AMD 64 CPU 2,0 - 2,6 GHz

[straffo]

or the 3000+ mine is runnuing at 2.4

[Stone]

2.2 -> 3.0 on water cooling. Nice !

1.8 -> 2.4, thats like 3000+ upgraded to a 3800+. Is that with special cooling system also?

I have not been planning on OC, but I hear it is prety "standard" these days.

[straffo]

nope , it's with the stock AMD aircooling

[Stone]

Originally posted by straffo
nope , it's with the stock AMD aircooling

Wow, stock cooling? Sounds good  

How good is the game running on your system?
What kind of system do you run on?

Must bee a good case

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The biggest prob with Vista is that it will be a huge resource hog and completely tied down with DRM systems, even at privacy intrusive levels.

That's one OS I'll never buy.

[38ruk]

My 3700+ ran at 2.8ghz with stock cooling 38c idle 48c load. Well within AMD thermal specs.  The water is nice for that extra few hundred mhz , and silence .  The FX-57 is based on the exact same core as the 3700+ and runs stock at 2.8ghz .  My neighbor has a stock FX-57 ,with the same exact setup that i have , and mine was faster in benches @ 2.8ghz (mostly because my memory had to be overclocked for me to reach 2.8ghz) .  He was pretty unhappy that he spent almost 1000 dollars on his CPU , and i had spent 250 heheheh

[straffo]

Originally posted by Stone
Wow, stock cooling? Sounds good  

How good is the game running on your system?
What kind of system do you run on?

Must bee a good case

It's a good CPU batch  I was lucky , the mobo it's a ultra cheap Asrock Dual Sata ,I've 2Go of samsung (which can stand 275 mhz ) + a Ati 9800 pro

And all is overclocked ,my configuration is not a speed deamon but a very low cost speed deamon

3D mark2003 score about 24000 (I don't remember the exact number)

[Brenjen]

Everyone bashes microsoft - intel - dell etc. In the end it all depends on what you like. ( I have a Dell that's been going strong for 7 years & I can still play AHII on it today; low fps but I can do it & it's never had one failure)

back on topic;

 The price difference between the lower end AMD's & the higher end AMD's is a somewhat recent development. I would get the best athlon64 I could afford & build the system around it. No one is in your situation but you & therefore can't make decisions for you. This game requires a lot of CPU & lot of memory & a decent video card...most decent video cards require a lot of power....so you see it's a balancing act.

 We might be able to help suggest a good build in your price range if we knew how much you wanted to spend?...are you upgrading or building from scratch?...where do you live? Etc.

[Stone]

I do not have a budget at the moment. I am, in this thread, just trying to understand the difference between the different AMD64 Athlons.

I belive that a AMD64 3000+ has all the same funcktions a AMD64 4000+ has. The only difference is that 4000+ has double L2 memory, 0,6GHz faster clock and costs three(3x) times more.

3000+.........4000+
111$...........336$
1,8GHz........2,4GHz
512MB_L2...1024MB_L2
----------------33% more speed with MHz
----------------Larger L2 memory
UT bench-----29% more FPS
Wolfenstein-26% more FPS
Doom3-------26% more FPS

So if I get in some game bad FPS with a AMD64 Athlon64 3000+, I can expect ~25-30% more FPS if I have similair PC with a Athlon64 4000+ ?

20FPS +30% ->26FPS
30FPS +30%->39FPS
40FPS +30%->52FPS
50FPS +30% ->65FPS

So if there is nothing I am missing, I have to wonder why it would be a good idea to spend 200$ more on a 4000+ ?

That 200$ spent on any other component would probobly make a much bigger difference in the overal?

[shiningpathb4me]

I have a s754 mobo sitting in a box and I was about 2min away from getting on Newegg to order the CPU,Ram,HD.  I too have been agonizing over this decision.  The "high end" Semprons are very attractive but I can't seem to find out how they differ in performance.   This will be my sons PC. I also have to build a network and get myself a new system (giving my brother the one Im using). So - Im looking at shelling out quite a bit by the time you add it all up. I'd forgotten about Toms hardware guide and I appreciate the link. Im going to spend some more time researching this.

Almost a year ago - when I purchased the s754 mobo, I found a website that compared the performance between many of these processors. I cant find it now. I seem to recall that "the most bang for the buck" was the 2800+ or 3000+.  The difference in performance between those and the 3400 wouldn't have been noticeable to a human user. Now there are even faster CPU's and they are even more expensive.  Im going to research the Sempron option now, hopefully some of you will comment here.

For the record, I've been playing AHII over 2 years on a Intel Celeron 1GHZ w/ 256mb of ram and an nvidia (4400 mx? - 256mb) video.  I'm probably going to stick another 256mb SDRAM in it when I give it to my brother. Any of the processors you guys are discussing are light years ahead of what I've been using, successfully, for over 2 years.

[Brenjen]

Well stone I don't care much for benchies, they rarely accurately reflect game performance when you try to apply them to AHII. But as I said before, there really isn't a justifiable reason (in my mind) for the huge price difference, yes the 4000+ is a better-faster cpu than the 3000+, but the 3000+ will perform just fine; AMD has them priced too high I.M.O. It's all about what you personally can afford, & if you are willing to shell out extra cash for the cumulative difference in performance. All the things I mentioned before work together to give a cumulative difference in performance. If you save a little on the CPU you can spend a little more on the video card etc. but asking if the price difference between cpu's is worth it is hard to say....it was from where I stand...might not be from where you stand. I had considered getting the FX or the Opteron but I can overclock mine & come real close to their performance. Here's one for you....why is the 4000+ with the clawhammer core more expensive than the 4000+ with a san diego core by a single dollar U.S.? Seems sort of silly doesn't it?

[shiningpathb4me]

I'm from the software development world. I have trouble working copy machines and printers. My hardware knowledge in general is higher than most 14 year-olds, but that's about it. I had to learn tcp/ip when I ran a unix uucp relay network 20 years ago, now i can't figure out how to hook-up dsl w/out help. With that said, in my experience, the GPU will do more to make or break you - ceteris paribus.  I'm assuming you don't already have a bottleneck (like i have w/ 256mb ram). Everytime I've upgraded video in anything I've seen a big performance jump in my application. *Until* on this PC,  I went from a 128 mb video card to a 256. I saw no difference. Why? the 256mb of ram. Nothing I can do to this PC will make a difference until I upgrade the memory. WOuld I see a big jump between 512 and 1gb? I suspect not. going to 512 will be the big leap. anything more is wasted money on the 1ghz celeron mobo using 133 SDRAM (not ddr)

Interpret what Im saying this way stone - fretting over a 3000+ or a 4000+ cpu for gameplay might be a little academic if the 4000 costs three times as much. Bank your price difference, and wait till the price drops.( You may want to consider mobo's w/ socket 939 for the upgrade path. my s754 is limited to the older amd processors.)

[38ruk]

Well stone I don't care much for benchies, they rarely accurately reflect game performance when you try to apply them to AHII.

This is true as far as synthetic benchmarks go , thats why you have to look at game benches . With  3dmark-05, 06 , this is especially true .