Advice on CPU and RAM

Mr.Suave

Mr.Suave

New Member
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/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820227056
or this one if i go with a 4400 or 4600 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820220040

or just forget all this and stick with 4800 and 1gb of RAM?
 
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.
 
gamerman4 said:
Games don't use two CPUs yet and probably won't for a while.
Click to expand...
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".
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
gamerman4 said:
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.
Click to expand...


uh the X2s are very very good if u can afford the x2 4800 it is gooooood
 
Here we go, just the right thread. My friend gave me this advice (he is very smart i think)

"Problem with Dual Core processors, is their price exceeds their value.

Take the Athlon X2 3800+ for example, the "budget dual core", running at 2.0 GHz/512 kB makes this basically, two Athlon 64 3200+. For single threaded applications you'll see only minor performance improvements over the 3200+, and even in highly optimized conditions, you may see only 50% boost.

For the same money you could get, what, an Athlon 64 4000+? Although with the Dual Core, you get a better multitasking experience, and it makes up for many of the architectural weaknesses of the Athlon 64 architecture, when push comes to shove, the faster single core will consistently bring home the bacon."

Read, and then ponder lol.
 
i prefer the 4400+. why? because: you cant change the amount of cache a processor has. however, you CAN overclock. thats is my reasoning.
 
personally I would get the 1gb ram and the 4800, and if you feel you need to overclock it then do so. you can easily get another gb of ram later, not so with the processor
 
ok guys stop trying to change my mind becuase its making me doubt wether or not to get the 4200+ now.:( And since i downgraded to a 4200+ i can get better things and other accesssories :D
so ive made up my mind. im going with the 4200+
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top