So I'm anxiously waiting on my tax refund. I am gonna build myself a new gaming rig. However, I've got some questions. I plan to stick with AMD and I'm going with a 64 bit processor. I am looking at the Athlon 64, 64 X-2, and 64 FX series chips. I am planning on going as high as possible. I'm primarily looking at the 64 and 64 x-2's, as the FX are a little to pricey. Is dual core gonna be a significant improvement? Is the FX worth the huge price jump from the X-2? I will be running XP-64 for now, I plan on waiting for Vista to be around before upgrading. Our should I skip that and just put 2 SLI gfx cards in? Also, what is the technical difference between 90 nm and 130 nm processor? Anyone have a recommendation on system boards? I've had real good luck with the nForce boards, and figured I would go with one again.
Home PC Questions
- Thread starter schi0249
- Start date
Dual core will be a significant improvement for applications that are well optimized for multiple processors; however, games generally don't fall into that category (though that will change). If you want to get the best gaming performance today, you'd probably be better off with a single core processor and dump the extra money into a better graphics card or SLI setup.
Which board you pick will partially depend on your graphics solution. If you want nVidia SLI, I'm pretty sure you need an nForce based mobo. If you want ATi Crossfire you need an ATi Crossfire enabled mobo.
90nm vs 130nm is the process the chip is manufactured on. I believe it's the size of a single transistor on the chip. Generally speaking, smaller processes allow for higher clock rates so a 90nm part MIGHT be more overclockable than it's 130nm equivalent.
Which board you pick will partially depend on your graphics solution. If you want nVidia SLI, I'm pretty sure you need an nForce based mobo. If you want ATi Crossfire you need an ATi Crossfire enabled mobo.
90nm vs 130nm is the process the chip is manufactured on. I believe it's the size of a single transistor on the chip. Generally speaking, smaller processes allow for higher clock rates so a 90nm part MIGHT be more overclockable than it's 130nm equivalent.
Pearl Jammzz
Established Member
Dual core as of now isn't very widely used. It will be strongly in the near future though. Also, don't run Windows xp-64, it's buggy as shit for games and most games don't work w/ it....wait for Vista.
Now wait on a videocar, you're going to want a DX10 card for Vista and all the new shit it'll support. wait wait wait wait. trust me
.
FX chips aren't worth the money IMO. With the money you save, you can upgrade in 2 years to somethin much faster with just the money you saved. And in games, the performance you're not gunan be able to notice vs a high end x2.
nForce boards I like, and stick w/ 90nm processors. They run cooler and use less power I believe. Who still makes 130nm? Just intel?
Now wait on a videocar, you're going to want a DX10 card for Vista and all the new shit it'll support. wait wait wait wait. trust me
.FX chips aren't worth the money IMO. With the money you save, you can upgrade in 2 years to somethin much faster with just the money you saved. And in games, the performance you're not gunan be able to notice vs a high end x2.
nForce boards I like, and stick w/ 90nm processors. They run cooler and use less power I believe. Who still makes 130nm? Just intel?
The only problem with waiting for Vista, is who knows when it's gonna come. Delayed until sometime next year. Right know, I only have an XP 1600 processorrunning in an nforce 1 board. Some of the games I've played require i turn the effects down so they run smooth. If I run XP 64 (I have a copy I got for free) it would be temporary until Vista has the bugs worked out. XP has has worked fine, and I already run dual boot with XP and 2000. 2000 has my app's and XP has my games. I was gonna replace my 2000 boot with xp-64.
Pearl Jammzz
Established Member
plain and simple yer not gunna run games on xp-64
I'm looking at some processors, and I'm curious if anyone knows the difference.
Athlon 64 3500+ 1.35/1.4V
and
Athlon 64 3500+ 1.35V
I see the voltage is different. However, what real difference is there between the two?
Athlon 64 3500+ 1.35/1.4V
and
Athlon 64 3500+ 1.35V
I see the voltage is different. However, what real difference is there between the two?
That's new to me, I would imagine that the first one is more stable at higher voltages for a miniscule performance increase, but most socket 939 mobos are set to to 1.35 by default, so you'd have to go into BIOS and change it to take advantage of that.
^ None of that is based on fact, that's just my guess.
I would strongly recommend that you get this:
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 1GHz HT Socket 939 Processor - Retail
The 3700+ seems to have the best price
erformance ratio, but if you want to go cheaper, buy what I've got now which is also pretty nice:AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 1GHz HT Socket 939 Processor - Retail
These are really the two best buys for the Athlon 64 series, if you're willing to spend over $300 on a 4000+ I'd bypass that completely and move up to the FX or X2s.
If you want motherboard advice, my favorite 939 boards are the ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe and the DFI LAN Party series. I've had both, they are all fantastic, but the A8N-SLIs have a problem with the chipset fans on some of them. Doesn't matter though ASUS will send you a free replacement fan. Videocards- I don't play anything that a GeForce 6600 GT can't handle, so I'm not really up to date on videocard information atm.
Thanks for the advise, I was debating on the 3700+ as its only an extra $20. Those 2 boards are the ones I was looking at. However, I was also considering the MSI K8N+. It supports full x16 for both cards in an sli setup. The only game I run, where I want a performance increase on is HL2.
