Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

[Socket 939] Upgrade Processor or Mobo?

Tags:
  • Motherboards
  • Processors
  • Product
Last response: in Motherboards
January 15, 2008 6:36:25 PM

Hello all. A first time poster so please forgive my.... newness. And please direct me to any threads that would answer my question. I wasn't quiet sure how to search this. Anyways, here it goes.

I've realized it's about time for an upgrade. My specs:

ASUSTeK Computer INC. A8N-SLI DELUXE
Western Digital WD360GD Raptor 36GB 10K RPM SATA-150 8MB hard drive
2.80 gigahertz AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
2816 Megabytes Installed Memory
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT [Display adapter] (2x)

From what I can tell my processor is the biggest thing I need to upgrade? After doing some research, its seems perhaps any upgrade to a 939 processor would almost not be worth the money. So then I'd need to change my mobo.. which would lead to A LOT of changes...

Any recommendations? Thanks in advance!

EDIT: Didn't really ask a question. Basically, would it be recommended to buy the best 939 processor I could find? Or should I just put that money towards a new mobo and start saving?

More about : socket 939 upgrade processor mobo

January 15, 2008 6:54:38 PM

A dual core Athlon is something you could consider. But finding such processor for s939 is almost impossible. The mobo is one of the best for s939, no change needed there IMO.

A more major upgrade will have to involve more components. For example you can upgrade to a DDR2 platform. You'll have to upgrade mobo, CPU and RAM only. The video cards can stay, hard drives too.
a c 80 V Motherboard
January 15, 2008 7:16:27 PM

I have a couple of 7800gt's. Get something better. You'll be glad you did. The fx57..... I'm jealous. Mine died after many years of faithful operation. It still kicks @ss and wouldn't worry too much about it.

If you decide to get a dual core, try for a 4800,4400, or one of the higher clocked server chips. ... 180/185.
Related resources
January 15, 2008 7:22:16 PM

I really appreciate the quick responses.

Sergage - I'm assuming from the context that DDR2 platform means a whole new mobo and everything that comes with it? I wouldn't even know where to begin to look at motherboards.

Swifty - Hmm, I know 3dmarks said that my graphics set up was a bit lower than an "optimum" system. I've read the 8800gt has been getting good reviews for the price. Jealous of the fx57? The 3dmarks test said it was significantly less powerful than suggested. Is it just because it's stable? 180/185? Opteron?
January 15, 2008 7:23:01 PM

How Much Money do you have?

You will need new RAM - $40 for 2gb of DDR2800
New Mobo - $90
CPU - $80

Looks like about $210 for a minimum to upgrade to a better system.
January 15, 2008 7:23:59 PM

I have a very similar system:

ASUS A8N-E
WD Raptor X 150GB
AMD X2-4200 Oc'd to 2.6ghz
2048MB Corsair ValueRAM
EVGA nVidia 7800GT

I recently upgraded this system a bit with a 8800GTS 512 G92.

My 3dmark06 score is about 9500.
The CPU portion of my score was 1700.

You can rum 3dmark06 as well to compare scores.

Also, Tomshardware gives the FX-57 a 3dmark06 CPU score of 1103.

So yes, a dual core proc could help. But it will still be the limiting factor.

The archilles heel is that the X2 4200 939 proc is very hard to find.

So yea, new mobo, CPU and memory is probably in order. :( 

January 15, 2008 7:31:41 PM

I would say it depends on what you do with your computer, whether or not it need an upgrade. If you just play games COD4, UT3..etc.. a nice new 8800GT will do wonders for you. Upgrading to an Opteron 180 or 185 will also give you some improvements. As long as you are running your video games at 12X10 or above your current processor should do just fine.
There is no such thing as your CPU bottlenecking your video card at those resolutions or above. I will be able to use my current 939 system to play all of the latest games for at least another 1-2 years with near max quality.
January 15, 2008 7:32:07 PM

I don't think you need to change the video cards. If you have two 7800GT's like you said you do, look into SLI boards when upgrading the whole system. Two 7800GT's in SLI should do a decent job eliminating the need to upgrade GPUs.

By saying DDR2 platform I meant the trinity: CPU, motherboard and RAM. Those three are the only things you need to upgrade in order to switch to DDR2, IMHO. The rest depends on how much greens you're willing to spend.
a c 542 V Motherboard
January 15, 2008 7:38:19 PM

I'd have to agree with the others. If you can drop in an Opteron 180, you should be good to go.

-Wolf sends
January 15, 2008 7:39:06 PM

There is no point in putting anymore money into that system with components that are already obsolete. The FX-57 had its day a long time ago. Your graphics cards are old and easily outpaced by single midrange gpu's like the 3870 and 8800gt. Ignore 3d mark it means nothing. If you find that your system feels slow then upgrade if you think the performance is fine then don't bother.

Long story short if you are going to upgrade you will need a new cpu, mobo, ram, gpu and probably a new PSU.
January 15, 2008 7:45:05 PM

I agree with gpippas. that system is not worth putting any more money into. You can do a pretty nice dual core upgrade for about $400-500 depending on GPU/CPU. A nice gigabyte MoBo will run about $90. A quad core solution like the Q6600 will be a bit more since the cpu itself is almost $300
January 15, 2008 7:49:31 PM

brett_monkey said:

There is no such thing as your CPU bottlenecking your video card at those resolutions or above. I will be able to use my current 939 system to play all of the latest games for at least another 1-2 years with near max quality.


I have heard this a few times now, and it just doesnt make sense to me at all, based on my experience. Are you aware of any articles regarding CPU bottlenecks that may help me understand this concept better? I think it would help the OP as well?

Thanks!
:bounce: 
a c 80 V Motherboard
January 15, 2008 7:54:50 PM

what I said and what Brettmonkey said................. A great video card will "make" that machine.

I don't look at the 3dmark anything. I go by what I have in my hand and by what the different systems do with what's in them......... as I use them.

Yes, I do like the fx57. I recently gave my nephew a box with a 3700 in it. i miss it badly. Used that machine all the time and it was my favorite. No stumbles no nothing. I do have higher end machines, but rarely plug them in. No need except for work or gaming.

the guy about the 7800gt's in sli........ they suck. you can't play rainbowsix vegas, crysis or any other really demanding game on those cards....... unless you play at 800x600. then you wouldn't want to because of the clarity.... and he is playing at 1600 res. The 7800's don't play nice there.
January 15, 2008 7:57:03 PM

I have the same mobo minus the deluxe... I also have a 4600+ X2 that runs just fine.... however if I had a single core like your I wouldnt even consider upgrading to the proc that I have or even a 4800+ brisbane or venice (which ever one is 939) just because that would cost $50 that is not worth it.
I would keep what you have a wait on any upgrade. With the set up that you have now I bet you play high end graphics games like Crysis just fine and medium-high settings. It wouldnt be worth it to upgrade to anything this year. I would wait until there is true competition in the microproccessor market and until DDR3 memory is cheaper. Right now you would probably be going from a solid 9000 score on 3Dmark06 to a 15000 score for $1500... not worth it IMO. However if you can find a used FX-60 for under $50 that would be a good upgrade. But I wouldnt spend all that money just for a moderate upgrade.
January 15, 2008 8:06:40 PM

I think I may have to disagree with one aspect of your statement hughyhunter.

I get a 3dmark06 score of 9500

BUT Crysis is playable only at low settings.
Resolution is native 1680 x 1050.

Specs:
ASUS A8N-E
AMD X2-4200 Oc'd to 2.6ghz
EVGA 8800GTS 512 G92 (800/2100)
WD Raptor X 150GB
2048MB Corsair ValueRAM (2.5 CAS)
January 15, 2008 8:19:01 PM

Wait a second... Crysis is only playable at low settings?

I think not. I have a slight larger proc than you o'cd to 2.74 and 2 gigs of low lat mem too... although i am running 2t command rate... Anyhow I have a 8800GT 512 o'c from the factory to 640. I am getting a solid 9300 on 3dmark with those settings and on windows xp home 32 bit I play crysis with everthing jacked up AA 4x at the same 1680x1050 res and I get a SOLID 40 FPS.

So if you think that Crysis isnt playable at those settings than something is wrong with your rig... if you are running Vista I can understand if you are getting about 10% less performance but now more.
January 15, 2008 8:25:41 PM

Wow. Thanks for all the replies! I definitely didn't expect so many, so fast.

Basically... right now I could probably scrape together $500 for upgrades. It almost sounds like just gutting "the trinity" as it was put would be better, especially since I can throw a little money at it. Of course, that just leads to all the research on mobos, etc.

Finally, I picked up a..

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/pr...

Which I believe wants me to run 1920 x 1200. I'm assuming this is extremely taxing for my computers specs.

Finally, I've never been much for the absolute high end settings on games. What I have always prefered was medium/medium-high settings flawless. I don't need the absolute best.

Guess I got a lot of research to do now.
January 15, 2008 8:29:09 PM

hughyhunter said:
Wait a second... Crysis is only playable at low settings?

I think not. I have a slight larger proc than you o'cd to 2.74 and 2 gigs of low lat mem too... although i am running 2t command rate... Anyhow I have a 8800GT 512 o'c from the factory to 640. I am getting a solid 9300 on 3dmark with those settings and on windows xp home 32 bit I play crysis with everthing jacked up AA 4x at the same 1680x1050 res and I get a SOLID 40 FPS.

So if you think that Crysis isnt playable at those settings than something is wrong with your rig... if you are running Vista I can understand if you are getting about 10% less performance but now more.



Aw crud, thats not what I wanted to hear.

I am running Vista x64. Only 10% dif though huh? :pfff: 

I have new drivers, clean OS, with all eye candy disabled. Wonder if I need that X2 Core driver thing from AMDs website...hmm.
January 15, 2008 8:37:15 PM

What is the performance of Crysis like on you comp rallyimprezive? With Fraps running on my rig I am averaging 40. All eye candy on... but you may not get that good of performance with 64 bit vista. I Remember an article from Toms talking about running 2 8800GTXs in SLI at max settings on 32 bit OS Vista and averaging 15 FPS.

ARe you running game and ultra high (this option is not available for XP users)? If you are I can understand why you are not getting that great of performance on your rig. But if you reduce the settings as to what it would be on xp (high) then you should be able to run game with no prob... I cant imagine that having 64 bit OS makes that much of a difference. They say that new 1.1 patch is supposed to help but it doesnt seem that way. Did you download it yet?
January 15, 2008 8:44:25 PM

Dual / Quad cores will probably get cheaper now that the newer generation is to be released, and we can hope the same for the nVidia GPUs, with the 9800 being released soon.

I have an AMD 64 3500+, ONE 7800 GT and 2 GB of crappy DDR-RAM (should I mention that I have four sticks, three different brands of sticks and three different timings, as well as two of them being DDR400 and the other two DDR 333) and I am considering an upgrade.

I'm about to order the same Dell monitor this month and I have a feeling that I'm going to need something in the direction of a miracle to get anything running.

Heh, I've been playing Crysis with everything on low and it barely runs, I feel like I'm on the wrong forum.
January 15, 2008 8:50:29 PM

I downloaded and ran the 3DMark06 test. I score was 4378. I noticed during the CPU phase it was 0 frames per second. My poor computer can't handle it.

Anyways, thanks for the help all.
January 15, 2008 8:54:44 PM

hughyhunter said:
What is the performance of Crysis like on you comp rallyimprezive? With Fraps running on my rig I am averaging 40. All eye candy on... but you may not get that good of performance with 64 bit vista. I Remember an article from Toms talking about running 2 8800GTXs in SLI at max settings on 32 bit OS Vista and averaging 15 FPS.

ARe you running game and ultra high (this option is not available for XP users)? If you are I can understand why you are not getting that great of performance on your rig. But if you reduce the settings as to what it would be on xp (high) then you should be able to run game with no prob... I cant imagine that having 64 bit OS makes that much of a difference. They say that new 1.1 patch is supposed to help but it doesnt seem that way. Did you download it yet?



I will need to get you framerates to verify. But it sucks.

All settings are on LOW, with AA OFF, and its jerky.

I even tried going to factory clock speeds on EVERYTHING. CPU, GPU, memory, timings, etc...and it seemed to have very little affect.

I will install 1.1 tonight along with the AMD X2 driver timing software.

All other games are fine, by the way, COD4, Unreal 3 Tourney, Supreme Commander, AOE 3, World in Conflict, all great at higher settings.
January 15, 2008 10:12:08 PM

Nosyt said:
Finally, I picked up a..

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/pr...

Which I believe wants me to run 1920 x 1200. I'm assuming this is extremely taxing for my computers specs.


What do you mean "it wants you to". Of course you're aware that you dont have to run an LCD on it's native resolution.
January 15, 2008 11:24:54 PM

Aye, I do know that. Ideally I would love to run everything at 1920x1200 but I'm quickly seeing that I probably won't be able to for awhile.
January 16, 2008 8:33:57 AM

rallyimprezive said:
I think I may have to disagree with one aspect of your statement hughyhunter.

I get a 3dmark06 score of 9500

BUT Crysis is playable only at low settings.
Resolution is native 1680 x 1050.

Specs:
ASUS A8N-E
AMD X2-4200 Oc'd to 2.6ghz
EVGA 8800GTS 512 G92 (800/2100)
WD Raptor X 150GB
2048MB Corsair ValueRAM (2.5 CAS)


hughyhunter wrote:
Quote:
Wait a second... Crysis is only playable at low settings?

I think not. I have a slight larger proc than you o'cd to 2.74 and 2 gigs of low lat mem too... although i am running 2t command rate... Anyhow I have a 8800GT 512 o'c from the factory to 640. I am getting a solid 9300 on 3dmark with those settings and on windows xp home 32 bit I play crysis with everthing jacked up AA 4x at the same 1680x1050 res and I get a SOLID 40 FPS.

So if you think that Crysis isnt playable at those settings than something is wrong with your rig... if you are running Vista I can understand if you are getting about 10% less performance but now more.



Now you can see why 3d mark scores are completetly irrelavant. They show nothing about real gameplay.

hughyhunter your 3d mark is actually a little lower than it should be using XP. I know you say that you are running all settings on high with 4x AA at 40fps but seeing as almost every reviewer can barely get an 8800 ultra to run those settings with the fastest cpu's I think your overexagerating.

rallyimprezive your system is underperforming. Even though its vista. Sounds more like you havn't got the latest drivers. Also try the crysis patch 1.1.
a c 1528 V Motherboard
January 16, 2008 11:26:39 AM

To OP the link below is to a opty 185 it is dual core and equal to FX60 except it has locked multiplier. This would be the best upgrade for you CPU wise but you would get more out of upgrading your GPU to 8800gt-gts.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
a c 80 V Motherboard
January 16, 2008 12:20:14 PM

The thing you want to pay attention to for gaming when you upgrade from a single core CPU to a dual core is the speed. If you go from a 2.8ghz single core processor to a 2.6ghz dual core, the only games that are going to see much improvement are the ones that are optimized for a dual core processor, any other games are not going to show much improvement. The dual core will "smooth" out your gameplay on a game that is not dual core optimized, but going from your FX57 to say a 4200 X2 is going to leave you disappointed and feeling like you invested money needlessly, in everything except probably Crysis.
As for the processor score in 3Dmark06, even the fastest processors, will only get about 3 fps. My 4600x2 at 2.8ghz will only score 1fps. At 3ghz it will sometimes hit 2fps.
If you want to go dual core, and I am not saying you should not, they are much better, but be sure to get something that will clock at least as fast as your current processor.
a c 220 V Motherboard
January 16, 2008 12:24:57 PM

I think a lot will depend on your budget. If it is limited, and not likely to grow much, then putting $59 into a dual-core S939 chip like this one:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Manchester 2.0GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket 939 89W Dual-Core Processor - OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

...will make a difference. You'll offload lots of background crap and really smooth out your gameplay. Even though maximum frame rate may not change [much], the minimum frame rate almost certainly will, reducing or even eliminating stutter. Note that this is an OEM chip, so it won't come with a cooler. You can probably re-use the one you have, provided you clean off the thermal paste and re-apply new paste.
Yes, you will need to load the AMD multicore driver, available from their web site (or Google for it). A Windows re-install should not be needed.
If, otoh, your budget allows a more substantial upgrade, there is no reason to spend this $59. With a limited budget, you may still want AMD, but you'll get best performance these days with Intel. Please tell us your budget.
I don't have Crysis, so I can't comment on that, but have the general impression that SLI / Crossfire aren't worthwhile. Once again, it will depend on your budget, but a single good card will perform better than your pair of old 7800GTs.
Another thought on performance. Assuming that 36GB Raptor is the only drive in your system, how full is it? If it is so full that Windows can't maintain a decent swap file, you'll take a serious performance hit.
Also, what is your RAM configuration?
a b V Motherboard
January 16, 2008 12:26:36 PM

hughyhunter said:
Wait a second... Crysis is only playable at low settings?

I think not. I have a slight larger proc than you o'cd to 2.74 and 2 gigs of low lat mem too... although i am running 2t command rate... Anyhow I have a 8800GT 512 o'c from the factory to 640. I am getting a solid 9300 on 3dmark with those settings and on windows xp home 32 bit I play crysis with everthing jacked up AA 4x at the same 1680x1050 res and I get a SOLID 40 FPS.

So if you think that Crysis isnt playable at those settings than something is wrong with your rig... if you are running Vista I can understand if you are getting about 10% less performance but now more.


sorry i don't buy your crysis fps. ultra's and gtx's can't breach a solid 40fps even when running quad core cpu's...and again your 3dmark is a hair low you might want to check your drivers and/or background tasks. point is its even more hard to swallow your getting frame rates that sli barely allows for (and then not SOLID as you put it)and your 3dmark is not up to snuff? i bet you have some great fishing stories.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/20/crysis_sli/
http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/16/crysis_demo_vs_f...



January 16, 2008 5:59:12 PM

This is going to have to be proved then... I do get a solid 40 FPS in Crysis... I think one thing that you have to remember is that i'm running windows xp not vista. I dont have the option to run "ultra high" settings like you can on Vista. The people that are running SLI GTXs are running it on Vista on ultra high settings... makes a huge difference considering DX10 is utilized and another step in settings. So I dont think that I could be exaggerating about my performance in Crysis... later on tonight I will post a screen shot with FRAPs in the background.

Also how are you all to say that my 3Dmark06 score is too low. I have a 4600+ X2 and 8800GT. At stock speeds on all I was getting 8500 but overclocked to the moon I was at 9993. That was with an unstable (barly passing) overclock of 2.94 and GPU set to 730/1000. I thought that was a pretty good score but I may be wrong... show me a comparable system that get's higher scores than that.
January 16, 2008 6:00:02 PM

Oh... by the way... I suck at fishing!
January 16, 2008 6:37:13 PM

hughyhunter

I've done some research and I stand corrected about the 3d mark yours is fine. I didn't realise our A64's were starting to show there age in junk like 3d mark. I have a skt 939 4800x2@stock or max OC 2.93ghz if needed.

TBH I still think your exagerating your Crysis fps. But as I have shown I'm willing to be proved wrong. It will also make me feel better about my old girl, especially when I get a 3870 soon. So prove me wrong.
January 16, 2008 6:55:29 PM

Click on my advitar to get my system specs...socket 939 rules.
This is one of seven I have for my home LAN and they play all games just fine.
When I bought the parts I paid $70 for the OEM Optrons and got a deal on the 7900GT for $180 each...the PSU I use cost a bit less than the GFX and CPU added together!

Moveing from an FX to an Optron and useing DDR-500 ram will be faster even without overclocking the RAM and less power hungry.
Many people run Optron dual cores @ 3Ghz on stock volts and I myself have built such systems for people.

In memory tests my system gets higher Read/Write/Copy scores than the fastest DDR2 ram that Corsair/OCZ sales for about $600 a set...and with a T1 command rate and 1:1 ratio.

Change out the CPU and Ram and use everything else you still have.
a b V Motherboard
January 16, 2008 6:59:56 PM

4 hughly:

first off i checked on 3dmark and gpippas is right. your not as far off score as i thought. my bad there. though did look into crysis benchies of the dx9 flavor. while one site i found got close to but still short of your 40 fps they did it at a lower resolution 1280x1024. so again i think your strectching a bit. though its nice to see someone feel "solid" about there machine in crysis, i still think your reaching. sorry.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1234/18/page_18_bench...
January 16, 2008 7:16:26 PM

Alright... I will give Crysis a shot tonight and see if I wasnt "imagining 40 FPS". I do remember however that the settings were all on High, AA 4x, 1680x1050.

I also remember the only time my frame rates dropped substantially was during the movies at the beginning and one in the middle. Also when I tried playing multiplayer (only tried once for 10 minutes) I got horrible choppiness but wasnt running Fraps to see what frame rates were... I figured it was internet connection because it doesnt do that during single player mode.

We'll see tonight what my rig is doing. I'll post screen shot while i'm running around.
January 16, 2008 8:03:35 PM

atomicWAR said:
sorry i don't buy your crysis fps. ultra's and gtx's can't breach a solid 40fps even when running quad core cpu's...and again your 3dmark is a hair low you might want to check your drivers and/or background tasks. point is its even more hard to swallow your getting frame rates that sli barely allows for (and then not SOLID as you put it)and your 3dmark is not up to snuff? i bet you have some great fishing stories.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/20/crysis_sli/
http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/16/crysis_demo_vs_f...


I agree homey....
January 16, 2008 8:06:29 PM

A solid 40fps..nah... looking up at fraps every once in awhile and seeing a 40 for a second or two is what you meant...right? =)
January 16, 2008 8:09:35 PM

Here is my 2 cents worth. I have the same mobo but premium edition and a pair of 7800 GT in SLI as well. I upgraded from a 4000+ to a opty 180 about 1 year ago. I wanted to fulfill my original intent of an upgrade path with my 1 year old socket 939. Anyway I asked the same question as you are now. But one thing you need to remember was that memory was about 3 - 5x the cost it is today. At this point in time I think your best bet is to build a new system. Heck the MOBO, Mem, and a good core 2 duo processor will cost you about what I paid for the Opty. About $300.00.
At the same time I upgraded to my opty I also built a new Core 2 duo for my desk at work w/ a SFF it is sweet! And just last month since memory is so cheap I took one of our old Dell boxes put in a Power supply, MOBO, and some sticks and found a use for that great 4000+. It is kicking all the other 5 + year old dell systems. :D 
I figure my opty and current cards will last me 1 more year then I build new again. So far it is handling everything quite well but I have a 19" monitor so I run 12x10.
Anyway best of luck.
January 16, 2008 8:49:29 PM

lol i paid 650 for my 4800 back in the day at frys electronics
January 16, 2008 8:51:00 PM

Sorry to have hijacked this thread as there are now multiple discussions under one thread. Those who are offering advise to me, please keep an eye out, I will start my own thread.
January 17, 2008 5:17:42 AM

Alright... for those who are still interested.

My wife and I sat down for some slumber Crysis graphic party and to my dissmay and huge dissapointment... I am not getting 40 FPS. In fact the closest I saw to 40 was 38 and that was when looking at the ground running or a wall of rocks when walking.

During the movie at the beginning of the show I get about 15 on average... then at night I get a whopping 12... Had my wife tell me what I was getting when I was in a fire fight and I got about 12-15 she said.

Once day light broke I was averaging about 20-25 for the rest of my play time. I guess I was totally off with 40 but 20-25 at day looking at distance and near plus firefights is alright for me. Very playable and no jitters and no choppiness.

My settings are 1680x1050 (all stock clocks for system) with AA 4x, all settings high.

On Vista I probably wouldnt see high settings... I would be on medium with that performance. I think with a nice overclock though I would be close to 30.
a b V Motherboard
January 17, 2008 6:25:46 AM

thanks for taking the time to debunk your crysis scores. and for whats its worth i am sorry your not getting a stable 40, cause if u were i would have u screen shot of your processes and clone your booted machine as best i could via task manager. your scoring about what i get on my machine it sounds like...which is more realistic as we are spec fairly similary. should try running the dx10 hack on dx9. when i did it it cost me about 5-8 fps but the visuals are stunningly better.

hey rallyim, sorry we high jacked your thread, wasn't intentional just got away from us after hearing the crysis fps. any who back to your needs. if were you i would wait for the 790i to hit the market then ponder an upgrade to an intel chip if u r needing sli....or possibley wait for the b3 stepping see where amd performance is headed long term and by then the 790a will be out, or the spider platform will have matured enough to know how it holds up in real world preformance...i am speced close to you and doing the same myself, kinda in a holding pattern now to see what happens in the next few weeks. already done a few "vitual" builds on newegg i am getting to anxious to upgrade.
January 17, 2008 10:49:56 AM

hughyhunter

Thankyou for the info. I'm still keeping my skt 4800x2 regardless of any benchies. I have a policy of not upgrading until my computer feels slow. At the moment it still doesn't really get bogged down with anything. Which brings me onto the OP.

Nosyt

Sorry for hijacking the thread just got a little off track. Like I already said ignore 3d mark it means nothing. If you want to make yourself feel better run 3d mark 05 or 03 even instead of 06. If your computer feels sluggish to you then it might be time to upgrade. If not keep it.

As for upgrading you system your better off getting a full upgrade. New mobo, ram, cpu can be had for like $300. I paid $400 for my 4800x2 alone. Someone else said they paid $600. My best advice is don't invest in a dead system unless the components can be used again. i.e HDD, PSU, GPU.
a c 80 V Motherboard
January 17, 2008 11:32:33 AM

Jeesh guys, I paid $170 for my 4600 x2 on sale at Fry's a little over a year ago. They may be pretty hard to find at that price now though, if you can even find them. Try eBay.
January 17, 2008 2:02:02 PM

atomicWAR said:
thanks for taking the time to debunk your crysis scores. and for whats its worth i am sorry your not getting a stable 40, cause if u were i would have u screen shot of your processes and clone your booted machine as best i could via task manager. your scoring about what i get on my machine it sounds like...which is more realistic as we are spec fairly similary. should try running the dx10 hack on dx9. when i did it it cost me about 5-8 fps but the visuals are stunningly better.


Where can I find that DX10 hack?

You are running an SLI set up right? You should be exceding my system at least by 50%. What settings are you running Crysis at?

I agree with everyones advice to the original poster. If you arent having a hard time running your favorite game titles and decent settings than you are really just throwing money into the fire by upgrading. It's call premature upgrading. It's actually a condition that there is not cure for... what happens is Intel and AMD flood the market with "marketable" chips and then we as consumers feel that we have to have them for some odd reason... like we cant live without a Q6600 or something. Well that's the case for so many of us and we just have to fight the urge and temptation until something comes out that we "truly have to have"... that should be in a few months time... Or when a game comes out like Crysis that we are all like "gosh *()&^ it!"
January 17, 2008 3:49:33 PM

hughyhunter said:
Where can I find that DX10 hack?

You are running an SLI set up right? You should be exceding my system at least by 50%. What settings are you running Crysis at?

I agree with everyones advice to the original poster. If you arent having a hard time running your favorite game titles and decent settings than you are really just throwing money into the fire by upgrading. It's call premature upgrading. It's actually a condition that there is not cure for... what happens is Intel and AMD flood the market with "marketable" chips and then we as consumers feel that we have to have them for some odd reason... like we cant live without a Q6600 or something. Well that's the case for so many of us and we just have to fight the urge and temptation until something comes out that we "truly have to have"... that should be in a few months time... Or when a game comes out like Crysis that we are all like "gosh *()&^ it!"


Good way to put. So true. Especially here on the forums. I've had my system for about 2-3 years (so long ago I don't actually remember) and like I said it still doesn't seem to struggle. Thats why I keep it at stock so I have some headroom for the future. Upgrading for a single game is crazy. The amount of threads we used to have on here asking if this "will play crysis max settings" when nobody new anything about it. At least upgrading to a q6600 gives them a couple of extra cores. Some of the people on here upgrade for like an extra 200mhz.
January 17, 2008 4:37:48 PM

Ok, since this thread is still somewhat OT on Crysis talk.

I am happy now.

I decreased the clock on my 8800GTS 512 to 700/1000.
I installed the Crysis 1.1 patch
I installed the Vista nvidia hotfixes
I installed the AMD X2 timing driver.

Now, with medium settings and 2xFSAA (x64 executable) the crysis bench is showing 32.45fps average across 3 loops with a max of ~40fps and min of 19fps.

Motion blur is turned on 50% by the way, and it is a truely excellent visual affect. That alone makes the gameplay dramatically more immersive.

So anyway, not bad for Vista x64 really. IM done hijacking.
January 18, 2008 9:22:16 AM

rallyimprezive said:
Ok, since this thread is still somewhat OT on Crysis talk.

I am happy now.

I decreased the clock on my 8800GTS 512 to 700/1000.
I installed the Crysis 1.1 patch
I installed the Vista nvidia hotfixes
I installed the AMD X2 timing driver.

Now, with medium settings and 2xFSAA (x64 executable) the crysis bench is showing 32.45fps average across 3 loops with a max of ~40fps and min of 19fps.

Motion blur is turned on 50% by the way, and it is a truely excellent visual affect. That alone makes the gameplay dramatically more immersive.

So anyway, not bad for Vista x64 really. IM done hijacking.


What is the Crysis bench? I've heard that before but have yet to see what it is. How do you hack a DX10 while running DX9.

Those are great scores considering... Are you running a SLI config?
a b V Motherboard
January 18, 2008 11:34:19 AM

http://www.crysis-online.com/?id=449

just make sure you back up your files as you need to over write the cvargroups file. there some directions on the link. use high setting after you have installed the hack and it will actually be very high settings. the link explains this to some degree. anyways hope you enjoy it.

to answer your hunter, yes i am running sli but i beat the game before the new patch that supposed boosted the frame rate in sli and quad core some. plus i game at 1920x1080 though i only used 2x smoothing and it was very taxing even with sli. i got around 20-25 fps even sometimes as high as the low thirties then would dip to 10-17 if i got to a large area of map showing or the action got really intense. since ur playing at a lower res you should get better results. at the very least its just neat to see how how pretty crysis can be.