I have $350 BUCKS....X2, 4000, Opteron???!!!!!

matermoh

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2006
17
0
18,510
I have $350 to spend on a new CPU. What should I go with? I am a hardcore gamer and need gaming performance maxed out.
 

HideOut

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2005
555
82
19,070
Assuming 939 motherboard is allready in hand and it is a decent overclocker, get either a single core Otperon 146 and OC the hell out of it (using the rest of the cash maybe for water cooling kit?) or a dual core 165, ya might have to get a few more bucks up but it'll hit at least 2.5ghz per core with the OEM HSF so thats pretty good. If ya can get a $50 HSF then 2.7 ghz is pretty common

If ya ONLY game then the single core is the best bet but if ya do much else and considering games are coming with multithreaded patches the dual core option is becoming more usable for gaming. Already patched are Q4 (Q3 based games may do better as Q3 was threaded some), CoD2 and HL2's source engine. The rest will come soon as it is gonna make their games perform much better.

Hide
 

style69

Distinguished
Jan 3, 2006
131
0
18,680
THGC CPU buyer's guide:

CPUs to avoid

3.1.6 Athlon 64 4000+(described in 2.0.Cool, Athlon64 FX55)

Athlon 64 FX55 is the fastest CPU at this momemnt in almost all apps. (except few video encoding and 3D Rendering apps), but the performance advantage is too small to justify it's pricetag. Though the price is not as insane as P4 Extreme Edition, it's still very high. This CPU is not recommended unless you want the best at any cost. Athlon64 4000+ performance is practically equal to Athlon64 3800+, but the pricetag is not. This is why it's not recommended.
 

mpjesse

Splendid
For current games, the Athlon 4000+ beats out the majority of dual core Athlon X2's. Especially the ones priced around $350-450. It's a toss up between the X2 4800+ and Athlon 64 4000+.

HOWEVER, keep in mind that future games are going to take advantage of dual core. So 6-12 months from now, you're 4000+ might not be doing so well when stacked up against a dual core X2.

Just some food for thought.

-mpjesse
 

matermoh

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2006
17
0
18,510
It seems like there are alot of good choices out there, and I can't screw up too bad.

4000 or an X2 seems like the best from what you guys have said. Either of these will be alot faster than my Intel 3.4 Northwood. Thanks!
 

O_o

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2004
21
0
18,510
a think its wasting with money when you buy X2, if i have 350$ i ll buy opteron and overclocked it... but im still waiting for better cpu then X2
 
"Either of these will be alot faster than my Intel 3.4 Northwood. Thanks!"

I wouldn't count on that, a 3.4 NW is no slouch at too many apps...; if you are upgrading from that performance point, best get an X2 series, and even then, the difference might not seem noticeable unless you do a lot of intense multitasking.......
 

Vile

Distinguished
Jul 4, 2004
521
0
18,980
Gaming performance maxed out??? Single core 4000+ is the best option, but beware....within the next 6-12 months some games might come out multi-threaded, thus requiring a dual core CPU.

What? Are single core users going to be forced to get a dual core CPU? Or will we experience a great lose in performance?
 

endyen

Splendid
Either of these will be alot faster than my Intel 3.4 Northwood.
Only if you consider 15% to 20% more frames a lot.
Mind you if you are going to pci-express from agp, you may as well get a better chip.
You should be able to sell that woody for a good chunk of change. It is probably the best chip Intel will put out for a while.
 

HideOut

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2005
555
82
19,070
Seriously, get a Opteron 165 and a decent cooler if you can afford it, or just use retail cooler if your budget is tight. It'll still overclock to a good 2.4ghz or so per core, yeilding a FX 53 per core, but I'm sure you'll get a bit more than that. A good air cooler often will get ya upwards of 2.7ghz per core, ore more. Its gonna rock now and even more so when more apps are multithreaded.

Hide
 

k2000k

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2006
230
0
18,680
It reall depends, like everyone else says the Opteron 165 is better at overclocking than an X2. However the cheapest Opteron 165 is $328 from Newegg, while at Zipzoomfly the X2 3800 is 295. I am not an expert on overclocking, so I am not approaching it from an overclokers point of view. You could use that extra dinero saved from buying the X2 to get a sweet game, or perhapes a really good cooler which may let you OC more, maybe? I dont really know. Me, at this time I would buy the X2, but I am still new to overclocking, if I had more experience then probably the Opty.
 

matermoh

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2006
17
0
18,510
so even though the opteron 148 has a higher clock speed, the 165 is better? I'm guessing b/c there are 2 cores right?
 

avatar3k

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
244
0
18,680
The 148 may be 2.2ghz, and may be a pretty good overclocker itself, but its no dual core. It depends on what you use it for - there are many games/programs currently available that are not yet, shall i say, optimized for dual core processors. I would imagine that, certainly by the end of this year, many many more people who are buying computers now will be on dual-core systems, and that software designers will be working to put out products that take advantage of this - games included. AS somebody has already stated, when this happens, there will be little question which is the better choice.

But even now, the 165 is certainly not a bad performer in games - very, very good, in fact.

k2000k - The x2 price was dropped b/c the opteron was by far the better deal (for oc-ers) than it when they are around the same price. Even at this price, I would seriously hesitate to buy the 3800+, since I could pay about $30 more for a chip that would give me a significant boost over what the 3800 can do. (I do media processing, so I appreciate the extra speed/time saved. Others may not.)
 

HideOut

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2005
555
82
19,070
on the cheaper 3800 vs 165 opty, the opty will go higher (about 1 full CPU's worth, as in 4800 to what WOULD have been a 5200 if they made it on the 939 system) but also, it has 1MB L2 cache per core instead of only 512KB. Thats more OMPH too. Its worth it.

hide
 

avatar3k

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
244
0
18,680
I'm not incredibly crazy about the 512kb L2 vs 1MB L2 - for me it helps a bit, but many other people probably wouldn't notice it much, if at all.

I'm also not too sure about the 165 being "a full CPU's worth", assuming that I get what you mean. Without overclocking, the x2 3800 would probably be the better deal. It's only when you overclock that the 165 is comparable, if not better, than a 4800+.
 

matermoh

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2006
17
0
18,510
Okay, so the Opteron 165 will the best choice for my budget it seems. Will I see a big difference in my application speed and loading time during games? (versus my 3.4 NW) Does everyone agree it is worth the upgrade? Since it will be a free upgrade since my NW is worth $350.
 

avatar3k

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2006
244
0
18,680
If your northwood will pay for the 165, and you have/will get the required mobo/hsf, etc, and you intend to do serious overclocking on it (>2.55Ghz) then yes, the opteron is your processor. (Dun get forget to save at least enough for a 7800gt, if not the gtx.
 

RichPLS

Champion
Opteron 165=2x1.8GHz with 2x1MB cache
Opteron 170=2x2GHz with 2x1MB cache
Opteron 175=2x2.2GHz with 2x1MB cache=X2-4400
Opteron 180=2x2.4GHz with 2x1MB cache=X2-4800

X2-3800=2x2GHz with 2x512k cache