Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Processor for a new comp

Processor for a new comp

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - Processor for a new comp

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
Thraka   02-23-2004 at 11:36:09 AM

I am going to build my first comp soon and I am having a bit of trouble deciding on which CPU to use. All I am likely to sue this comp for is gaming, net surfing and music/movie playing. I don't know much about overclocking so that isn't a big issue...but i may consider it in the future. Right now i have a P4 2.8 with the 800 mhz bus slotted in. I hear the Athlon 64's are really good for gaming and in the THG article they seem to beat the P4's in the gaming benchmarks in all the tests except the directX 9 one.

This is the whole list of parts I have put together off of NewEgg. I would welcome any feedback on it.
http://secure.newegg.com/app/WishL [...] &ID=624324

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
Snorkius   02-23-2004 at 12:49:20 PM
- 0 +

The 2.8c is plenty good as it is. Whay would you want to change it?

A long long time ago, but I can still remember, how that music used to make me smile... <A HREF="http://www.nexus.hu/zonix/DIGGER.MID" target="_new"><b><font color=blue>Digger rulz</font color=blue></b></A>

Reply to Snorkius
Coop   02-23-2004 at 02:15:55 PM
- 0 +

Athlon64 3000+ - 3200+ - 3400+
Depends of how much money you want to spend.
the A64 3000+ is faster in games as the P4 3.2GHz, so now you have a indication haw fast it is :)
But read some reviews(not on this site, this site is intel bias)

Besides the A64 runs very cool and is future ready...


Toms Hardware Site is a joke !

Reply to Coop
TheRod   02-23-2004 at 02:32:39 PM
- 0 +

Games = AMD Athlon 64

Your best buy is A64, they kick ass in games and you will get more than sufficient performance in audio and video.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

Reply to TheRod
P4Man   02-23-2004 at 03:35:58 PM
- 0 +

WHy upgrade ? If you're machine isnt fast enough for current games,you probably just need a better videocard. I don't see the point of upgrading to a 10% faster cpu.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Reply to P4Man
Thraka   02-23-2004 at 04:49:39 PM
- 0 +

My current PC has P3 850. The P4 2.8 is what i was going to upgrade to =). It was a bit late when I posted so i didn't make that real clear. My biggest concern about getting an A64 chip is that it didn't seem as fast with DirectX 9 according to the Machine test done here. I don't want to get my new rig and have it be slow with the new games.

Reply to Thraka
pitsi   02-23-2004 at 04:55:32 PM
- 0 +

Do not upgrade. That's the best advice I can give you. Even if you have the money and don't know what to do with it, it still doesn't make sense to upgrade right now from a 2.8c to anything! I don't know about others but that wish list is empty for me. Anyway, the only thing I would suggest you to get since you are a gamer is a Radeon 9800 Pro (if you don't already have one) and maybe faster memory for overclocking your CPU to ~3.4GHz (at which point you will deffinetely not be in need for an upgrade). Don't let the word "overclocking" frighten you, it is very easy nowadays to overclock a CPU, especially the one you currently have.

Reply to pitsi
TheRod   02-23-2004 at 06:04:54 PM
- 0 +

Check this :
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956&p=18" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956&p=18</A>
<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/prescott-tests_3.html" target="_new">http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/prescott-tests_3.html</A>
<A HREF="http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/prescott-13.html" target="_new">http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/prescott-13.html</A>

I don't see anywhere we can tell the A64 get beaten by Intel CPU's. What we see in most DX9 banchmarks, is that the GPU is the bottleneck. In most bench, A64 are competitive with P4C/E.

PRICE (www.pricewatch.com):
A64 3000+ : 206$
A64 3200+ : 251$
A64 3400+ : 403$
P4 2.8GHz : 171$
P4 3.0GHz : 213$
P4 3.2GHz : 274$
P4 3.4GHz : 424$

So when we compare price, A64 are a little bit cheaper. To be honest I would buy the A64 3000+, because I know that performance in games are good and I would get a good 3D card with it.

But, of course, P4 CPU is not a bad choice either, it really depends of your needs. If you plan to do Video/MP3 encoding it will be a bit faster on P4.

One last point, some may argue, but A64 are ready for 64 bits OS and P4 are not! If you get a A64 now, you will get a "free" upgrade when you will switch to 64 bit OS. Windows XP 64 bit edition is available in "beta" for free from the Microsoft web site. It's not yet fully optimized and drivers are not yet available or optimized. But it's good! And Intel announced a couple days ago that they will implement AMD64 (x86-64) in their next CPU. I'm confident that withn 1 year, WinXP 64 bits will be out.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

Reply to TheRod
Snorkius   02-23-2004 at 10:43:38 PM
- 0 +

He has a P3 850.

To the original poster: I would get an A64 for gaming. No real reason not to. (Actually <i>I</i> would get an AXP. But I'm a cheap bastard.)

A long long time ago, but I can still remember, how that music used to make me smile... <A HREF="http://www.nexus.hu/zonix/DIGGER.MID" target="_new"><b><font color=blue>Digger rulz</font color=blue></b></A>

Reply to Snorkius
pitsi   02-23-2004 at 11:39:45 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

Right now i have a P4 2.8 with the 800 mhz bus slotted in.


Where's the P3 850?

Reply to pitsi
Snorkius   02-23-2004 at 11:49:34 PM
- 0 +

right above your first post:

Quote :

My current PC has P3 850. The P4 2.8 is what i was going to upgrade to =). It was a bit late when I posted so i didn't make that real clear


A long long time ago, but I can still remember, how that music used to make me smile... <A HREF="http://www.nexus.hu/zonix/DIGGER.MID" target="_new"><b><font color=blue>Digger rulz</font color=blue></b></A>

Reply to Snorkius
Crashman   02-24-2004 at 07:47:00 AM
- 0 +

Hehe, and you hidding the truth shows your bias.

The truth is the only reasonably good A64 boards I've seen from reviews are the ECS 755-A2 and Soyo K8USA. The first is a budget board and the second is overpriced (and unproven in the retail market).

You know that's the truth, but you'd rather tell someone who doesn't know to simply buy something.

If the A64 is really that good it should be worth the wait for better 755 boards and the introduction of nForce3 250 boards.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

Reply to Crashman
Kanavit   02-24-2004 at 08:09:04 AM
- 0 +

get the 2.8 P4, 32-bit gaming will be here for a long time. at least until Intel get's into the 64-bit games with new 64-bit xeons. which is still 2 yrs away. i'm quite happy with my 2.8B, which is still good for everyday use and running games. check out my Aquamark3 score! and that's stock no overclocking.

the A64 is good cpu, but more expensive. I'd recommend the Barton 2500+ over that.

-------
<b><i>1024MB-P4 2.8B-RADEON 9500PRO</b></i>
<A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php? run=1819503988" target="_new">29,724 Aquamarks</A>#1 in class!

Reply to Kanavit
Thraka   02-24-2004 at 08:14:08 AM
- 0 +

this is the Test i was refering to about DirectX9

http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/ [...] 00-15.html

The less expensive P4's seem to more than hold their own with directX9 according to this test,and this is without any overclocking

Reply to Thraka
Kanavit   02-24-2004 at 08:30:22 AM
- 0 +

exactly my point, Thraka

I'm playing FarCry demo, @ 40-60fps. Also the new Pain killer demo runs great on my pc too. Today's DX9 games are more graphics dependant , and a P4 will do it's job. more games will support hyperthreading than 64-bit extensions. Doom3 and HL2 will support HT. Buying an A64 for games is a waste of money, because once you install win 64, all 32-bit games run slower and the drivers suck because it's beta.

-------
<b><i>1024MB-P4 2.8B-RADEON 9500PRO</b></i>
<A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php? run=1819503988" target="_new">29,724 Aquamarks</A>#1 in class!

Reply to Kanavit
endyen   02-24-2004 at 09:13:39 AM
- 0 +

Synthetic benchmarks are generally written to perform best on the most prevalent systems. They are designed to run on Pentiums. In real games, a64 rules.

Reply to endyen
Snorkius   02-24-2004 at 09:43:36 AM
- 0 +

Don't listen to Kanavit, Coop, SOD. Clueless.

The A64 is the better performer in games. Wheather or not you need those x% is a different question.



A long long time ago, but I can still remember, how that music used to make me smile... <A HREF="http://www.nexus.hu/zonix/DIGGER.MID" target="_new"><b><font color=blue>Digger rulz</font color=blue></b></A>

Reply to Snorkius
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Processor for a new comp
Go to:

There are 691 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.370 seconds
Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
How do I win badges?