Once again, we're using Windows XP 32-bit in order to compare apples-to-apples versus our previous Athlon X2 3800+ tests.
Note that the Athlon X2 3200+ is designated as a CPU at 2.0 GHz, and the overclocked Athlon 64 X2 4200+ as a CPU at 2.6 GHz in the charts in order to save some space.
| Test System Configuration | |
|---|---|
| CPU 1 | Athlon 64 X2 3800+ |
| CPU 2 | Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Socket 939, 2.2 GHz o/c to 2.6 GHz, 2 x 512 KB Cache 237 MHz FSB, 948 MHz HT |
| Motherboard | ASRock 9393Dual-SATA2 |
| RAM 1 | Patriot EP PC-3500 (CL2.0-3-2-5) (1 x 1 GB) Kingston KVR PC-3500 (CL3.0-3-3-8) (2 x 512 MB) Samsung PC-2700 (CL2.5-3-3-7) (1 x 512 MB) |
| RAM 2 | A-Data PC2-6400 (CL2.0-3-2-5) (2 x 2 GB) DDR2-800 at DDR2-744 CAS 5-5-5-15 |
| Graphics | Radeon HD 4650 AGP - 600 MHz GPU, 400 MHz Memory, 1 GB DDR2 |
| Hard Drive | Western Digital WD1200JB |
| Sound | Integrated Audio |
| Network | Integrated 100 Mb Networking |
| Power | Nextherm PSU460 |
Software | |
| OS | Microsoft Windows XP Professional 32-bit SP2 |
| Graphics | Radeon HD 4850 PCIe, Radeon HD 3850 AGP: Catalyst 9.6 |
| Benchmark Configuration | |
|---|---|
3D Games | |
| Left 4 Dead | Version 1014, Custom THG Benchmark |
| Crysis | Patch 1.2.1, DirectX 9, 32-bit executable, benchmark tool |
| Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. | In-game benchmark |
| World in Conflict | Patch 1009, DirectX 10, timedemo |
| Fallout 3 | Custom THG Benchmark |
| Far Cry 2 | DirectX 9, 32-bit executable, benchmark tool |
In the long run yes, seeing as the AGP Radeon 4650 is twice the price of the PCI-Express version anyway, so there's some money saved right there anyway. In the case that you have one of these ridiculous Socket 939 ASRock boards with the AM2 daughterboard...I mean really? You'd rather buy an overpriced GPU, new RAM and an outdated CPU so that you don't have to buy an ENTIRELY new motherboard? It's not even worth it.
Yes because buying a new motherboard AND cpu AND memory AND gfx card is cheaper than buying a gfx card and overclocking your cpu isnt it?
In the long run yes, seeing as the AGP Radeon 4650 is twice the price of the PCI-Express version anyway, so there's some money saved right there anyway. In the case that you have one of these ridiculous Socket 939 ASRock boards with the AM2 daughterboard...I mean really? You'd rather buy an overpriced GPU, new RAM and an outdated CPU so that you don't have to buy an ENTIRELY new motherboard? It's not even worth it.
IIRC, I said better not cheaper. Sure thing, you could save some money by buying AGP chips for your aging components. Spending $100 for an AGP card that is way below the performance of the equally-priced 4850. Is it worth it? No. For the mean time, you could survive playing at low settings but how long will your system hold on? By the time your system quits, you might be even thinking if you should've saved that $100 and just upgraded the whole system for the long run. This AGP cards recently released are just a remedy, not a solution. Still a full upgrade is an imminent path that those with old systems must take.
I think i would be a good idea, but the web y your, of course, but it will be fine for this people that say the 3850 AGP is not fine, the would see they are completly wrong.
It's my main computer.
It's my main computer.
Don't even bother upgrading because its still crap.
Either buy a new machine or don't even bother.
Did you actually look at the benchmarks? I'm running a PC about the same speed as the one being tested here and play most games at 1680x1050 with most details up fairly high or at max. I can't use heavy anti-aliasing but at 1680x I don't really need that too badly.
And my CPU isn't overclocked so that isn't necessary at all. The old dual core cpu's from AMD are dirt cheap, at any speed so there really isn't a need to buy a middle of the road one
So where did this 1024x crap come from? There isn't a single game out that I could only run at 1024x. The lowest res I'll select is a widescreen 1280x which can look just fine considering how old this PC is.
This is aimed at the article. I have the 3850 and have no problems using the overclocking built into the driver. Not sure why that wasn't an option for you guys.
thanks... enjoyed that article.
Wasn't expecting to see such a different between the O/C and the non O/C setup.
What about the people who have been using this same system for years and are still finding it holds up for most games? I'd be one of these.
As for upgrading an AGP card now. Well that would depend entirely on funds. From a performance perspective of course it would ideal to buy a whole new set of components but if money is tight, a top of the line AGP card does hold its own today and its today you'll be using it. Without the money to upgrade to more modern hardware you can't really blame a lack of future proofing as that's just not an option for those people on a budget in this situation.
Overclock my X2 3800+. Damn. It's only 4 years old.
Well, upgrading an Agp system diserves only in you already have a 3850 AGP, or if you already have a 939 o AM2 motherboard with a dual-core proccesor and if the motherboard only aceppts AGP cards.
For example upgrading a PC with a pentium 4 and a 1600 pro AGP card would be stupid, but upgrading a pentium 4 that already has a 3850 AGP oe 4670 AGP, will be fine for most os games.
There is one point of atention about the processor, if your processor is an dual-core 939 you must overclock it, by the other hand, if your processor is an AM2, like Athlon 5xxx o 7xxx you don´t need to overclock it, because ther is no bottleneck, or no so much between the am2 processor an the 3850/4670 AGP card.
Heres a better idea - forget "future proof" and forget "upgrading an old machine" (within reason) - my pc's usually survive 1 overhaul and 1 upgrade package then there scrapped etc - MUCH better lifespan
example: my rig started as a E6600 @ 3.2 + 2gb + 7900GT, and in one big batch i jumped to a Q6600, 8gb and 8800GT - final upgrade for it before i get a new rig.
And as for AGP vs PCIE - if i remember correctly, atleast with the Nvidia 6600GT the AGP variants were actually quicker then the PCIE variants and had to be underclocked to line up performance - AGP (8x) being "slow" compared to PCIE (1.0) is a myth.