Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What Is The Best Single Core AMD 64 ??

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 6, 2006 8:44:02 AM

Hi Guys , I`m Planning To Upgrade My CPU To A Better AMD 64 , and Dont Do Multi Tasking , JUST Gaming , So I Think I Dont Need Dual Core , on The Other Hand I Cant Afford a AMD FX Series , So What is The Best CPU That I Can Buy ??
Is It Time For Upgrade or Maybe I Should Wait ... ??
Any Suggestion ?
Thanks :wink:

More about : single core amd

a b à CPUs
March 6, 2006 10:42:06 AM

Within 45 seconds and 15 keystrokes in your BIOS, you could prob squeeze out another 200-300 MHz with little difficulty, leaving you with approx. 3500+ performance....
March 6, 2006 10:46:51 AM

WOW :!: :o 
Thats Awesome , Can You Give A Little Tips About How Should I Do That ?
(Memory Timing , HTT Freq , CPU Voltage , etc )
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2006 1:33:55 PM

Disclaimer: Results vary of course from chip to chip and mainboard to mainboard, and some poor folks have indeed ruined their mainboards and/or cpus during overclocking endeavors....; MSI mainboards included, so proceed at your own risk.

The 90 nm Venice cores will usually make 2.4-2.5G without little fanfare, and your MSI PLatinum is no slouch;

Jump into BIOS, set HTT to 3x or 4x (some like my own K8N Neo4 do not seem to like the 4xHTT setting, despite it being well under 1000 MHz total, but do OK with 3x setting; I'd prob start there, alhtough technically the 4x setting should be fine up through a 250 Mhz FSB)

DDR voltage: adjust form stock 2.6V to 2.7V if you think you might be exceeding 200 MHz speeds....



NF4 voltage: Adjust from 1.4 to 1.45 or 1.5 Volts

Mem clock...

Set mem freq to manual, adjust freq downward to (depending on BIOS version) 166 MHz form it's stock 200 MHz...

CPu core voltage: change from "auto" (1.4 v) to manual, and set for 1.5V initially, you can check for stability at lower voltage points later, if mb is stable at elevated FSB levels...

Adjust fsb in core cell menu within advanced chipset features section, set for 210-215 MHz initially, and if stable in POST, Windows boot-up, and Prime95 and a few FEAR timedemos, you can then shoot for 220, 230, etc....(your mem, if set at 166 base clock, will be running back at it stock 200 MHz once you are at 234 MHz FSB; depending on your BIOS version, you might have base mem clock selections of 100, 133, 166, 200, 220, 233, and some older BIOS versions have 150 MHZ and 180 MHz base clocks available as well. I wouldn't try for much higher than 200-210 MHz unless you know your mem will handle it)

(Your cpu temp will prob jump from 40C to about 46-48C under full load, which would be fine assuming the system is stable)

With a stock 9x multiplier (can only be adjusted downwards, which is prob unnescessary for your cpu), and if you can hit 245 MHz FSB, you would be at 2.2G, and approx at 3500+ performance levels...; if your particular mb is stable at that 245 FSB, you can go upwards in FSB adjustments at your own risk, carefully monitoring cpu temps, and of course, stability during Prime95 and 3d gaming scenarios...

(many K8N Neo-4 Platinum mainboards are stable up to 280-300 MHz FSB or higher, running lower mem clocks to keep mem freq at or near 200-220 MHz; as you have 4 sticks installed, I'd prob try to keep your base clock so that it does not exceed 200-210 MHz after the OC...)

If you visit the OC /mainboard section in these forums, there are areas devoted entirely to MSI mainboards, as there are a lot of adjsutments to allow you to loosen your mem timings for an even higher FSB, although I personally prefer to simply adjust for a different ratio/base mem clock, keeping relaitvely stock timings)...


(In the event you overdo it, and have a NO POST result, do not panic, as there is a convenient BIOS reset switch on MSI mainboards which will set quickly set you back to factory defaults...)
March 6, 2006 1:35:26 PM

OK , I OverClocked My Current CPU From 1.8 To 2.2 and Its STILL Stable :twisted: But My Effort For 2.3 and 2.4 Faild ( The System Crashed In Half-Life 2)
Now Tell Me , Is My OverClocking Good Or I Should Change It ?
(CPU Voltage = 1.5 / HTT = 4X / DDR 333 at 200Mhz @2.5,3,3,7/ 244x9=2196 / Memory Voltage = Stock (2.6) / Chip Voltage = Stock (1.5) )
So Any Suggestion That Makes My OverClocking Better Would Be Greatly ThankFull :wink:
March 6, 2006 1:45:55 PM

WOW , Thank You Very Much Luminaris :twisted:
March 6, 2006 1:59:44 PM

Luminaris , I Have ONE VERY VERY BIG Problem , Maybe You Can Help Me :!:
I Dont HAVE Enough Time To Run Prime95 in 8 Hours ( Even 6 or 5 Hours )
So What Should I Do To Know Witch FSB is The Best Stable For My PC :?:
Please Help Me :cry: 
March 6, 2006 2:29:47 PM

guys he wanted the "BEST" not a 3700+

FX-57 is the best
March 6, 2006 5:17:48 PM

Pengwin Read My First Post , I Said I Dont Have Enough Money To Pay FX Series , Maybe The 3700+ Is The Best For Me , My Biggest Problem For OC is That I Dont Have Enough Time To Run Prime95 in 8 Hours ( Even 6 or 5 Hours )
So What Should I Do To Know Witch FSB is The Best Stable For My PC
Please Help Me :cry: 
March 6, 2006 5:21:22 PM

It's recommended.. if memory serves to run it 6 Hours. You can set it to run 6 hours or so while you sleep.

Dunno if that helps you out in any way. As far as testing stablity on an OC system.
March 6, 2006 5:27:18 PM

I kicked around the same idea of just getting a single core but that would be a waste of money. It would be fine for now but you will see games and windows vista will really take advantage of dual cores. You would be better off going for a DC now. Opty 165/170 would be a way better choice than any single core especially when you consider the OC potential.
March 6, 2006 5:33:34 PM

why not a opteron?


bigger L2 cache
March 6, 2006 5:51:49 PM

Thank You Guys , I Think The Opterons Are The Best Choice :D 
March 6, 2006 5:59:21 PM

yup

get an opty 177 (correct me its the cheapest single core opty)
March 6, 2006 5:59:43 PM

I Played Half-Life 2 at 1600x1200+4xAA For 2 Hours (and Same About FEAR) , System Didnt Crash Or Something ...
Does It Means That My System Is Stable @ 2.2 GHz ( Stock 1.8 GHz ) ?
I Use These Settings ( 244x9=2196 /Memory DDR333 @ 200MHz/HTT 4x/CPU Voltage 1.45 / Memory Voltage 2.6 (Stock)/NF4 Voltage 1.5/Memory @ 2.5,3,3,7) :twisted:
March 6, 2006 6:03:56 PM

not necesscarilly

i OCed my MX440 for like half a day then it started givin me probs in source

run 3dMark 06 and check
March 6, 2006 6:34:12 PM

Forget overclocking as it voids your warranty, just buy an AMD 64 4000+(San Diego) and play any game out with ease.
March 6, 2006 7:18:13 PM

This is just me so correct me if Im wrong but I think the FX-57 is the best single core AMD 64 chip but not when it comes to the price tag. I was planning to get it but I didn't have enough money so I got the X2 4400 instead.But Im glad for that dual core is great for both multitasking and gaming application. :D 
March 6, 2006 7:40:56 PM

Quote:
Forget overclocking as it voids your warranty, just buy an AMD 64 4000+(San Diego) and play any game out with ease.

That would be a stupid move. Overclocking does viod warranty but, if you're careful nothing will happen. Also, if buying a processor now, it has to be a dual core if it can fit into your budget. Future games will start needing a dual core, so it's good to be prepared.

Im not big on overclocking either, I dont care to spend alot of money on a processor just to cook it.


If you buy a processor now it DOESNT have to be dual core. Dont listen to the above.

Yes, game will soon INCLUDE the option to run on a dual core platform for better performance but it WILL NOT BE REQUIRED.

By the time games are "REQUIRED" to use dual core processors the FX-60 will be very outdated and you will be looking to buy another processor.


Dual core will add results later of course when games start taking advantage of the technology but when this happens you will find ALOT of better multi core processors on the market that will destroy the FX-60.


If you plan on keeping the PC setup for about 3 years you will be fine with a single core processor. If your gonna keep it for 5+ then I would go with a dual core.


And for an example: I bought my ATI9800 Pro 256 like 3 years ago when it first game out. No games were really able to take advantage of 256 meg of video memory then so the extra was purchased for future games.

By the time games were taking advantage of the extra memory the card was completely out dated and I might as well have waited.
March 6, 2006 7:44:07 PM

may i suggest the 152 if you can still find it or this one
March 7, 2006 12:34:38 AM

I happen to agree whole heartedly......the FX-57 is one good CPU.....imo....I like the fact that the multiplier is unlocked and it runs at 2.8ghz so it is plenty fast for the next couple of years..but since you can't afford the FX I would go with an 4000+.......as it uses the same core as the FX-53 only without unlocked multi...again my opinion..
March 7, 2006 1:37:05 AM

he snot rich he doesnt want an 800 dollar CPU
March 7, 2006 2:31:50 AM

I've heard some pretty good results from 3700+ San Diego's. Some have reported 2.8Ghz+ stable after OC on stock cooling. And I would consider it the most bang for the buck for a present day computer.
March 7, 2006 2:46:01 AM

yeah, thats the one i'm gtting, and the highest i heard it overclocked on stock cooling was 2.93ghz, and that was in a good case with good fans though.
March 7, 2006 3:57:57 PM

Thank You All :D 
But You Doesn`t Answer My Last Question Friends :cry: 
March 7, 2006 4:28:05 PM

since when is the 4000+ $800? you really should finish reading my post
:wink:
March 7, 2006 4:33:12 PM

Quote:
Thank You All :D 
But You Doesn`t Answer My Last Question Friends :cry: 


Why wait...? the problem with technology is that there is always a better mouse trap around the corner......and with that better mouse trap comes a premium price. so If you want to upgrade do it now as prices might drop a little but don't count on huge savings. zin addition 939 will be supported by amd for many months to come so there is still an upgrade path if you choose to go dual core.....this is what I think...
!