Advice on CPU and RAM

Mr.Suave · 11-22-2005, 05:00 AM

im not sure if this is the right place to put this because my questions are about both RAM and CPU.

well i thought about getting the x2 4800+ becuase i heard its the best for gaming(which this comp is mainly for) and multytasking, but ive been doing more research and read around the forum. it seems i could just get a cheaper x2 and still be satisfied and that leads me to my questions.
would going with a x2 4200 be better to go with than a 4800. or how about the 4400 or the 4600? ive read that the 4200 is better to get than the 4400 becuase you get the same performance at a lower cost and the 1mb of L2 cache extra isnt worth the price jump. is this true? will i notice the difference of the extra 1mb, or will the extra 1gb of RAM make up for it?and same goes for the ghz. will .2ghz more make all the difference?(if not then y such big price leaps?)
ive read the CPU101 and it mainly talks about the ghz not really being a matter but thats comparing Intel and AMD.
and if i choose to go with a cheaper CPU i could get an extra gb of RAM making it 2gb but will it be worth it to get a slower CPU but make up for it by getting more RAM?
for the ram i was thinking of getting
this one if i go with a 4200 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227056
or this one if i go with a 4400 or 4600 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820220040

or just forget all this and stick with 4800 and 1gb of RAM?

Mr.Suave · 11-22-2005, 03:14 PM

bump

gamerman4 · 11-22-2005, 03:55 PM

X2 CPUs are barely any better at gaming than the A64 single cores. Just get something like an A64 FX-55. I you do video editing or encoding then a dual-core could help but games don't use two CPUs yet and probably won't for a while.
1GB of RAM is enough usually but 2GB will help for future games. Go with a cheaper CPU and the 2GB but I wouldn't recommend a dual-core for gaming yet.

liquidshadow · 11-22-2005, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamerman4

Games don't use two CPUs yet and probably won't for a while.

And where did you hear this?

The 4200+ should be alright. Cache difference doesn't give a huge performance jump. Also, it is your decision to get a dual-core or not. Games are already starting to get optimized for dual-cores. Also, obviously they give better performance while multitasking.

EDIT: I guess it depends on what you mean by a "while".

[-0MEGA-] · 11-22-2005, 11:51 PM

I also heard that UT2007 is going to be multithreaded, but im not sure when that will be realeased. And the FX-55/FX-57 are only worth it if you plan to do some serious overclocking, if your not then dont get them.

CmoAMD · 11-23-2005, 12:50 AM

Im also having the same problem as you swuave. I've finally decided on one of these.

The X2 4400 - I dont mind spending a little more for DOUBLE the Cache which is noticeable. This chip also can OC to higher than the 4800. Up to 2.7 fairly on air cooling.

or the AMD 4000 San Diego - Its an FX-55 chip, and an awesome Overclocker, will handle 1 application/game at a time better than X2.

I could save some money on the 4000, but X2 is the future.... and I do a bit of multitasking myself. So its down to one of those 2 for me. Hope this helped you as someone thats going thru the same dilema.

Mr.Suave · 11-23-2005, 02:31 AM

ok well i decided to go with a x2 4200 after reading an article shown to me by Praetor. and ya the x2 4200 could be overclocked easily to ~2.6-2.7ghz easily and i like that becuase i dont plan on doing any exotic cooling.

Sophocles · 11-23-2005, 10:52 PM

Mr.Suave

Get the X2 4400 (Toledo core) it has a larger L2 cache than the manchester cores do and it's an overclockers dream.

spamdos · 11-24-2005, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamerman4

X2 CPUs are barely any better at gaming than the A64 single cores. Just get something like an A64 FX-55. I you do video editing or encoding then a dual-core could help but games don't use two CPUs yet and probably won't for a while.
1GB of RAM is enough usually but 2GB will help for future games. Go with a cheaper CPU and the 2GB but I wouldn't recommend a dual-core for gaming yet.

uh the X2s are very very good if u can afford the x2 4800 it is gooooood

shupola · 11-24-2005, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamdos

uh the X2s are very very good if u can afford the x2 4800 it is gooooood

and its cheaper than an fx-55

11-22-2005, 05:00 AM	#1 (permalink)
Mr.Suave Diamond Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,373	Advice on CPU and RAM im not sure if this is the right place to put this because my questions are about both RAM and CPU. well i thought about getting the x2 4800+ becuase i heard its the best for gaming(which this comp is mainly for) and multytasking, but ive been doing more research and read around the forum. it seems i could just get a cheaper x2 and still be satisfied and that leads me to my questions. would going with a x2 4200 be better to go with than a 4800. or how about the 4400 or the 4600? ive read that the 4200 is better to get than the 4400 becuase you get the same performance at a lower cost and the 1mb of L2 cache extra isnt worth the price jump. is this true? will i notice the difference of the extra 1mb, or will the extra 1gb of RAM make up for it?and same goes for the ghz. will .2ghz more make all the difference?(if not then y such big price leaps?) ive read the CPU101 and it mainly talks about the ghz not really being a matter but thats comparing Intel and AMD. and if i choose to go with a cheaper CPU i could get an extra gb of RAM making it 2gb but will it be worth it to get a slower CPU but make up for it by getting more RAM? for the ram i was thinking of getting this one if i go with a 4200 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227056 or this one if i go with a 4400 or 4600 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820220040 or just forget all this and stick with 4800 and 1gb of RAM? __________________ The Comp: CPU--Athlon64 X2 4200+ Manchester @ 2.5!!!:D HDD--WD Caviar 250GB 7200 RPM SATA MB---DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 SLI-DR RAM--OCZ Titanium 2GB (2 x 1GB) GPU--Sapphire ATI Radeon X1900XTX 512mb SPU--Creative Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS PSU--ENERMAX Whisper II 535W all inside a Thermaltake Matrix VX

11-22-2005, 03:14 PM	#2 (permalink)
Mr.Suave Diamond Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,373	bump __________________ The Comp: CPU--Athlon64 X2 4200+ Manchester @ 2.5!!!:D HDD--WD Caviar 250GB 7200 RPM SATA MB---DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 SLI-DR RAM--OCZ Titanium 2GB (2 x 1GB) GPU--Sapphire ATI Radeon X1900XTX 512mb SPU--Creative Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS PSU--ENERMAX Whisper II 535W all inside a Thermaltake Matrix VX

11-22-2005, 03:55 PM	#3 (permalink)
gamerman4 Diamond Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Arkansas Age: 18 Posts: 1,653	X2 CPUs are barely any better at gaming than the A64 single cores. Just get something like an A64 FX-55. I you do video editing or encoding then a dual-core could help but games don't use two CPUs yet and probably won't for a while. 1GB of RAM is enough usually but 2GB will help for future games. Go with a cheaper CPU and the 2GB but I wouldn't recommend a dual-core for gaming yet. __________________ NZXT Nemesis Elite Black Intel Q6600 @ 3.20 Ghz COOLER MASTER RL-EUL-GBU1-GP Watercooling Gigabyte DS3R P965 HDDs: 2 x 80GB 1 x 250GB 1 x 500GB 1x 750GB 2 x 1GB Patriot Extreme Perf. DDR2 nVidia 8800GT 512MB Antec Smartpower 2.0 400 Watt

11-22-2005, 11:51 PM	#5 (permalink)
[-0MEGA-] VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Concord, NH Age: 20 Posts: 27,466	I also heard that UT2007 is going to be multithreaded, but im not sure when that will be realeased. And the FX-55/FX-57 are only worth it if you plan to do some serious overclocking, if your not then dont get them. __________________ Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.1GHz Asus Rampage Formula X48 ATI 4870X2 2GB GDDR5 (800/1900) 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 960 750GB SATAII w/32MB Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty SilverStone 750W +12V@60A 3DMark06: 22605

11-23-2005, 02:31 AM	#7 (permalink)
Mr.Suave Diamond Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,373	ok well i decided to go with a x2 4200 after reading an article shown to me by Praetor. and ya the x2 4200 could be overclocked easily to ~2.6-2.7ghz easily and i like that becuase i dont plan on doing any exotic cooling. __________________ The Comp: CPU--Athlon64 X2 4200+ Manchester @ 2.5!!!:D HDD--WD Caviar 250GB 7200 RPM SATA MB---DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 SLI-DR RAM--OCZ Titanium 2GB (2 x 1GB) GPU--Sapphire ATI Radeon X1900XTX 512mb SPU--Creative Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS PSU--ENERMAX Whisper II 535W all inside a Thermaltake Matrix VX

11-23-2005, 12:50 AM	#6 (permalink)
CmoAMD Platinum Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Miami, FL Age: 21 Posts: 505	Im also having the same problem as you swuave. I've finally decided on one of these. The X2 4400 - I dont mind spending a little more for DOUBLE the Cache which is noticeable. This chip also can OC to higher than the 4800. Up to 2.7 fairly on air cooling. or the AMD 4000 San Diego - Its an FX-55 chip, and an awesome Overclocker, will handle 1 application/game at a time better than X2. I could save some money on the 4000, but X2 is the future.... and I do a bit of multitasking myself. So its down to one of those 2 for me. Hope this helped you as someone thats going thru the same dilema.

11-23-2005, 10:52 PM	#8 (permalink)
Sophocles VIP Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 165	Mr.Suave Get the X2 4400 (Toledo core) it has a larger L2 cache than the manchester cores do and it's an overclockers dream.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode