Author Topic: AMD 64 CPU 2,0 - 2,6 GHz (Read 848 times)

Stone · « **on:** April 20, 2006, 07:56:03 AM »

If I understand correctly, AMD64 CPU is the best CPU for gameing PC.

Strange that the range of what is available is from 2.0GHz up to 2.6GHz. Not a huge difference it seems?

Still the 2.6GHz cost 3x more than the 2.0 Ghz.

If GHz is the only factor in game speed, the 2.6GHz is ~30% faster and 300% more expencive ?

Putting it an other way.

If a game is slow with a 2.0GHz CPU, will it realy make any difference if you have a 2.6 GHz CPU ? (+30%)

Say FPS drop down to 20, you get +30% = 26 FPS ?

Is this realy how it works? Or have I got it all wrong ?

- AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz, Venice
vs
- AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 boxed prosessori, 2.6GHz, Clawhammer

Brenjen · « **Reply #1 on:** April 20, 2006, 08:57:22 AM »

You've got it somewhat confused. Your computer as a whole needs the cpu & gpu & hd & memory to run the game ( & more actually ); but these four are the most important in my opinion assuming you have a good power supply.

The AMD is the best for games in most benchmarking tests & in public opinion. Single core CPU's are the way to go currently because of support issues in some games; dual core is the wave of the near future & will be great when 64bit operating systems become the normal OS ( vista ) XP64 is in reality a stop gap beta OS & it has issues that Vista should address.

Rating a CPU by Ghz isn't really an accurate way to distinguish the performance ( it's simpler for the average guy like us to understand ) & is something Intel started & even they are drifting away from the Ghz standard. It seems like there isn't much of a difference between 2.0Ghz & 2.6Ghz but there is; it's not an enormous difference ( not enough to justify the huge cost difference you mentioned ) but you will notice it.

I guess it boils down to this: Get the fastest CPU you can afford & the best quality/fastest memory, get at least 1-2Ghz ( 1Ghz should be enough ) Get the best GPU ( video card ) you can afford, this one piece of hardware is usually the most expensive single piece in a good system. And get a fast hard drive with a good sized cache ( the faster the HD & bigger the cache - the less latency for retrieval of information )

That should give good frame rates in just about any game. You could still have a bottleneck somewhere else that slows down these components like the bridge or monitor for example; a CRT monitor is better for gaming by the way; it will not give you as high a frame rate as an LCD ( usually ) but has a better picture in most public opinions. You will get as many differing opinions as the number of people you talk too; some will say the GPU is the single biggest factor & some will say memory & some will say CPU; I say it's a pretty equal mix of all of the above. Skimp in one area & pay in another...heck; it can even be said that your power supply is the single most important piece of equipment in your system. ( I agree with that by the way - Bad P.S. = bad system )

Stone · « **Reply #2 on:** April 20, 2006, 12:16:14 PM »

I was looking at some random CPU reviews again. It does seem, that the FPS are very much in the +-30% range.

So I think I beter save my euros on the cpu, and put the saved money on RAM

And for gameing, single core is the way to go right?
At least for a year or two?

Brenjen · « **Reply #3 on:** April 20, 2006, 02:21:59 PM »

I think a single core CPU would be the way to go until at least 2007, then take a wait & see approach as to how well & how fast peripheral support develops with the Microsoft Vista 64bit OS. Dual core is great right now for 90% of the applications out there (or more); but apparently not for AHII, you have to disable one of the cores to play or suffer lock-ups from what I've read in here. Like it or not Microsoft is the driving factor in todays hardware & software development.

I like my current system:

Asus A8-N SLI Premium mobo
AMD 4000+ single core San Diego
7900GTX EGS video card
80Gig Raptor HD ( getting raid set-up soon )
2Gigs of Patriot Dual channel memory
550Watt Antec Tru-powerII

This set-up gives me solid frame rates of up to 100 fps depending on how much detail I use & whether or not I am on full view or ground view & what I have the refresh rate of my monitor set at. I can get frame rates of 75fps that never vary no matter what I'm doing with the right settings.

P.S. DX10 is just around the corner & is only waiting on Vista, then the 8000 series Nvidia chipsets will come out. It's a tough time to be thinking of upgrades or new builds...so many choices to make so everything is strong now...but also easy & relatively affordable to upgrade in a few months.

Stone · « **Reply #4 on:** April 20, 2006, 03:01:29 PM »

hmm. maybe I just beter wait for Vista ?

Its out this year I think?

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #5 on:** April 20, 2006, 04:46:00 PM »

Lol.. he said Vista.

After buying a brand computer that's the second biggest mistake you can do.

Brenjen · « **Reply #6 on:** April 20, 2006, 09:33:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stone
hmm. maybe I just beter wait for Vista ?

Its out this year I think?

It won't be out until next year at least (according to Microslave). All the release of Vista is going to do is usher in the 64bit, DX10 & dual core age & make them common like 32bit, DX9 & single core are today. I like the 6 month delayed acquisition rule; wait at least 6 months after hardware or software release for other people to work out the bugs, then take a look at it.

Quote

After buying a brand computer that's the second biggest mistake you can do.

That's debatable.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #7 on:** April 21, 2006, 04:46:41 AM »

i have 2 pretty good systems below. They both cost about 1100 dollars, that includes a legal:mad: copy of windows xp. The amd doesnt blow it out oif the water, but it is defanately smoother. But I think if I swapped the ram and the vid cards, the difference would be much less. The AMD chip runs MUCH cooler though. I will probably go with AMD until Intel gets that heat issue resolved.

Stone · « **Reply #8 on:** April 21, 2006, 06:18:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Lol.. he said Vista.

After buying a brand computer that's the second biggest mistake you can do.

What IS your problem dude ?

Visigothan · « **Reply #9 on:** April 21, 2006, 12:45:55 PM »

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to side with MrRipley.

Purchasing a brand-name system when you have the knowledge to build one yourself (or have a friend build one for you) is a bad idea and a great way to get ripped off.

Dell, HP and Alienware are prime examples of these rip-offs, charging hundreds (and sometimes thousands, in the case of Alienware) more than the system is actually worth.

Vista should be avoided for the short-term after its birth, like every Microsoft OS has, in recent memory. Windows 95, 98, ME, NT 4, 2000 and XP have been rife with problems at their inception, fixed only by massive patching.

Expect Vista to be buggy.

At any rate, back on topic...

As stated before, there is a lot more to raw CPU speed than "megahertz/gigahertz". Notice that 2.6Ghz Athlon 64 FX57 CPUs completely stomp even the fastest Intel processor (3.8Ghz, IIRC) on the market right now, and it all has to do with the architechture of the CPU itself, not the gigahertz it runs at.

Currently, the sweetest price/performance point with a solid future, is an Athlon 64 X2 4400+, 1GB of DDR400 and a 7900GT or a 7800GS (depending on what you're willing to shell out). Pick and choose your motherboard wisely, for it will make or break your system and will mean the difference between a mediocre system that crashes often and a rock-solid desk-rocket that chews up and spits out even the toughest games. Stay away from Via and ATI chipsets for the Athlon 64 series; only consider nVidia nForce 4 and its variants.

Stone · « **Reply #10 on:** April 21, 2006, 04:22:41 PM »

Subject is AMD 64 GHz VS AMD 64 GHz CPU. Not Intel CPU GHz vs AMD CPU GHz

When looking at different CPU reviews, it realy does seem that the difference between the different AMD64 CPU's are minimal even if the price difference is huge.
(Well huge prize difference for me with limited ammount of money ("married with children" u c))

You realy think the 4000+ is the best bang for buks? How come ?

Consider :

- AMD 64 3000+ ~115$ (1,8 GHz 512MB L2)
- 2GB memory ~140$
- GF 7900GT ~330$

-------------------------------> ~585$

- AMD 64 3500+ ~180$ (2,2 GHz 512MB L2)
- 1GB memory ~70$
- GF 7900GT ~330$

-------------------------------> ~580$
vs

- AMD 64 4000+ ~335$ (2,4 GHz 1024MB L2)
- 1 GB memory ~70$
- GF 7600GT ~180$
-------------------------------> ~585$

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=244&chart=68&model2=260

AMD 64 4000+ 2,4 GHz is 25% more GHz compared with 3000+ 1,8GHz
Farcy bench mark 193.2 vs 163.8 ~15% faster
Quake III Team Arena 253.1 vs 208.8 17% faster
Wolfenstein 189,9 vs 159,9 ~15% faster

Too bad toms hardware dont test AH2

But you see what I am wondering abot ?

Then the thing about Vista. I was not planning to buy a new computer this year, and then again a new coputer when the first DX10 game i want comes out. Again, my money recurces are very limited....

Visigothan · « **Reply #11 on:** April 21, 2006, 04:27:22 PM »

If you're money limited, go with a Sempron. Sure, it's only s754, but it's a lot cheaper than an A64 or Opteron.

Stone · « **Reply #12 on:** April 21, 2006, 04:42:48 PM »

Nice to see you staying on subject

Visigothan · « **Reply #13 on:** April 21, 2006, 04:50:19 PM »

...What?

I just recommended an economical, and fast CPU.

The Sempron 64 3400+ is less than equivilent Athlon 64 CPUs, and is a very strong performer. If you're looking to keep your costs down as much as possible, yet still build yourself a fast rig, the Sempron 64 is a good choice.

38ruk · « **Reply #14 on:** April 21, 2006, 10:58:54 PM »

actually id say the 3700+ is the best bang for the buck . 2.2ghz stock , and a great overclocker .