I am going to use a game to point this out

my current system is a cleron 2.2Ghz, 512Mb pc2100, and a 9600XT
I get 10-20 FPS in Counter strike: source

will a AMd 64 3400+ with 1GB pc3200, and the 9600Xt help me get more then 50FPs?

I know this probaly can't be answered, but u can always give it a try. :mrgreen:

Um... probably so.

More, faster memory, and a faster processor will almost always give you greater FPS in a game. You didn't tell us what motherboard you were upgrading to, though. Have you given that a thought, because you can't stick an AMD chip in a board made for an Intel.

....do u think im stupid?

of course im getting a different motherboard built for the amd 64, but u dont get any performance boost from a motherboard with probaly the exception of the chipset, thats why I didnt add it.

Im getting a DFI , with Nforce3 250Gb

So are u saying there a chance I won't get any improvement?
I dont now how upgrading from a celeron, thats not even designed for gaming, to a AMD 64 3400+ won't give me better FPS.

I know it is mostly the video card's job, but look at this, I won't get 50+ fps with a 6800Ultra and a celeron, because the cpu is too slow.

I'm not sure on the specific framerate figures for CS:Source, but I think 40 - 50 fps with a 9600XT card is perfectly achievable. The difference between a Celeron and an Athlon64 is quite dramatic indeed!

can I overclock a amd 64 3400+ from 2.2Ghz to 2.6 safely, if I buy a better heat sink and fan?

In short, Yes (to the first question) and yes to the most recent.
With a decent heatsink and fan, SLK, Hyper6 or similar.

p.s. why did you choose a 64bit chip to compare with the celeron (of all things).
Asside from the fact u dont/wont have a 64bit Operating system for some considerable time, Nor will you have 64bit capable games, specificly CS:S.
The point im getting at is, " Its a big fat waste of money for many months, untill 64bit software is readily available, plus of course the 64bit capable games "
Oh, and drivers to work on said games/OS's

i compared it to a celeron cause thats what I got now and Im upgrading to a Amd 64, and besides XP 64 is going to be released very shortly because the demos are out already, and HP makes a computer with the full version of XP 64. as for the games, ill just run them in 32-bit mode, they dont need to be 64-bit compatible to run ok on a 64.
as for the games, many are already making the transition. Farcry has a 64-bit version coming out shortly.

BTW I probaly won't be able to buy this system until december right around christmas.

ReDuX, the reason for choosing an Athlon64 is that it performs better than Pentium 4 in 32-bit operation. It's a chip with 64-bit extensions, not a 'pure' 64-bit chip.

There are only a scant few specific program applications in which Pentium 4 is still the performance leader in, and Athlon64 is also the leader for price and for running cooler. People are choosing it because it's the better processor ;)

what Catweazle basicaly means is the Amd 64 is the P4's papi. :mrgreen: Go redsox!

This review contrasts the current highest performance Pentium 4 and Pentium 4 EE processors with the AMD range. Both applications and games benchmarks are used, and the results are rather clearcut, I believe.

Until the dual-core processors from Intel come out sometime next year (late next year I suspect) Intel is most definitely playing catch-up, with processors that are hotter running and more expensive ;)

I have another question, I am really looking into the 6800GT at $392, not the Ultra too much $$$.

well What perfromance and graphics detail can I see over the 9600Xt with the GT?

and how long will these video cards be the top of the line? (before i need to upgrade)

because when I bought my 9600Xt the XT models were just coming out and where the best cards you could buy, and now they're crap.

also what would be a better brand; PNY or XFX?