Too Much Confusion

MiniVanMan

Baseband Member
Messages
24
Okay, I've been reading around, and I have everything picked out EXCEPT for the processor. I'm definitely going AMD based, but am stuck as to which processor.

This will be set up as a gaming computer. If I set it up that way, the rest of my applications will take care of themselves, seeing as I don't really tax my computer with anything else.

So, here's what I've been tossing around, Athlon 64 4000, or 3700. The real question is, is there really a $100.00 increase in performance between the two? Next, I see a lot of people recommend Opterons. Please tell me the advantages of an Opteron over the Athlon, besides overclocking? Doesn't look like the Opteron has any L1 cache, and the Athlon does. How important is this? Other than that, they look very similar. The Opteron 148 is a really inexpensive processor and I wouldn't mind being convinced that that's the way to go.
 
Actually the Opteron 148 does have an L1 cache, it's 64KB+64KB. The L2 cache is 1MB. The opteron 148 is a nice processor. BUt if you want somethign really nice, and is still an Opteron, I'd go with this. :D

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103588

It's a Dual-Core processor. Meaning that you'll be able to run multiple programs expotentially quicker then you ever could before! I would spend the extra money to get the Opteron 168 or the Opteron 170. They're both really good processors, they both can play any game out there, as well as provide new technologies for you.

The Athelon 64 4000+ isn't Dual-Core. So I don't knwo what you would want to do with it. If it's strictly for gaming, then you're good. But if you want to multitask and get things done in a heartbeat, then get the Opteron. It's a really nice CPU. :)
 
Okay, the 165 is under consideration. Don't know how I feel about a 1.8 GHz processor though. I know you can overclock the hell out of an Opteron, but how much?

I'm still not sure how much I would benefit from a dual core processor. I don't do a whole lot of multitasking. About the most I do is burning a DVD while browsing the internet. Not horribly taxing on a processor.

How about the differences between the Opteron 150 and the Athlon 4000+? About the same price.

This choice is going to kill me, and I'll probably always question whether or not I made the right one. HELP!!!!
 
the 165 should overclock to roughly 2.8 depending on the chip and the cooling used.
 
Remember that an AMD processor does more per clock. So a low frequency doesn't necessarily mean it isn't fast. :D
 
Okay, thanks!! Sounds like the 165 may be the best of both worlds. Unless anybody else has anything to say, I'll add that to the list. Next, problem RAM. But I'll post that somewhere else. :D
 
We can help you with RAM. Depending on what kind of DDR standard it is, regular DDR or DDR2, then get at least 1 gig of it, and make sure the DDR speed is within the maximum suported by your motherboard. :)
 
well, 1337dud3, from what it looks like, i think he wants to overclock. So why should he get RAM that is guranteed DDR400, when he can get RAM that is guranteed DDR500 and not take any chances ;) ?
 
Well, I don't know a whole lot about RAM. To me, it's almost all the same. I'm more of a CPU/Hardware person more then anything. ;)
 
Well, its not the same actually. For example, take the legendary BH-5, and BH-6. The use the same BH ICs, but BH-5 is the 5ns varient and BH-6 is the 6ns varient. BH-5 (with very very good sticks) can go up to DDR600 2-2-2-x timings. BH-6 could never do this. So you see, it isnt the same. But when RAM is guranteed to run at DDR500, it has to run at that speed for the manufacturer to sell it. Thus giving you a little more overhead than DDR400.
 
Back
Top Bottom