• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

I'm at a crossroads...

L

Lingxor

n00b
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
15
I've decided that it's time for me to upgrade... I'm currently running an amd 64 3000+ I've had enough of the random hiccups in fps while playing cnc3.

My mobo is compatible with the x2s that are out now, but I here so many people raving about the core 2's that it makes me unsure of whether or not I should stick with AMD... I'm looking at the x2 5600 and 6000 right now and my question is whether or not these cpus will give me the boost that I need and whether or not they will last long enough before I need to upgrade again.

I've heard that the 5600 is better in terms of value (179 at newegg) and power consumption...

Any advice would be greatly appreciated! :confused:
 
Need more information on the mobo you are running. When you refer to incompatible with new X2's, I am assuming you are referring to the AM2 socket?

A step up to a 5600 would be a fairly good leap in clock speed, and will help gaming and general use, and of course greatly facilitate any multitasking.
 
With gaming, I really didn't gain anything in the way of performance in going from a Skt 939 single core AMD 3000+ @ 2.4GHz to my e6300 @ 2.49GHz.

So in all honesty, I can say to not really worry about cpu brand if all you really do is gaming. I have noticed a bit better performance in video encoding apps (Single threaded) and in my old version of photoshop.

But I honestly don't feel that the upgrade was really worth it and wish I had just gotten 2GB of ram for my old system and perhaps a x2 chip instead of building a completely new one based off everyone raving about how great C2D chips are and how fast and all.

If the rest of your system is good, just get a new cpu and upgrading to C2D really isn't worth all the cash if you have a decent system otherwise. Heck I wish I had went AM2 as I would have saved enough cash while still getting similar cpu performance. Could have got a better graphics card that way. You can also overclock your cpu some if you haven't already. A 3000+ @ 2.4GHz is pretty fast, noticeably faster than the stock 1.8GHz.
 
WintersFury said:
With gaming, I really didn't gain anything in the way of performance in going from a Skt 939 single core AMD 3000+ @ 2.4GHz to my e6300 @ 2.49GHz.

So in all honesty, I can say to not really worry about cpu brand if all you really do is gaming. I have noticed a bit better performance in video encoding apps (Single threaded) and in my old version of photoshop.

But I honestly don't feel that the upgrade was really worth it and wish I had just gotten 2GB of ram for my old system and perhaps a x2 chip instead of building a completely new one based off everyone raving about how great C2D chips are and how fast and all.

If the rest of your system is good, just get a new cpu and upgrading to C2D really isn't worth all the cash if you have a decent system otherwise. Heck I wish I had went AM2 as I would have saved enough cash while still getting similar cpu performance. Could have got a better graphics card that way. You can also overclock your cpu some if you haven't already. A 3000+ @ 2.4GHz is pretty fast, noticeably faster than the stock 1.8GHz.
Click to expand...

Once again, just because you are not doing squat with your CPU doesn't mean the slower CPU isn't indeed SLOWER. Also that E6300 could be overclocked to more than 3.0GHz EASILY.

To the OP, if you are not in a hurry to upgrade wait until July 22, when Intel prices will come down again. That will probably give you better value whether you go with AMD or Intel.
 
merlingt1 said:
Once again, just because you are not doing squat with your CPU doesn't mean the slower CPU isn't indeed SLOWER. Also that E6300 could be overclocked to more than 3.0GHz EASILY.

To the OP, if you are not in a hurry to upgrade wait until July 22, when Intel prices will come down again. That will probably give you better value whether you go with AMD or Intel.
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out the fact that while it may be a more powerful chip that it will not always equate to real performance differences that are worth the cost of the upgrade.

While the C2D chips are amazing with things like video encoding when using decent software (Not Windows Movie Maker) and doing things that require as much raw cpu power as you can get. They don't seem to provide much in the way of benefit for gaming, I'm remembering a few articles on the site that indicate that as well, so it's not just me saying this.
 
WintersFury said:
With gaming, I really didn't gain anything in the way of performance in going from a Skt 939 single core AMD 3000+ @ 2.4GHz to my e6300 @ 2.49GHz.

So in all honesty, I can say to not really worry about cpu brand if all you really do is gaming. I have noticed a bit better performance in video encoding apps (Single threaded) and in my old version of photoshop.

But I honestly don't feel that the upgrade was really worth it and wish I had just gotten 2GB of ram for my old system and perhaps a x2 chip instead of building a completely new one based off everyone raving about how great C2D chips are and how fast and all.

If the rest of your system is good, just get a new cpu and upgrading to C2D really isn't worth all the cash if you have a decent system otherwise. Heck I wish I had went AM2 as I would have saved enough cash while still getting similar cpu performance. Could have got a better graphics card that way. You can also overclock your cpu some if you haven't already. A 3000+ @ 2.4GHz is pretty fast, noticeably faster than the stock 1.8GHz.
Click to expand...


I have to say that I notice tons of performance over my 3000+ at 2.2 ghz compared to my E6400 at 3.0ghz. Some of it may have been the jump to 2GB of RAM, but DDR400 is twice the price of ddr2-800, or at least it was when I purchased it.. I notice the dual core benefits when I am recording 2 MCE shows and doing other stuff on the computer simultaneously.
 
Lingxor, what's the rest of your computer look like? The thing is that you are using Socket 939 and you are looking at Socket Am2 CPU's.... can't mix them. You can get dual-core chips for the 939 though, for ~$100 at newegg. Would you be willing to overclock?

If you only want to throw in a new cpu, then a dual-core 3800+ should be fine. But depending on how the rest of your computer is, that might not even help that much. Let us know what the rest of your computer is, and maybe we can give more pointers ;)
 
dook43 said:
I have to say that I notice tons of performance over my 3000+ at 2.2 ghz compared to my E6400 at 3.0ghz. Some of it may have been the jump to 2GB of RAM, but DDR400 is twice the price of ddr2-800, or at least it was when I purchased it.. I notice the dual core benefits when I am recording 2 MCE shows and doing other stuff on the computer simultaneously.
Click to expand...

But, in defense of WintersFury, he DID say games, and I would have to agree. Gaming is still a GPU hog by and large, so if the machine is used almost exclusively for gaming the CPU won't buy him a lot...right now.
 
Lingxor said:
I've decided that it's time for me to upgrade... I'm currently running an amd 64 3000+ I've had enough of the random hiccups in fps while playing cnc3.

My mobo is compatible with the x2s that are out now, but I here so many people raving about the core 2's that it makes me unsure of whether or not I should stick with AMD... I'm looking at the x2 5600 and 6000 right now and my question is whether or not these cpus will give me the boost that I need and whether or not they will last long enough before I need to upgrade again.

I've heard that the 5600 is better in terms of value (179 at newegg) and power consumption...

Any advice would be greatly appreciated! :confused:
Click to expand...

In your case I would make the overhaul and transition to Core 2 with a P35 based motherboard and DDR2 ram with a processor of your choice.

DDR2 is very cheap right now, much more so then DDR, so I bet you can sell off your existing DDR1 and get DDR2 easily.

The highest Dual Core you can run is only FX-60 which is hard to come buy these days. Dual Core on S939 are getting rarer by the day.
 
Lingxor said:
2gb ddr
radeon x800 xl

maybe I should just try OC'ing my 3000+ then...
Click to expand...

buy a new video card like the geforce 8800 series or radeon 2900 series. that will offer much much more improvement than upgrading CPUs to a higer end amd or Core 2 Duo.
 
WintersFury said:
With gaming, I really didn't gain anything in the way of performance in going from a Skt 939 single core AMD 3000+ @ 2.4GHz to my e6300 @ 2.49GHz.

So in all honesty, I can say to not really worry about cpu brand if all you really do is gaming. I have noticed a bit better performance in video encoding apps (Single threaded) and in my old version of photoshop.

But I honestly don't feel that the upgrade was really worth it and wish I had just gotten 2GB of ram for my old system and perhaps a x2 chip instead of building a completely new one based off everyone raving about how great C2D chips are and how fast and all.

If the rest of your system is good, just get a new cpu and upgrading to C2D really isn't worth all the cash if you have a decent system otherwise. Heck I wish I had went AM2 as I would have saved enough cash while still getting similar cpu performance. Could have got a better graphics card that way. You can also overclock your cpu some if you haven't already. A 3000+ @ 2.4GHz is pretty fast, noticeably faster than the stock 1.8GHz.
Click to expand...

There must be something wrong with your system. There is a world of difference between my X2 4400+ and an old 3200+ I use to have... I didn't notice much change in MS Word, but everything else was much better, including gaming, and especially newer games that can make use of both cores.
 
That's one of my issues... I would like to get a dual core because I might be getting vista soon.
 
RamonGTP said:
There must be something wrong with your system. There is a world of difference between my X2 4400+ and an old 3200+ I use to have... I didn't notice much change in MS Word, but everything else was much better, including gaming, and especially newer games that can make use of both cores.
Click to expand...

I went from a 3000+ Winchester S939 OC'd @2.25 Ghz to a 3600+ Dual core Brisbane Socket AM2 Oc'd to 2.7 GHz.... from XP to Vista, and the change is definitely night and day for me. Obviously not with MS Word, but with having Word open, couple Firefox browsers w/ multiple tabs, MP3 playing, Messenger, etc etc etc. It is SO much more responsive! As for gaming, I went from an X1600Pro to an 8800GTS... so obviously there was a huge boost. I'm sure the CPU contributed a bit, but maybe not a ton, although I would have been CPU limited with my 3000+ for sure.

Lingxor said:
That's one of my issues... I would like to get a dual core because I might be getting vista soon.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think dual core is worth it, because you HAVE to use your computer for more than just gaming, right? Everyone surfs the web, chats, listens to music... well basically. If you're the type of person that keeps his computer tidy though, and only has one program open at a time, then maybe a single core will do you just fine.

My suggestion to you would be to overclock if you can, see if it makes any tangible differences, then see if it would be worthwhile for you to buy a new CPU.

Depending on your budget though, it might not be so expensive for you to sell off your old computer and buy a completely new one... I mean, you can get an 8800GTS 640mb now for ~$320, E6600 for ~$210, DDR2 ram is disgustingly cheap.... you could probably get a couple hundred bucks for you old comp and put that toward a new one.... but I don't know if that would interest you ;)
 
So I'm kind of new to this OC'ing business... in my BIOS i see an option for CPU Frequency, but If I turn it up higher than 220 is seems to default back to the stock speed... right now I'm at 1980 mhz when I check system info. Am I missing something here? My cpu temp hovers around 48 degrees.
 
Contrary to what you may hear, overclocking is not as simple as bumping up the FSB, or "reference clock" as it is for Athlon 64's. Raising the FSB not only increases the CPU's frequency, which is of course the desired effect, but it also increases the memory clock as well as the hypertransport bus, which isn't necessarily desirable and can lead to instability, depending on many other factors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top