Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best for gaming?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 23, 2005 4:46:32 PM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

or

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...





I was considering http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681... , but it's really too expensive. And how much better is it than the non FX san diego?


<font color=blue> There's no such thing as hell, but you can make it if you try.</font color=blue>

More about : gaming

Related resources
June 23, 2005 4:54:41 PM

What good is a dual core processing?

<font color=blue> There's no such thing as hell, but you can make it if you try.</font color=blue>
June 23, 2005 4:54:46 PM

Or if you want the bigger cache then the 4000+
Come to think of it the X2 also has 1M cache but it's for 2 CPUs

<font color=red>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=red>
June 23, 2005 4:57:40 PM

You can game while you rip a DVD without sharing the CPU.
Anyway if you can get 2 for less than the price of 1 why not get it even if at the beginning you're not gonna take full advantage of it.

<font color=red>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=red>
June 23, 2005 4:58:55 PM

How does that dual core processor compare for gaming versus the vanilla 4000+ San Diego or the 3.8/3.6 intel?

Also, I need a different type of mobo, right?

<font color=blue> There's no such thing as hell, but you can make it if you try.</font color=blue>
June 23, 2005 5:03:21 PM

I think that if you're just gaming a single CPU would be faster (not by much though), but if you use several applications at once or you use a game optimized for dual core then the X2 would be faster.

No a socket 939 would do it, you just need a bios update



<font color=red>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=red>
June 23, 2005 5:11:51 PM

AMD X2:
4200+ = 2 3500+'s in the same socket. (2.2ghz, 512kcache)
4400+ = 2 3700+'s " " " " (2.2ghz, 1024kcache)
4600+ = 2 3800+'s " " " " (2.4ghz, 512kcache)
4800+ = 2 4000+'s " " " " (2.4ghz, 1024kcache)

I'd say compared to the P4, 2.2ghz might not beat a 3.8 (in games), but its a close race. 2.4ghz probably beats the 3.8. But at this speed, no game will be CPU limited (*newest released games possibly excepted with slowest CPU)

Same mobo for all of them. Might need a bios flash until the 'pre-X2' stock is depleted. Only Intel requires a new mobo for dual core.

Mike.

</font color=blue>Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside the dog its too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx</font color=blue>
June 23, 2005 5:18:06 PM

I think, given the same core speed (i.e., 3500+ or X2-4200+), dual core will probably give a very slight increase in games (barely noticeable if at all) because of OS and other processes will likely be routed to the other core, leaving 100% of a core to the game (instead of 99% on a single core system).

But I could be wrong, having not seen any benchmarks either way.

Mike.

</font color=blue>Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside the dog its too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx</font color=blue>
June 23, 2005 5:18:42 PM

Gah, gotta change the font size on that sig :( 

Mike.

</font color=blue>Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside the dog its too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx</font color=blue>
June 23, 2005 5:24:15 PM

<A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681..." target="_new">This</A> one is clocked 200MHz less but $150 cheaper.
What video card are you gonna use?
If you get a 7800 and the 3700+ San Diego will beat a 6800 and a 4000+ San Diego.



<font color=red>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=red>
June 23, 2005 5:37:04 PM

I saw your post in the memory forum. That's an awful mobo.
What's your budget and what do you want to buy with it (Which parts?)



<font color=red>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=red>
June 23, 2005 6:12:29 PM

That is only if he purchased the dual and the single core with the same core speed, which he wouldn't. If he goes single core he can use the money he saves from not getting dual core and buy a faster core speed single core. There is no question that a faster single core will have better gaming performance than a slower dual core.

That said, if you ever multi task during games (which I do on very rare occasion) then I would suggest going dual.
June 23, 2005 6:15:09 PM

I suggested dual core because one of his options is a $600+ Pentium. I told him that with less money than that he could get a dual core.

<font color=red>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=red>
June 23, 2005 6:21:38 PM

Yeah... we all know that he shouldn't have had the Intel on his list at all. But I also believe that unless he multitasks then the X2 shouldn't be on his list either. That is unless he believes that game designers are going to rapidly change the way they design games and make them more "dual core friendly". This might happen, but I think it will take over a year at the very least. After all, games that are just coming out now have been in the works for years, not weeks. It takes a long time to develop a good game, and even if they were starting to change that now (which I don't know if they are, I'm sure they will wait to see how popular dual core gets) it would still take over a year to produce those games.
June 23, 2005 6:25:35 PM

Then the mobo he's thinking of buying is a biostar with SLI, so I asked him what's his budget so we all can give him good options

<font color=red>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=red>
June 23, 2005 6:26:49 PM

Quote:
purchased the dual and the single core with the same core speed

I think I said that. :lol: 

I agree with all your points.

Mike.

<font color=blue>Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside the dog its too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx</font color=blue>
June 23, 2005 6:26:55 PM

BTW where are the 8K rig pics. :mad: 


<font color=red>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=red>
June 23, 2005 6:33:55 PM

My budget is medium range.

I want a 7800GTX and a damn good proc, for sure. Other stuff is irrelevent.


Can someone link me a good mobo if the one I chose sux? :-P

<font color=blue> There's no such thing as hell, but you can make it if you try.</font color=blue>
June 23, 2005 6:44:27 PM

With that video card you'll have a kick a$$ gaming rig no matter which Athlon 64 you choose.

.

<font color=red>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=red>
June 23, 2005 8:44:24 PM

drunklegend, I think we almost always agree. Take drunks advice the DFI and the Epox are very good boards. If you are interested in OCing hard then pick the DFI for the extra couple of bucks. If you don't plan on OCing save a bit and go with Epox.

I still haven't tried the MSI NF4 boards out but I have heard they are nice and have looked at a few reviews that rate them very high. Including a review from anandtech that gave the MSI and the DFI equal ratings, so I will be trying the MSI board on the next rig I build. But for you, I know that the DFI is a good board.
June 23, 2005 8:50:54 PM

:eek:  Drunk?
I don't need alcohol I can <A HREF="http://www.scamtron.com/php/dunklegend.htm" target="_new">GET HIGH</A> in other ways :cool:


<font color=red>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=red>
June 23, 2005 8:51:47 PM

But yeah we do agree.

<font color=red>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=red>
June 23, 2005 11:50:11 PM

What if he lives in a cold place?

<font color=red>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=red>
June 24, 2005 12:06:08 AM

Yea but the Prescott would give him enough heat to get warm his place.

<font color=red>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=red>
June 24, 2005 12:18:26 AM

I'm sorry :frown:

<font color=red>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=red>
!