i just talked to the guy a few minutes ago and he said its ddr2 1066 not ddr2 800. so that was my error. i also asked him about the error on the cpu and he said he has not had any problem with running visita 64-bit or windows 7 and wrose case i will jsut get a phenom II and put it in there
also it will tie me over because then i can save some cash and put a phenom II 920 in there
That AMD setup for $100 is good, but that CPU like buzznut told has some issues...It would run warmer than your Core2 and actually in games would run slower than your Core2...
If I were you, I would save my self some money now and just get the HD 4870 1GB...Later you can easily get a good AM3/ AM2+ mobo for about $70 + $50 for a decent 4GB DDR2/ DDR3 RAM and then go full fledged...
Gkay and I are thinking along the same lines. What you have right now isn't that bad, you just need a better video card and more ram. (1GB???) Buy a good 4GB DDR2-800 kit for ~$50, and a new video card. That should get you going. Overclock your current CPU if you need to. This should get you going for the next year or two, assuming you aren't looking for 100% maxed out gaming.
At stock speeds the 9500 would prove faster simply due to the faster RAM and running it in dual channel. That motherboard and RAM are worth it though if you pair it with something like a phenom II 720 BE.
i mean honestly i keep getting mixxed up reviews about what i have and the phenom 9500. i was going to put a phenom ii in later but i dont know now that i think about it. i have tried to look on google to compare it but i am unable to find it
how much slower is the phenom 9500 to the c2d e6420?
i mean honestly i keep getting mixed up reviews about what i have and the phenom 9500. i was going to put a phenom ii in later but i don't know now that i think about it. i have tried to look on google to compare it but i am unable to find it
It really depends on the program you are running and how many threads it can use.
In truly multi-threaded apps, the slower quad core 9500 will take the lead over the faster dual core E6420.
In general though, a single Phenom I core is about 15% slower than a single Core 2 core when both are clocked at the same speed.
If you disable the L3 cache to correct the TLB bug, it will be even slower compared to the Core 2 arch.
Even with a large advantage in multi-threaded apps, the 9500 will not necessarily be much faster once you factor in overclocking.
First generation Phenom CPU's are very pore overclockers.
You have to be very lucky to break the 3Ghz barrier and still be stable.
Your current Intel CPU, however, is an extremely capable overclocker.
As you have already seen, it is easily capable of 3.2Ghz even when running under stock voltage.
With a capable motherboard, and a little work, you should be able to fairly safely push it into the 3.6Ghz range.
The pure speed difference alone will make up most of the performance differences between the two CPU's.
This changes somewhat when you consider upgrading to a Phenom II CPU.
The second generation Phenom CPU has largely taken up the gap between the older Phenom CPU's and Intel's Core 2 arch.
Now it roughly matches Intel's Core 2 Quad offerings in both clock for clock performance and overclocking.
So, if you did upgrade the 9500 for a PII, you would be in pretty good shape.
With the above information in mind, though, why not just get an Intel Core 2 Quad when the need for speed arises?
In the end it will cost you less, and perform about the same, as any price advantage from the Phenom II will be overtaken by the cost of the new platform.
...now i believe my high vcore was because my ram cant be o/ced to 800 from 667 because it is basic ram. because at 1333 i only need 1.2000v...
...Also what ram should i go with i say G.skill 4gb ddr2 1066 for $39 on a forum i was looking at is that worth it?
also is there a huge difference between the xfx 4850 512mb and xfx 4870?
I was also thinking of picking up a Evga 8800GTS and do the step-up to a GTX 260 or GTX 275?
Do not worry to much about such a low Vcore or the droop.
As Intel's Specs say it is safe to run it at up to 1.5v, with proper cooling, you are still way in the green.
This does not mean, however, that you should pore on the voltage.
It is always better to run your CPU at the lowest stable voltage for your overclock.
Also, the speed of the RAM has no bearing on the required voltage of the CPU.
They are completly seperated here.
There is no performance difference between DDR2 800 and 1066.
The only real advantage you will have with DDR2 1066 would be when you are overclocking past a 450Mhz FSB.
That being said, if there is only a few $ difference between a DDR2 800 4Gb kit and a DDR2 1066 4Gb kit, by all means get the faster one.
There will roughly be a 20% performance difference between a 4850 and a 4870.
If you can fit it into your budget, defiantly get a 4870 with a 1Gb version being preferred.
I would not get an EVGA 8800GTS and expect to be able to step it up to a GTX 260.
Not sure exactly how their step up system works but I would assume it would not be possible to do it as you think.
Also, the direct step up from an 8800GTS 512Mb would be a 9800GTX, which performs about the same as the 4850.
do you think i could hit the 450fsb barrier because i am getting a XIGMATEK HDT-RS1283 120mm CPU Cooler for $30 shipped or should i get retail. and yeah there is only a $25 differnce between the 4850 and 4870. but i am going with xfx for the overclock like madd warranty and double lifetime warranty
So i think i can hit the 450fsb barrier with this cpu. because i am only at 1.3625 at 3.2 so i think i can do it.
see for some reason when i overclock the fsb to 400 it atuo put my ram to ddr 2 800 from 667 and i have cheap ram : X
I think the CPU could run at 450Mhz FSB but I am not sure about the motherboard.
The past few generations of Intel chipsets have been very good at overclocking but your motherboard is a budget model.
The best I can recommend it to try it and see how far you get.
If there is only a $25 difference between the 4850 and 4870, I would consider it $25 well spent.
As for the RAM, what you describe is just what is supposed to happen.
Your RAM is running at a ratio to your FSB with the minimum possible ratio being 1:1, FSB:RAM.
As it is DDR RAM (Double Data Rate) its true clock speed is 1/2 what it reads.
IE, your DDR2 667 RAM really runs at 333Mhz and when the FSB has been overclocked to 400Mhz the minimum possible speed for the RAM is 800Mhz (2x400Mhz).
Why DDR2 1066 might be better for overclocking past 450Mhz FSB (min. 900Mhz for the RAM) is that it is certified to run at 1066Mhz.
This is helpful if your DDR2 800 is not able to overclock that far.