Want new processor for around $400...advice?

All I do is play BF2. That's it...I'm a total junkie.

It's either the 4000+ Venice or San Diego because I want to use all 4 ram slots using both the a-data 2x1gb and my 512x2 at the same time and heard I cant run all of them at full speed with the Clawhammer. Any opinions on which is better between the two?

I heard the 4000+ will give me the best bang for the buck right now and I don't care about the future and what dual core may do for me in the years to come. If the X2's or Optys will give me better performance playing BF2 that's cool and I'm open to it but otherwise fugghetaboutit.

I'll proly OC a little bit but I am such a noob at that. I had my 3500+ up to 2.7 stable for a little while...any idea what the 3500 will do with water?

Thanks in advance.

I have the 4000+ San Diego and currently have it OC'd to 2.76 on air completly stable HTT230 12xMultiplier and I know theres still plenty of head room in it....

Have some days off coming up so I'm going to push it further as my CPU temps are only hitting 39/40C at full load.

Certainly not disappointed with my choice as I'd rather have the extra clockspeed over a dual core when it comes to building with a budget in mind.

Personal choice though, depends if you heavily multitask or not I guess...

Opteron 170's are hovering around $400 and below.

www.monarchcomputer.com

Go with the Opteron 170.

my suggestion is to go with the X2 4200 since I feel that future games are going to run smoother on a dual core as well a dual core allows multi-tasking

Stick with single core. You may get a much better bang for your buck.

If you're planning on overclocking, then get an A64 or Opt with 1MB cache and turn it up. I'm not sure you even need $400 if you're planning on OC'ing.

You might want to buy a less expensive single core and then use the saved money to water cool and get a better OC.

None of the games currently out show any meaningful increase in performance on a dual core, and it doesn't appear that that is going to change much with the games that are currently under development.

Even ATI's dual core drivers have virtually no effect on performance.

If BF2 is all you care about, go single core.

Ok, just found out that there is no such thing as a 4000+ Venice.

Thanks for the replies.

I guess the only multitasking that I do is play BF2 with either Vent or TS in the background...does this warrant dual core?

I think what I will do is get the 4000+ and OC it a little bit air cooled then start shopping for watercooling parts.

BTW, can anyone either confirm or deny that its impossible to run four modules at full speed with the Clawhammer? I would hate to buy the San Diego to find out that it's the other way around...

neloangelo said:

my suggestion is to go with the X2 4200 since I feel that future games are going to run smoother on a dual core as well a dual core allows multi-tasking

Click to expand...

I agree for $26 dollars more you can have the power of 2 cpu's (amd 4200+). Check all the benchmarks; 200mhz doesn't even matter and if it really does matters to you, you can overclock the 4200+ on stock voltage and hit atleast 2.4 and 2.5. The temps almost stay the same as stock.

Even if you buy the amd 4000+ or amd 4200+ or opertron 170, you will be upgrading again at the same time.. When games like UT2k7 come out this year, fully optimized for dual core, you will wish you had one.

In that case I think I may as well go for the opty 170...heard of people getting 2.9 on air...are they the lucky ones?

Im pretty comfortable saying you can easily get 2.6 out of the 170, and most of them go higher than that.

Running 4 sticks of RAM will force the memory controller to run 2T command rate, which can have a large negative impact on performance. I think 2GB (using you 2x 1GB sticks only) at 1T would actually perform better than 3GB at 2T.

Running 4 sticks of RAM will force the memory controller to run 2T command rate, which can have a large negative impact on performance

Click to expand...

im running 4 sticks (2x512 and 2x1gb) at 2T and the loss in performance was negligable. went from 5550mb/s to 5490mb/s

Hallow said:

In that case I think I may as well go for the opty 170...heard of people getting 2.9 on air...are they the lucky ones?

Click to expand...

Luck of the draw, some do 2.8+ some won't do past 2.4.

CZ100B said:

Running 4 sticks of RAM will force the memory controller to run 2T command rate, which can have a large negative impact on performance. I think 2GB (using you 2x 1GB sticks only) at 1T would actually perform better than 3GB at 2T.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've always heard the same thing until I ran across something that someone said who had the exact same setup as mine...Upgraded from 2x512mb HyperX to 2x1gb A-Data and the performance gain was good, as much as to be expected from twice as much ram, but out of curiosity he toosed his old sticks of HyperX in along side his new stuff and the thing screamed. So I'm going to try the same...if it doesn't help then I'll put it in my dedicated porn surfing computer.

Then again, with the 4000+ there is something I heard about the San Diego core that will still allow all of the modules to run at full speed as opposed to the 4000+ Clawhammer that won't...can anyone confirm or deny this?

Thanks again for the replies...still up in the air between the 4000+ and the opty 170...I'm researching watercooling parts right now and if I go that route I'll definitely get the opty 170 otherwise I'll get the 4000+ and stay on air...