Buying a few new components

Remove all ads!

Oblivion is released and i'm still stuck with my Athlon 2000+ with 512MB of RAM.

So, i've decided to upgrade. I've recently bought a GF 6600GT, it should be enough to run Oblivion.

Other components are also fine, what i'm looking at is a better CPU, motherboard and RAM.

For the processor, i was thinking of Athlong 64 X2 3800+
Seeing that they're as overclockable as their predecessors, i thought it's the best choice to select the weakest of the series, since i can overclock it whenever i see the need.
There's also Opteron, but i'm not at all certain if they justify their higher price in regard to running games. Anyone knows what the difference is?


Motherboard i hear is not as important anymore, since Athlon 64 doesnt rely on it so much anymore. Probably some AsRock of ASUS motherboard with DualChannel and lan and sound card integrated.


For RAM, i intend to go 2x1GB, to have plenty of it. I'll normaly run at least two demanding processes, so i'll need it. DDR1, since i hear AMD doesnt support DDR2 yet.
I see there's a huge selection of different types. The last time i was knowledgable about RAM was when there was a choice of DDR or SDRAM, so i'm kinda out of the game by now
I can get this one:
RAM DDR 2048MB (2x1024MB) PC400/3200, KIT, CL 2,5, Kingston HyperX (KHX3200K2/2G)
a bit cheaper and i'm told it's a very good one. Hopefuly someone here knows what all those numbers mean, i'm lost beyond PC3200


Thanks!

 

Yeah, Athlon 64 handle overclocking wondeffully... but the concept of 64 bit processors is profundly stupid. Even on WinXP, your processor will run on 32 bit, so not using half of it's resources. WinXP 64 bits edition fixes that, but there are very, very few manufacturers who have made drivers for Windows 64 bit...

In the end, the choice is ultimatly yours, but I personally wouldn't settle for an Athlon 64.

 

People don't think the mobo is important any more, but if you get a crappy one, your overall system performance will suffer.

I personally like Abit motherboards. They are packed full of high end features they make overclocking extremely easy, and they aren't overpriced like ASUS boards.

Kingston makes a good stick of RAM, but if you intend on overclocking, you might want to consider OCZ RAM.

As for the total amount of RAM you actually need. I have 1GB (2x512MB) and I currently have MSN Explorer, #sorcerers using Trillian, CDex open and ripping a CD, Nero Drive Speed, MS Word open, and WinAMP open, but paused...and my RAM monitor says I still have 60% of free RAM left. 2GB is always nice, but you could save a lot of money by going with 1GB instead.

 

Opteron processors are better suited for servers, dude. An Athlon XP would probably be better suited for your needs, TBT.

True. DDR2 compatible AMD are on their way, though. Even though it uses DDR1, performances are pretty similar to an Intel with DDR2.

As for memory, Kingston kicks ass... but I am a Corsair sold-out.

 

Until Vista comes out, you really don't need more than 1 gig of RAM. I've got some Kingston RAM and they are quite good, though I think the best are Corsair. The price difference is not negligible though.

Both Abit and Gigabyte are good. Asus are just as good and much more expensive, so I wouldn't bother with them.

Forget about the Opteon, and even about the X2. You're never going to use the dual core option, so I don't see the need. Also, the Athlon 64 have a very odd naming convention that doesn't reflect their performance at all. So for example the X2 3800+ in fact performs almost exactly as well as the XP 3200+ (in 32-bit naturally), even though the name might say otherwise.

I've got an XP 3200+ and I've not had any problem running anything. Most of the new wave of games will be graphic monsters, but I doubt any of them will require anything more than the XP in terms of processing power. Something to keep in mind, considering you can get the XP for around $120, while the X2 is likely to be at least twice more expensive.

 

Doesn't matter when it comes out, because no one should be buying it when there are better, free alternatives like SuSe 10. Vista isn't 100% compatible with your old games, so it isn't a mandatory "choise" to upgrade to.

@ Gothmog•

Having upgraded my rig just some months ago, I can say that you can replace anything on your comp as long as it isn't your CPU, mobo, or case. If you have to touch to those, you have to upgrade the whole thing (because new CPU requires a new mobo, vice versa, and they require a new vid.card).

So if you are going to upgrade, think about which parts you can transfer to your new rig instead of hoping to keep it as a whole.

 

Err... what?

The "64-bit" nametag merely refers to the processors register sizes and bus sizes. So basically the processor can handle more memory.

Here is a few useful articles about the subject:

Ars Technica: Understanding the Microprocessor
Ars Technica: An Introduction to 64-bit Computing and x86-64

Hopefully this will clear some of the confusion about 64-bit computing.

 

True, although I will say that my FX-55 is a lot faster than any 32-bit processor that I've ever seen.

Is that an SLI?

 

I should have said, "you won't need 1gig of RAM unless you get Vista". Whether you would want to do that is another matter

The problem with this particular upgrade is that Gothmog will probably have to upgrade the CPU - the old Athlons are just too slow by today's standards, unfortunately.

Speaking of WinXP 64-bit edition, drivers shouldn't be a problem. Most if not all hardware that work on XP will also work with the 64-bit version.

Really the whole XP vs 64/X2 is about how much you're willing to pay. If you're not using a 64-bit application then you're not going to be taking advantage of a 64-bit CPU, simple as that. Dual core is supposed to be wonderful and everything, but again unless you're doing something that can specifically take advantage of dual processing you won't notice a difference (things like running a game while you download a file will really, really not make a difference). And whatever you do, do NOT decide to go 64 just because of it's "easier to upgrade in the future". It's not. Socket 939 will very soon become obsolete, and by the time you decide to upgrade your system you WILL need to buy a new motherboard (and CPU, and video card...). All this said I don't see any advantage to going 64-bit. Of course the top of the line X2 are much faster than the fastest XP, but they're also MUCH more expensive. And the X2 with comparable speed to the XP will be more expensive (and the mobo will be more expensive as well).

 

@Wordplay
I know, that's why i'm upgrading exactly those things together. It just doesnt work seperately.

@Rastor
With FX-55, sure it's faster than any 32bit

And, no SLI with my 6600GT. I'm told it's worthless to put two 6600 on a SLI, if you can get about 7800 for that money.

It's still AGP, so i'm buying a mobo with AGPx8 and PCI-e. That way i can easily upgrade to a better graphical card later and dont have to change the current one.
Of course, i'm already considering getting a new graphics, since this one wont be able to come anywhere near what RAM and processor will be capable of. It is costly though, a lot and the price will go down in a few months, so... Probably not worth it.


About the 32/64bit arguing... Where will you find a +-4000XP 32 bit processor?
Anyway, i was comparing the prices a bit. A64 3800+ (Venice) costs almost the same as X2 3800+ (manchester). Now unless there's a huge difference between Venice and Manchester, why not take the X2?

 

The first thing I am going to say to you Gothmog is to wait till mid June for the new CPU and motherboards for AMD and DDR2 RAM. But, if you want a computer now here is what I suggest:

Motherboard: NVIDIA NForce 4 Ultra or NVIDIA SLi Premium/Ultra
CPU: AMD 3700+ Athlon 64 San Diego Core or AMD 4200x2
RAM: 512x4 Dual Channel Over clock or 1GBx2 Dual Channel Over Clock
Hard Drive: SATAII 250GB x2 Raid
Video Card: NVIDIA Geforce 6800GS or higher
Sound Card: Onboard
Monitor: DVI LCD 17” or 19” 1600x1200
CPU Fan: Only needed if you are going to over clock
OS: Windows XP Pro or Windows XP Media Center w/ remote controller

Reasoning for this system: Don’t waste your money on a 6600 series Video Card. For the price of a 6600GT you could get a 6800GS. Don’t waste your money on a SATA Hard Drives, instead buy SATAII and setup raid, of course if you buy a cheap motherboard you won’t have the option of SATAII. As for ram you really don’t need to 2GB but if you do make sure you go dual channel and over clock if you can. I also recommend a new monitor for the new system. With updated technology the monitors improve and provide higher resolution and faster response time. My 19” LCD has a 12MS compared to the older LCD with 16MS or higher. I have seen some new LCD monitors with a 6MS and lower. Upgrading your monitor will only enhance your enjoyment of your new system.

If you have the money to buy a higher end system, do so. You will always regret buying the cheaper parts because you didn’t want to spend the money the first time.

Within a year I plan on upgrading my computer and this is what I hope to upgrade too…
RAM: 2GB Dual Channel Over Clock
Hard Drive: 74GB 10KRPM Raptor Hard Drive x2, Raid
Video Card: 7800GTX, ATI X1900XT or ATI X1800XT All In One
CPU: AMD FX 60 or AMD 4800x2

I made the mistake of not purchasing a mobo that has SATAII capability and that is why I recommend NForce 4 Ultra or SLi Premium/Ultra since they have that capability.

Good luck with your computer. Hopefully you are able to build what you want within your price range.

 

All fair advice, much like i'd buy myself.

Unfortunately, i already bought 6600GT a month ago, without thinking it through, as i should. It's on AGP.
By now, the price already fell for about 1/3, if i were to sell it, and i'd instead buy something like 7800GT/GTX or in similar price range. The gain wouldnt be worth the price though. I'll wait a few months to half a year for the prices to fall, then grab a nicely cheaper version. Until then, 6600GT will have to suffice. If need be, i'll overclock it a bit

So, i found a motherboard .
It isnt SATAII, but i dont intend to buy new drives anytime soon. Only 120GB on IDE, but it suffices. Note that this mobo doesnt have SATAII. AFAIK SATAII only affects transfer speed between partitions, so, not all that needed really.
It has pretty much everything else, as far as i can see.

As i'm buying from a specific source (for a good discount) i'd have to wait maybe more than a week for X2 3800+, so i've decided to take X2 4200+. The price difference is worth it (50USD), especialy as i dont have a mobo to overclock 3800+.

RAM, yeah, probably dont need the dual channel 2x1GB. But hell, i'll need it someday


Got a good 19' CRT already. I'm not a fan of LCDs, even if this monstrosity takes half my desk. Primarily i play Call of duty 2, where i need as fast response times as possible. 4-8ms LCDs would be fine, but why, if i already got a good screen

 

Although dual core processors do not markedly improve the performance of single applications they will cause most games to run faster than they would on a single processor variant. The reason for this being that all your background applications (Windows, anti-virus eytc) can be handledon one core and the game on the other. Also I'm not 100% sure on this but I think that the sound can be handled by a different core to the rest of the game. So although they dont run twice as fast, the 3800 dual core tends to cost only slightly more than the single core variety, and is therefore generally considered a good buy.

The main advantage of Opterons is that they use a restricted FX-55 core, and can be overclocked to achieve similar perfromance. It should be noted that AMD got al tiify about this and in Australia has refused to sell it to people who cannot demonstrate that they will be used in servers. Also Opterons are hard as to find.

As for RAM the only game that really utalises more than a gig of it is BF2. If I were you I'd buy a single 1 gig stick and buy the second several months down the track when you need it and can get it cheaper. As for the numbers at the end in PC400/3200 the 400 is the clock speed of the RAM, the higher the better. The 3200 is a reference to the timing, lower is better here. As for the other numbers I dont have too much of an idea, RAM manufactorers are becomming increasingly like this - corsair recently named one of their products with a latency of 1.5 - a theoretically impossible value.

Nothing wrong with a 6600GT (I've got one myself), though sli's not worth it imho too. Since it's AGP I wouldn't consider a major upgrade if you intend on getting a newer card.