0

I am very close to buying a amd 64 3400+ and mobo, I like to play tons of games on my pc currently i play doom 3 on a celeron 2.2Ghz and 9600XT, and my settings are at medium, it runs ok but slows down when the monsters pop out :lol: , I just want something to run my game smoothly with the settings at high or ultra (maximum).

so the question is, should I go with the amd 64 3400+ coupled with 1gig of ram or wait till its cheaper and buy the amd 64 fx-53, I just dont want to spend $800 on a cpu.

also Ill buy a new video card if i need to maybe a 6800GT or 6600

6
Contributors
25
Replies
26
Views
13 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Catweazle
0

I would purchase now rather than wait. An Athlon64 3400+ for socket 754, coupled with an Nvidia 6800GT display card will have you happily gaming for a long time to come.

Alternatively, you could bin that Celeron and replace it with a decent Pentium 4 processor, and drop a 6800GT (and more RAM if necessary) into your current PC. (If your motherboard will accept up to date processors of course). Either way you would have a system which will see you right for ages!

By the time it started to struggle in games the newer emerging technology would be commonplace and more cheaply obtained.

0

i want to wait till the 6800 ultra or gt becomes cheaper cause I just spent $200 on a video card less then a year ago.

0

I'm kind of in agreement with Catweazle here. Could your current system take a Pentium 4 3.4ghz chip, or something similar? I'm checking Pricewatch, and they're selling OEM versions of that chip for about $280US. If you bump up the memory on your current system, and upgrade the processor, then you'll be sitting pretty, I imagine.

I'm not trying to be a sounding board for Catweazle, but stick with your current setup, and just upgrade pieces of it. I think that from a fiscal and a performance standpoint, you'll be better off for now.

0

no way I want to go AMD my current mobo only supports up to a 533Mhz FSb anyways.

0

I would purchase now rather than wait. An Athlon64 3400+ for socket 754, coupled with an Nvidia 6800GT display card will have you happily gaming for a long time to come.

Cat,
Would that setup be just as cool for video & multimedia production setup?
I've never quite been able to determine a difference and the why's & whatfor's in the difference between the two; both seem intense to me. Maybe the 10m rpm hd and such as firewire IO would be the difference.
BuddyB

0

The setup would be extremely capable at video and multimedia production. But if video and multimedia production are your primary intentions for the system, then perhaps a high powered Pentium solution with its hyperthreading capabilities would be better. Not MUCH better, but better nevertheless.

As a Desktop applications and gaming system, the Athlon64 currently has the 'edge'. But as a Workstation, the Pentium has the edge over the equivalent Athlon64, as far as I'm aware.

0

I made up my mind Im going with the 64 3400+ with 1GB PC3200 RAM and I'll probaly just stick with my 9600XT for a while.

BTW what is Intels equivalant to the 64 3400+?

0

Intel does not have an 'equivalent' to the A64 3400+, because it currently does not have a 64/32 desktop processor, nor does it have a 32-bit desktop processor with the 'security bit' protection feature of the Athlon64 line.

In 32-bit desktop Windows computing you could expect the Pentium 4 3.4GHz to be competitive.

0

i understand what your saying, but just like pentium doesnt support 64-bit, amd 64 doesnt have hyper threading so doesn't all even out in the long run?

0

Hyper threading is only useful if the type of program you run uses it. For everyday applications computing and for PC gaming it gives next to no benefit. For specialised tasks like real-time video editing, 3D rendering and a few other high-end tasks, hyper-threading will give benefit, and for those tasks a top-end Pentium would possibly be a better choice.

For everything else, the Athlon64 has a narrow but definite performance lead.

0

I am very close to buying a amd 64 3400+ and mobo, I like to play tons of games on my pc currently i play doom 3 on a celeron 2.2Ghz and 9600XT, and my settings are at medium, it runs ok but slows down when the monsters pop out :lol: , I just want something to run my game smoothly with the settings at high or ultra (maximum).

so the question is, should I go with the amd 64 3400+ coupled with 1gig of ram or wait till its cheaper and buy the amd 64 fx-53, I just dont want to spend $800 on a cpu.

also Ill buy a new video card if i need to maybe a 6800GT or 6600

woah...celeron...daring you are...lol careful you might blow that chip up :cheesy:

0

my computer was bought when P4 was just coming out, i have gone from a stock emachines to my own custom pc minus the cpu
so i just want a amd 64 to kick some ass in games

0

You should buy. Check out http://www.cinfinitysolutions.com.

Please don't litter the forum with self-advertising like that. It's neither encouraged nor permitted here.

Besides, that website suggests that the slower performing system is the 'Performance' option, whilst advertising that the better performing games system is a 'value' option. Bit misguided, eh?

mokkema is asking about components, and that website does not offer anything but assembled systems, so the link is useless here.

0

umm quick question

while browsing newegg, i found that they have two AMD 64 3400+ models

one comes in a red and black box costs$280 and has a 512Kb cache

the other comes in the original AMD box costs $292 and has a 1MB cache.

which one is better?
I was looking at the 1Mb cache one because it has a bigger cache and is only $12 more.

These will be my stats sooner or later
AMD 64 3400+
Windows Xp (64-bit version)
1024GB PC3200 DDR
200GB HDD (40GB+160GB)
Asus 9600XT (core:500Mhz ram:600Mhz)
520Watt Powersupply (should be in today or monday :mrgreen: )

How does that sound for games?

0

I've dug up a bit more information, and it indicates perhaps the data on AMD's specifications page may not be correct. The two processors you mentioned have different cores. They should perform identically, but enthusiasts seem to prefer the 512K cache Newcastle core processor, as they claim it overclocks better. If overclocking is never going to be a consideration, I think I'd choose the 1Mb cache Clawhammer core chip, for the extra cache and the slower clockspeed.

Slower clockspeed = less potential for heat issues, in my book, which is one of the biggest reasons for choosing AMD over Intel to start with.

0

so i got two questions

1) would the 1MB cache improve performance for gaming or such over the 512KB?

2) Would it be safe to overclock lets say 2.2Ghz to 2.4 or 2.6 safely without overheating with the 1Mb cache cpu?

0

1) Might provide a miniscule improvement. Processors are really one of the least important factors in a gaming system. Sure it'll make a difference if you change from, say, a 1.5Ghz Pentium to a 2.5Ghz Pentium, but small improvements make hardly any impact at all. The display card is the area you should focus on for a gaming system.

2) There is no such thing as a 'safe' overclock. Every individual processor is different, and every overclock is a risk. The only thing you can do is to try it, measure it, and make a decision. If you don't know what you are doing, don't do it!

0

Im probaly going with the 1MB cache then, the AMD 64 3400+ with 1GB of ram will be an extreme upgrade from my 2.2Ghz celeron with 512MB in my opinion. so I probaly wont even over clock it.

and since they both perform at the same speed I rather go with the true AMD box cpu with the 1MB cache.

0

Best way to go is to contact them. Get assurance that both are genuine, stocked items and not simply a superceded entry on a price list that hasn't been removed yet. Check that they are genuine AMD parts. I've seen mention in some discussions on other forums of 'OEM processors' which are sold without heat spreaders fitted. There's none of those available in my country, but I can't vouch for the situation in the rest of the world.

Get your assurances before you purchase.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.