![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
this upgrade is worth it?
- Thread starter Booker
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 31,348
That would be a nice upgrade. You'd definitely see a difference in games especially, but all around system performance also. Should be able to OC that chip a bit too. 2.4Ghz is a real possibility.
TheMostWantedPolishTwin
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2000
- Messages
- 6,206
the difference will be noticeable.. especially in games (provided that you have or will get a decent vid card that won't hold back the CPU)
You will see a very nice difference in performance between the two. You need to decide if the cost of upgrading is suitable for your needs. I upgraded my HTPC from a 1.7Ghz P4 w/ 256PC800 ram to a 2.8Ghz P4 w/ 1GB PC3200 ram. The difference was HUGE (mainly b/c of the ram), but everything ran much smoother and faster.
ohh ok... i was a but afraid coz i saw the real GH and it wasn´t much... but i guess it will be good enough to show big improvement.
i don´t plan on upgrading my 9800pro yet... since i live on Argentina and the Cards are really expensive.
This alone, mother, CPU and Ram... will make the it worth it anyways.. right?
Thanks again for the replys!
i don´t plan on upgrading my 9800pro yet... since i live on Argentina and the Cards are really expensive.
This alone, mother, CPU and Ram... will make the it worth it anyways.. right?
Thanks again for the replys!
Nazo
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2002
- Messages
- 3,672
Venice is one seriously cool chip (no, I mean that literally.) It will oc a fair bit with the stock HSF and still run a decent temperature. I think it will make it to 2.4. Heck, my chip is running almost that right now and is in the lower to mid 30C temperature range with my current cooler (ok, it's a better cooler -- the Venus 12 -- but, you get the idea, it's one cold chip.) Prime95 pushes it up to about 38C or so, and I think the highest I've ever seen it go in a really hot room was around 42C. I imagine that the stock heatsink surely couldn't be more than 10C hotter, surely... If it is, someone screwed up...
Ignore the real frequencies btw. Unlike Intel, AMD doesn't concentrate first on clocks second on MIPS (that's basically Million Instructions Per Second -- this is important because each newer AMD core has a higher ratio of instructions per cycle than the previous, so does better at the same frequencies and even better yet at higher frequencies,) AMD focuses first on MIPS, second on clocks. Intel has always bragged clocks in the past, though more recently they are catching on that it's not that simple and are now concentrating on getting their processors more powerful per cycle too (at least, this is the impression I have of their current progress.) Unfortunately, as you see yourself, users are still used to the old ideas that the core frequencie told you all you needed to know about the speed of the processor, which is why AMD devised their little PR rating system.
Anyway, my old Barton (a 2600+ Mobile) was running 200x12.5 (eg 2.5GHz, but, the 200 FSB is important) and it was just comparable to my dad's Newcastle 3500+, a little lower in some areas (like memory obviously,) but, equal in most. Going from an 1800+ or 1.8GHz, whichever you meant, will be a HUGE jump. Not to mention that you can count on that venice getting you to a minimum of 3200+ speeds, probably 3400+ if not more assuming your memory doesn't end up holding you back. Basically, excluding the effects of overclocking, you can more or less trust AMD's little PR rating system, so a higher number CPU IS better than the lower one (though in some cases not by the huge amounts they imply, such as the Barton 3200+ vs the Barton 2800+, which was the FSB more than anything else.) Don't underestimate the barton though, I got amazing things out of it running at such a high speed. Just, it requires a really high speed to get the barton to catch up to the A64 in anything, and in gaming it will always be at least one step behind.
Either way, you'll find that that CPU runs much better than your old one. You'd have to clock it around 2.2GHz at least to get it to compare even slightly to the venice BEFORE overclocking. Not to mention that, due to differences such as the memory thing, the Athlon 64s really shine when it comes to things like gaming and the bartons of the same ratings can't really keep up.
One thing you should do is put in a little research on that memory before you get it. Even the brands everyone knows as great have their low ends that won't do well. Your memory will end up holding you back from having a great system if it doesn't do well enough.
BTW, if you're looking at nForce 3s (I noticed you said you were keeping your video card) you might also want to look at this board, the EPoX 9NDA3. It was highly recommended as a great bang for the buck kind of deal which can overclock pretty well and everything. The only downside to it is the maximum memory voltage is 2.8V, and my current memory uses UTT CH5 chips, which want more power (3+) to do PROPER overclocking. This got me a relatively cheap setup more quickly, and later on down the road when I need more processing power I'll buy an OCZ memory booster and raise my voltages through it. It's not the best setup in the world, but, it's one at least somewhat worth considering for the price.
Ignore the real frequencies btw. Unlike Intel, AMD doesn't concentrate first on clocks second on MIPS (that's basically Million Instructions Per Second -- this is important because each newer AMD core has a higher ratio of instructions per cycle than the previous, so does better at the same frequencies and even better yet at higher frequencies,) AMD focuses first on MIPS, second on clocks. Intel has always bragged clocks in the past, though more recently they are catching on that it's not that simple and are now concentrating on getting their processors more powerful per cycle too (at least, this is the impression I have of their current progress.) Unfortunately, as you see yourself, users are still used to the old ideas that the core frequencie told you all you needed to know about the speed of the processor, which is why AMD devised their little PR rating system.
Anyway, my old Barton (a 2600+ Mobile) was running 200x12.5 (eg 2.5GHz, but, the 200 FSB is important) and it was just comparable to my dad's Newcastle 3500+, a little lower in some areas (like memory obviously,) but, equal in most. Going from an 1800+ or 1.8GHz, whichever you meant, will be a HUGE jump. Not to mention that you can count on that venice getting you to a minimum of 3200+ speeds, probably 3400+ if not more assuming your memory doesn't end up holding you back. Basically, excluding the effects of overclocking, you can more or less trust AMD's little PR rating system, so a higher number CPU IS better than the lower one (though in some cases not by the huge amounts they imply, such as the Barton 3200+ vs the Barton 2800+, which was the FSB more than anything else.) Don't underestimate the barton though, I got amazing things out of it running at such a high speed. Just, it requires a really high speed to get the barton to catch up to the A64 in anything, and in gaming it will always be at least one step behind.
Either way, you'll find that that CPU runs much better than your old one. You'd have to clock it around 2.2GHz at least to get it to compare even slightly to the venice BEFORE overclocking. Not to mention that, due to differences such as the memory thing, the Athlon 64s really shine when it comes to things like gaming and the bartons of the same ratings can't really keep up.
One thing you should do is put in a little research on that memory before you get it. Even the brands everyone knows as great have their low ends that won't do well. Your memory will end up holding you back from having a great system if it doesn't do well enough.
BTW, if you're looking at nForce 3s (I noticed you said you were keeping your video card) you might also want to look at this board, the EPoX 9NDA3. It was highly recommended as a great bang for the buck kind of deal which can overclock pretty well and everything. The only downside to it is the maximum memory voltage is 2.8V, and my current memory uses UTT CH5 chips, which want more power (3+) to do PROPER overclocking. This got me a relatively cheap setup more quickly, and later on down the road when I need more processing power I'll buy an OCZ memory booster and raise my voltages through it. It's not the best setup in the world, but, it's one at least somewhat worth considering for the price.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 31,348
Booker said:
Shouldn't be a problem. If you were shooting for 2.6 or higher (I got mine to 2.6 stable), I'd say try something else, but the stock cooler is decent enough for 2.2-2.4Ghz unless you have to raise voltage a lot (unlikely).
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 31,348
You can always see how far stock voltage/cooling takes you. Even 2.2Ghz is still a 3500+ speed. You almost certainly can do that on stock cooling/voltage.
Nazo
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2002
- Messages
- 3,672
Uhm, if you are overclocking just to see a 4FPS increase in games, you may be dissapointed, yes (though it can help some things run more smoothly with more than a 4 FPS difference in extreme cases -- some newer games coming out in the future may make more use of more cpu power than current ones.) Raising your CPU's speed can increase other things, however, such as speed of encoding, or video processing for example. It's not limited to games only like some people act like. On my old barton, the difference between 2.2GHz and 2.5GHz was several very nice high quality processing effects that I couldn't use at 2.2. Well, I haven't had time to properly test things out with the new chip, but, so far stock can do just about everything NORMAL that I throw at it on normal MPEG4. d-: I have high hopes for what happens when I oc it properly. I might get some insane effects then. (This thing is powerful enough for HDTV upsampling -- now if only I HAD HDTV...) d-: Of course, if you're just doing some basic gaming and word processing, overclocking is pointless and using the lowest end Venice at stock is more than enough anyway (though the cool thing is that when it starts to fall behind you can just overclock it and it's no longer so behind.)
And Booker, yes, you overclock in the BIOS. Athlon 64s are multiplier HALF locked, meaning that you can lower the multiplier, but, not raise it. Well, in the case of the venice, this is useless, but, in some where the cpu is closer to it's maximum speed, you can use this to get your fsb higher while not overclocking the cpu beyond the point it can run stable at. So, all you do to overclock now is raise your FSB, which means that your memory either has to handle it, or you'll have to desynchronize the memory and run it at a slower ratio (usually better to keep it synched and have the CPU a bit slower IMO.) This makes it a little harder because it's hard to tell which of the three components involved made an overclock unstable when you go too high (with the CPU it's temperature mainly, but, the motherboard and memory really don't have much warning.)
And Booker, yes, you overclock in the BIOS. Athlon 64s are multiplier HALF locked, meaning that you can lower the multiplier, but, not raise it. Well, in the case of the venice, this is useless, but, in some where the cpu is closer to it's maximum speed, you can use this to get your fsb higher while not overclocking the cpu beyond the point it can run stable at. So, all you do to overclock now is raise your FSB, which means that your memory either has to handle it, or you'll have to desynchronize the memory and run it at a slower ratio (usually better to keep it synched and have the CPU a bit slower IMO.) This makes it a little harder because it's hard to tell which of the three components involved made an overclock unstable when you go too high (with the CPU it's temperature mainly, but, the motherboard and memory really don't have much warning.)