi guys, next year my plans are to move onto the 939 bandwagon, after my trusty old XP 2500 starting to come to the end of its life. I've planned the following:
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400
Mainboard: Asus A8N-E (I'm not fussed about SLI)
The usual harddrive and so on, but upgrading the graphics is bugging me. If I take a 7800GT, it wouldn't make sense as I would'nt see much of an increase. A 7800GTX for me personally would be overkill. SLI would make for two 7800GT's but it doesn't bother me. So what is the right gfx card then? Please, help me out!
Or the other option is to buy an ASRock S939Dual-SATA2 motherboard. It has a fully flanked AGP8X on it, and a PCIe x16 slot to. Yeh... I know ASRock. But I have sofar 10 friends who own this type of motherboard and the only problem with it is, that a BIOS upgrade is a must.
It might be "complete ****" if it were not true, but this has been my experience. I've had the 4000+ in the Shuttle to almost 3.2GHz on air.
Where do you get this rubbish?
"guys saying that the 4000+ is a good CPU to go for if I change my mind on dual-core? No, wait it's not. It runs mightily hot, and stupidly expensive."
How can you think a single-core is hotter OR more expensive than a dual-core? You need to check your facts, as you appear to be suffering from Smokey's disease. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize that two cores (especially when overclocked) are going to generate much more heat and require much more current than an equivalent single-core. Likewise, the cost of the dual-core is substantially more, which is why gamers are crying like babies that they are too expensive. For gamers, they are too expensive. They are not a cost effective gaming or enthusiast CPU. They are for professional users, not gamers. AMD does not market the X2 (or any other dual-core) as a gaming CPU because they know the X2 is a poor value for gamers. The X2 is a great value, but only for their intended market.
Oh, and you don't need to worry about the Shuttle. The Shuttle has very good cooling and the best airflow of any SFF I've seen, and I always watch my temps. I could run it at 3GHz 24/7 as it is rock solid stable, but I have no reason to do so. At 2830MHz I can turn the fan speeds down to where I can't hear them at all, and it's ice cold.
Ask yourself this: If the dual-core CPU is the best CPU no matter what the usage (as Smokey wants us to believe) why is AMD and Intel still making so many single-cores? They have both been geared up for dual-core production for quite some time now.
Edit:
3346MHz 3700+ San Diego on single PC cooler http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8824569
My 4000+ does 3600MHz on single phasechange at -40c.
What will it take to shut the Smokester up?
Last edited by StormPC; 04-01-2006 at 10:39 PM.
Do you think I'm stupid? Do you think I would consider getting dual-core if AMD and Intel were still flogging their singles as if it was rain? As I am an avid gamer, and the on the advent of multi-threaded games (UT2007, Huxley, even possibly Stalker to handle the day life cycle which in is about a YEAR not FIVE years) it makes sense to get dual-core. Hey - I'd like to SAVE money you know.
You just said your PC was on air, didn't you? So what are you on about phase change? Nice monitor by the way.
Sutyi: I've considered that but certain reviews point out that it is pretty slow at stock and only comes into its own when overclocked. Not like I would run it at stock, but there you go. I've got a week until I place the order for these, getting tense now!
Last edited by KingJimi; 05-01-2006 at 12:26 AM.
There isnt anything to be tense about.
If u like the idea of dual core, and ur pretty sure ur going to be using that horsepower. (I cant imagine anyone that wont.. really). Then just go for it. I've personally made the jump and all the scientific softwares I'm using just jumped at least 50% in speed. Whether or not multi threaded games will come (very very sensitive topic here), well.. its only a few months.. just wait and see. I'm very happy with my pseudo 1/2 cached 4800+ running 2 sticks of DDR. Even crushed my old dual Xeon 2.0Ghz Prestonia by 268%.
As for the gfx, 7800GT for cheap and outright speed.. X1800XL for the eye candy and overall performer. 7800GT runs off on a weaker DDR3, but hey.. its still speed for 20pp.
A8N or AN8 Ultra will do the bill well.
Me want Ultrabook
I didn't before you posted this.
OK guys - read the above and take it to heart. It's an excellent suggestion.
Going through the Asrock (yes, I have one too) is a really cheap way to upgrade that doesn't force you to upgrade gfx at the same time. In my experience it's not the best board out there in terms of raw speed (if you're fussed about small % increases from better memory timings) but the cost and flexibility more than make up for it.
The 6800gt will play todays games more or less fine, and in a month the next gen ati and nvidia cards are comming out - at best this will create even better cards for the same price, at worst it'll push down the current cards like the 7800gt. That said, the 7800gt is a very good card for the money today anyway, it just might be a lot cheaper soon
The OP choice of CPU is great - if you can afford it, the 4400 is a really good chip with a long life ahead of it. CPU isn't all that relevant when it comes to games, and even a X2 3800 is good enough, but if you have the cash the 4400 is a good point on the price/performance scale. Yes, it may not be 'as fast' as a single core, but as long as it is fast enough to not be the limiting factor then you won't notice much real world increase by going single core, instead dual core will provide a better user experience outside of games (or while running something at the same time as a game) as well as a certain measure of future-proofing.
Well said, couldnt have said it better myself.OK guys - read the above and take it to heart. It's an excellent suggestion.
Going through the Asrock (yes, I have one too) is a really cheap way to upgrade that doesn't force you to upgrade gfx at the same time. In my experience it's not the best board out there in terms of raw speed (if you're fussed about small % increases from better memory timings) but the cost and flexibility more than make up for it.
The 6800gt will play todays games more or less fine, and in a month the next gen ati and nvidia cards are comming out - at best this will create even better cards for the same price, at worst it'll push down the current cards like the 7800gt. That said, the 7800gt is a very good card for the money today anyway, it just might be a lot cheaper soon
The OP choice of CPU is great - if you can afford it, the 4400 is a really good chip with a long life ahead of it. CPU isn't all that relevant when it comes to games, and even a X2 3800 is good enough, but if you have the cash the 4400 is a good point on the price/performance scale. Yes, it may not be 'as fast' as a single core, but as long as it is fast enough to not be the limiting factor then you won't notice much real world increase by going single core, instead dual core will provide a better user experience outside of games (or while running something at the same time as a game) as well as a certain measure of future-proofing.
Me want Ultrabook
Well I've been able to upgrade my 6800GT and AGP setup and make money
I bought a 7800GT PCI-E, Abit AN8 Ultra PCI-E Motherboard and Seasonic 430 Watt S-12 PSU from Gohan for £240 inc.
And have just sold my 6800GT AGP for £193 inlcuding postage, MSI Neo 2 Platinum for £65 inc and the Nexus 400 Watt Real Silent PSU for £44.
That makes it £302, minus £20 for postage and £6 for Ebay fees and I have made £36 pounds from quite a decent upgrade
*applauds*
But that's down to people on ebay paying lotsPlus that was a really great deal you got on the bundle!
kingjimi i noticed you said you where very tempted by the x2 3800 as they had been overclocked to 4800 speeds know that that was achived using a cooling system the same price as the 4800
but aside from that your choice looks ok i would stick with the 3800 if your interested in runing the new dual core optimised games but also the mobo that was described earlier could be a good choice if your not plaaning to run sli because when the new chips from nvidia and ati come out then the price drop in 7800 gt and gtx will be dramtic so you could just keep your card until this happens i was under the impression that it wont be too long and for now your card should suvice, the only advantage of getting the 4400 is the cache over the 3800 i think well and the clock speed but thats atainble im sure on a good hsf,maybe you should look into the dual core opterons i dont know wha they are like but if they are anything like the rest of the opteron family and all the hype that suurounds it they could be a very good chip,
and also i think if storm does build all these pc and has had all these chips in hs possesion for overclocking or watever he may well know what he is atalking about, i dont dubt that benchmarks are a very good way of defining cpus but obv they arnt everything but unless you have owned a certain cpu then you really dont know what its capable of doing, and with phase change things that you wouldnt belive are capable so i am told and have read,
Storm:
Rest of you guys, thanks for the advice, from what people have said the 3800 looks like a good choice.
Its one of the best processors I've got since the dual Prestonia 2 years back. 3800+ X2 wont need monster cooling to hit 2.4Ghz.. They will run slightly warmer than single cored equivalent, but not to a value that u need to worry about.Storm:
Rest of you guys, thanks for the advice, from what people have said the 3800 looks like a good choice.
Me want Ultrabook
Would you like to comment on this Storm:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...4-fx60_11.html
FX-57, gets beaten by the FX-60 in 3 out of 4 gaming benchmarks, and it's 200mhz slower. The 4800+ being 400mhz slower can beat the FX-57 in 1, albiet by a tiny margin, and thats only with a 7800GT.
"For most things a fast-single core is better." Storm
"Dual-cores are great for some things. Games are not (and will not soon be) one of them" Storm
Just proving my point, even the the FX-60 is a crazy assed price. Be interested to see how they clock.
Quote's from Xbit:
"First of all I would like to point out that the year 2006 promises to become the year of overwhelming spreading of dual-core processors. Thanks to the efforts of the graphics card driver developers, the number of applications improving showing better results with the multi-threading enabled keeps growing constantly. And the most important thing is that among these apps are the games, performance in which is essential for many users out there. "
"According to the diagrams above, a lot of gaming applications, even not the most contemporary ones, can actually benefit significantly from the use of dual-core processors by simply installing the optimized drivers. For instance, you can see the effect from these drivers in Half-Life 2 and FarCry with a naked eye. Contemporary dual-core processors outperform the top-of-the-line single-core CPUs in these games"
Last edited by Smokey21; 10-01-2006 at 10:05 PM.
1) Comment on that article? No. It's Xbit. What do you expect? They make Inquirer look legit (which they are not). Of all the fanboy review sites you could have quoted, you pick the absolute worst one. Here's a formula for you: Xbit=stupidity
2) The FX-60 and the FX-57 are way expensive, true. The FX-57 justifies it's price because it overclocks like mad. You have an X2 with a very mild overclock compared to what you could have on a single-core, so you should know how they overclock. Just like your chip, they overclock like crap. Also, the memory controllers are complete rubbish.
3) Shut up!
Here's a much more realistic comparison of STOCK CPUs done by Hexus's own Rys:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4347
Keep in mind that this is @stock speeds. Since the FX series is targeted at overclockers, and since single-core CPUs reach more than double the % overclocks of comparable dual-cores it should be easy to see that the FX-60 is just silly. It's nothing more than a high-quality 4800+ X2 with an unlocked multi.
Last edited by StormPC; 11-01-2006 at 12:56 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
