AMD 64 3000+ vs AMD 64 X2 4200+

ok i got a few easy questions. i have an amd 3000 and its not overclocked cause i suck at that stuff, it runs at 1.81 ghz and i see the 4200x2 processor runs at 2.2ghz. is this better? i also heard that x2 is bad for gaming but would one of its two cores still out preform my CPU? also wondering if its worth going to core 2 duo. the price is low for the core but i already have an amd mobo and to go for cheapest intel core 2 duo chip it would cost moe over 300$ where the 4200 would cost me only about 185. what do u guys recomend? thanks alot

 

who sed the x2 performs sh*t in games. it is much better than a single core and performs well overall in all tasks.
go with the x2 becoz its cheaper and more worth it. if ur still on socket 939, i wud suggest that before getting the x2 (if u get it) u get an am2 mobtherboard as there is no point in staing with socket 939 if u plan to upgrade later on as the upgrades will be for the am2 socket and the 939 are are slowing down in production, the 939 and am2 x2 are about the same price anyway so it wud just be a sacrifice of getting a new mobo

 

well for now im kinda stuck with a 200$ limit, but would the mobo make a big diffrence?

 

And new RAM.

 

Am2 is replacing socket 939.

One advantage is that am2 supports the new ram (ddr2). DDR2 has a higher front side bus ( 533,667,800mhz) as oposed to the old ran (DDR) which has a fsb of 400mhz or less.

I would hold my money and save for an am2 system. As izzy said it a wast to plough your bucks into an old technology. Its obvious that u are gaming. If you are looking for higher fps then its probably best to upgrade your gfx card because that is where you will find a big difference in gaming.

Just a thought/sugestion: why not invest in a new screen cuz it will probably give you the biggest difference out of all your upgrade choices. I mean whats the point of running the best box in the world when your visual enjoyment is low

 

exactly, i was having a tough time deciding overthese upgrades, a new CPU, gfx card, (i was thinking 7600GT for my budget), or a 19"LCD(i could get a free CRT 19" if my dad gets a new monitor) wow, its amazing u basically red my mind lol. i think my CPU will be fine for now but the required specs are rising, and i get scared when games life BF2 say minimus ghz is 1.7, and mine is 1.8, but idk if mine would acually be scored close to a 3.0 caues its a 3000+

 

amd rates whatever00+ on the minimum performance vs intelP4. so what that basically means is that an amd 3000+ will normlly demolish an intel of a 3ghz rating.

If thats the cas then id get the 19" crt from your dad then get a 7600gt. Its the best way forward as i see it. But the impoertant thing is how you see it. Good luck deciding

 

thanks for the imput, ill talk to my dad about the monitor then go for the gfx card. thanks for the imput on my desperate question lol ill probably have more questions in the future but for now thanks

 

I say wait till you have a good bit of cash and get a good selection of product that are well balenced but will last. I mean sure you could go for it now but you couldn't get all that you wanted and you'd be stuck with bottle necking problems with one part of you're system outperforming the other.

Core 2 duo is a great line of processors but in going with that route you'd need a new motherboard (which aren't too cheap unfortunately) and new DDR2 ram. DDR1 ram isn't bad it does go well beyond 400MHz, that's officially all that AMD mentions it's skt 939 motherboards use as a standard but it's perfectly capable of running DDR600 for example.

Dual core isn't a huge deal just yet if you're not really multitasking as games don't really take advantage of it now. The X2 line or Intels Core/core 2 series run games just great, hardcore gamers went with AMD's single core chips over the X2's (before Core 2 duo) because the higher end ones had higher clockspeeds that the X2's but when compairing a 2.2GHz 3700+ vs a 2.2GHz 4200+ you'll find performance is pretty much equal in current games.

I know first hand that 1.8Ghz isn't enough for modern games on higher settings. I overclocked to 2.2Ghz recently and it really has helped quite a bit. The good news is overclocking is dead simple and there are scads of tutorials on and offline for them. Or if you're not up to it a new AMD 3800+ (2.4GHz) is only around $165 which is pretty much the best bang for the buck you'll find. Granted that's for AM2 motherboards but the choice is yours.

 

hmm tough decision, could you give me a link to a good overclocking site? or something, that would be helpfull, thanks

 

well as someone recently mentioned, the 1.7ghz does not mean that your athlon 64 3000 will be bottlenecked because it runs at 1.8ghz, it also say 1.7ghz or 1700+ amd athlon equivalent. i was running halo which needed 1.5ghz or equivalent on and amd athlon xp 2800+ and it ran fine when underclocked at 1900+ (1.6ghz). ur processor will run the games fine but there is no point in getting a new processor if ur stuck with the same graphics card, becuase if u get another one, if will allow u to use things like more anti-aliasing and shader etc for which u may need a better processr like the 3800+ to play the games with high setting on perfectly
there is an overclocking sticky in the overclocking section i think

 

Yeah, the GPU is far more important for games but you can't skimp on the processor, games are becoming very physics intensive and AI is constantly improving among other things so it's good to at least future proof a bit. Any test will show that a better processor yeilds higher fps in games. If you're graphics card is waiting on your CPU things aren't going well. It's best to have an even match naturally.
Here's probably one of the most popular computer related forums out there. There are stickies and threads covering everything. Just try and read up on stuff already there before posting as they get a bit hot under the collar when people post topics that have been discussed a whole lot. One of the downsides of such as large memer base.

 

Agreed AM2 is nice, and it works better with faster memory. The faster your memory gets, the better AM2s will perform.

If you're gaming get the CRT. The only advantage LCDs have over CRTs is how thin they are. They're better at saving space, and easier on the eyes. But CRTs are faster, have more colors because they're analog, and overall a better technology.

As for response to your original post: Intel Core2 Duo E6300 going for $209. You can get a motherboard for it for $150. And you'll need some DDR2 mem.

The E6300 overclocks on stock heatsink/fan to about AMD FX-62 speeds. With water cooling it'll be faster, but if youre going to spend money on a water cooler, you might as well just pay for the better processor.

Regards.

 

wow, all this information helps me decide on what to do, and i heard about the CRT being better for gaming, its just a matter of if i cn fit it, my 15 crt fits ok but idk how much room im going to need for a 19 crt. thanks for all the input guys. but also ive seen this happen to two CRT's, what happens is eventually the monitor will start turning itself off every so often, or flicker etc. whats this mean for preformance wise?

 

When it turns itself off, it's probably in power-saving mode. I believe you can stop this by going to your Windows Power Options. It's genrally good to keep it though because it should only happen when your computer has gone idle. This keeps the screen from burining an image into your monitor. I have a 19" and it is bigger mainly in terms of width and height, it goes back about just as far as the 15". This being said, before LCD/Plama got popular they were begining to develop new CRTs that don't go as far back as they used to. I was looking forward to this as CRT is really the better technology that is being phased out for aesthetic reasons.

 

well what if it flickers and powers off every five minutes as you are using the PC, is this just telling me my monitor is bad and i need a new one or that i can fix it somehow, i heard that u cant really fix a monitor but idk.

 

I don't agree with the comment about CRTs being faster for gaming, and personally I wouldn't ever go back to CRT.
I have a Fujitsu Siemens 17" LCD (8ms delay). The image quality is absolutely fantastic. Everything is much smoother, and my games look better.
I can actually feel that the monitor responds faster than my CRT did, I have a load more space on the desk too.
You also dont get that "rounded" look at the screen's corners, where the image bends off (though this was because my CRT wasn't a flat screen).

All in all I have lost nothing by upgrading to LCD and i recommend it to everyone.

 

now im confused...

 

Sorry

Just don't want you to miss out on something which would be the perfect upgrade. It has given my computer a new lease of life just by upgrading the monitor. Games are more responsive and look a lot better.
I would definately get an LCD some time in the future, if not now.
I can sit at the computer longer and feel more comfortable doing so, my eyes don't begin to hurt and i dont get a headache.

 

Does anyone else find it funny how I quoted him? CRTs are not faster than an LCD... there's just a delay? Mut doesn't know what he's talking about and if you want to be serious about gaming then for the time being you won't waste money on a LCD.

Again, as I said there only two major benefits of LCDs - easier on the eyes and the amount of space they take up, you could possibly stick the power consumption in there (if you're environmentally concious). But you can get screen protectors (or even glasses) to make CRTs more comfortable if you really are a baby (I don't have a problem).

So let's go into why Mut is an at-home, uninformed buyer. If LCDs are equal in speed to CRTs then why is there a delay on them? Wait, Mut says his has a faster response time... CRTs do not have a delay, only a refresh rate!! LCD delay is typically associated with mouse delay. Companies have been pushing for lower and lower delay and eventually they'll get there, right now the $1000 LCD monitors are doing well with actual response time, but that's a little expensive, dont you think?

In no point in time will LCDs or Plasmas ever respond faster than CRTs. I don't think it's possible. This statement was ridiculous, it seems like he is trying to make himself feel better for having an LCD - or maybe the philosophy of "you don't feel as bad when everyone else is hurting too". I think he's just blinded by ignorance.

In any case, if his response time is better than that of his CRT, then there was something wrong with his CRT because I have never seen that.


Many monitor companies have begun to market their LCDs with 2ms BWB repsonse time. But if there are any that hold true to that fact, I haven't seen them. They're really closer to 10ms - 17ms when they're lacking overdrive. It's another ploy to give customers something "new" to buy.

Another problem with LCDs is something called ghosting. This is usually a "smearing" affect because of the poor quality of technology. Generally, the higher the response time, the greater the ghosting. This is not a good thing, it's a problem - maybe that's what Mut ment by smoother?


The final point: color. So what's the problem with color? CRTs are analog, there is no problem there. LCDs, on the other hand, have a bigger problem with color. A 6-bit LCD can only produce 262,144 colors ((2^6)^3) so it has to implement a dithering or frame rate control technique to simulate up to 16.7 million colors (AnandTech.com). Dithering is a problem.

Besides that, you face other problems with contrast ratios, brightness, pixel burnouts, and whatever else I haven't mentioned.








Sorry to dog on you Mut, but you're wrong. Any photo professional, or serious gamer knows - CRT is the way to go. LCDs are just functional.