Yet another Processor Thread

[Vertigo]

Yeah, I know...I'm sorry for starting yet another one, but I've got a big dilemma (heh, probably spelled that wrong, but I'm too tired to care) here. I'm getting a new comp (1 gig DDR PC-3200 RAM, 80 gig HD, Geforce FX 5900, etc.) and I'm wondering...I've got the choice between an AMD 3000+ or a P4 3.06 GHz w/ Hyper-Threading. Hyper-Threading, from what I understand, is a good idea (no need to explain it, I understand it), but since it's in its prelim. stages, it's not exactly optimized for gaming and is, at least right now, more or less a gimmick. For that reason, and the fact that the large cache and bus speed allow for heavy overclocking, I'm edging towards the AMD. However, I'm not quite sure...in certain areas, the P4 outperforms the AMD, so I'm not so sure right now.

-Vert
P.S. If I were to switch the Geforce 5900 to an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro and whichever processor I choose to an AMD 3200+, would you say it's a better switch (worse vid card, but better processor)?

 

[Mr. Redundant]

why do you think the ati 9800 pro would be a worse card?
anywhoo IM biased I have a 9800 pro, my bro has the fx 5800 ultra (ick), I dont know much about the fx 5900 so I wont comment on it.

as for processor its really your choice, if your asking for a general consensus on processors (take a look at how threads ended up that asked that question) its really down to personal choice.

my personal experience (dont even bother quoting me or argueing with me, this is my opinion IM not forcing it onto anyone)
with AMD boards has been lacking, I dont overclock though so if thats your thing, maybe they are more stable for that (I couldnt say). I do however find Pentiums to be more reliable, and while I cant offer any benchmarks for speed in relation to amds, I can say I have never been dissapointed.


ok I know I have said this in a lot of hardware posts, but it bears repeating. if you are upgrading for HL2 or Doom3 or any next gen game... keep your money until closer to release, I know its a hard to resist the temptation of blowing the cash while you have it, but if thats the case you may want to wait. better stuff is always on the horizon.

if you do want to go ahead and do it right now, I suggest getting a great vid card (if you consider the 5900 your style grab it) just remember 256mb ddr2 is getting ridiculous not even hl2 or doom3 or any next gen games currently need anywhere near that bandwidth.
processor is second place (if your a game player) I think 3.06c is overkill ( I have it) I have it just for bragging rights though.
my other 2.67ghz runs just as well, and its ~200-300 less :/


so it depends what kinda gamer are you? and what kinda consumer are you?
and I pray this doesnt end up as another Processor/vid card debate.
vertigo, you will be fine with whatever you decide and if your edging towards the amd, go for it.

 

[Vertigo]

Hm. I hope this doesn't turn into a flame war, but I just feel like stating my opinion (in my own thread):

I used to be a hardcore Pentium/Nvidia fanboy. However, ever since both have made lackluster progress (Nvidia more so with their FX line than Pentium), I've been rather disillusioned. That's why I'm trying to go into this unbiased. I never said the Radeon 9800 was a bad card, just that the FX 5900 outperforms it. I realize that I can wait until September to get a lower price, but the problem is I'm going to University/this computer's breaking apart, so I need a new comp soon. I also realize getting top of the line is overkill for HL2; I'm not buying this comp exclusively for HL2. I need this to last a good portion of my University career (there will be, of course, some upgrades). In any case, any suggestions would do. Thank you.

-Vert

 

[Mr. Redundant]

ah I see, I noticed you post about your computer "falling apart" in another thread, in your case (as was mine) upgrading would be ideal, since as you stated your heading to university and well you also stated you wanted to play other games like ut2k3.

go ahead and upgrade, my personal recommendation is
pentium 4 3.06ghz with hyper-threading, yes I know its not currently
being used as it should be. but its a powerful processor fastest to date.

but if thats your arguement, you could say the same for the fx 5900 or radeon 9800 256mb, and remember to get a decent monitor that can give you a decent refresh in those high resolutions

I heartily endorse ATI 9800's (pros, non-pros, and 256mb) since I own the 9800 pro 128mb. its a brilliant card that handles everything I throw at it at, with insane frame rates and high resolutions. I could go on and on about this card but that's a whole new thread
... btw I was an nvidia fanboy too, have been since they merged with (swallowed) 3dfx. so this endorsement means something, but as I said before ... well I dont know the 5900 it could very well be better than the radeon, and if you want to go that route its your money

the rest of your specs are spot on, bragging rights worthy
just dont forget a decent monitor. refresh rates are important (I found that out the hard way)

hope that helps, thats just my opinion.
good luck at university friend, and gl with the comp too.
:cheers:

 

[Vertigo]

Thanks for the advice. The monitor is especially important for me, as I've been forced to opt for a flat screen. The very small desks we're given in dorms have left me with no other option. So unfortunately, I have to look carefully at dot pixel rate, etc. to avoid the flicker that plagues many generic flat screens. Again, thanks for the advice.

-Vert

 

[Mr. Redundant]

just looked at some comparison charts on Toms Hardware guide, and I must appologize, it seems that nvidia have retaken the throne
go with the 5900fx, very impressive.

my pleasure

 

[RoyalEF]

Grabbing the highest level Ghz cpu is always a bad idea. For a 6-9% increase in Ghz you end up paying 20-35% more for the chip. And 99% of the day the thing will sit there doing nothing for you. By taking one or two steps away from the "ultimate" you can save a lot of money on something less important and put it towards important stuff or fun stuff.

Save $2-300 on processor and buy a DVD-writer or surround speaker system.

Look at the memory config carefully. Memory is very expensive when bought from a vendor and it takes 5 minutes to install memory yourself. Instead of buying 1Gb of memory compare buying 256/512 and make sure there is 2 or at least 1 open dimm slots. Buy the rest of your memory dirt cheap later. (prices will go down later and you may find that 512 is all you really need)

Screens are where you NEVER skimp. The first screen I bought was 1991. I spent an extra $800 on it so I would have a 16-inch screen instead of a 13-14 inch one. The screen is still working at my susters house 12 years later. My second 17" screen is at my brothers and is 7 years old. I've had my 21" for five years now. Buy quality and buy the biggest you can afford. You will never regret the expense and will probably outlast 2-3 of your PCs.

The video card thing...I've had ATI for many years and they consistently sucked on the software (including early radeons), so they've lost me as a customer. I don't care how wonderful the specs are. I realize they have improved but I'm no longer willing to risk my money on their products or their ability to support them which is far more important than specs.

 

[Vertigo]

Oooo...those crafty bastards...for the comp I'm getting, they implement the RAM so that you can't just go to the store and grab another stick. This is because if you opt for the 512MB, they put in 2x256 RAM sticks, thus taking up the slots. Ah well. I'm opting for the 3000+ and getting some very nice headphones ("Sennheiser HD570 Open-Aire Dynamic Stereo Headphones").

-Vert

 

[Vertigo]

Originally posted by RoyalEF
Grabbing the highest level Ghz cpu is always a bad idea. For a 6-9% increase in Ghz you end up paying 20-35% more for the chip. And 99% of the day the thing will sit there doing nothing for you. By taking one or two steps away from the "ultimate" you can save a lot of money on something less important and put it towards important stuff or fun stuff.

Hrm. Just wondering, in your opinion, would you say instead of getting the 3000+ and getting the 2800+ ($100 cheaper) and getting another cool thing (not performance-based)...would that be good, or would that be cutting the 'processor power' a little bit close? I need something that'll run next-gen games for some time, so I don't want to be too close to the obsolete end.

-Vert

 

[[Matt]]

In my opinion You are wasting your cash by going with an AMD 3000+ ! A P4c 2.8GHz (200MHz FSB supported) is a faster CPU in almost every game test you can run and its also much cheaper. Combine this with the fact that you can overclock the 2.8GHz p4 to 3.2GHz on mere air cooling alone then there is not a single reason to choose the AMD option...

 

[Vertigo]

...except that, if I do, I'll be forced to go for an Intel mobo, instead of the ASUS Nforce 2, so I'll have to buy an audio card. Damnedable computers and your super-fast progress!

-Vert

 

[Mr. Redundant]

no you wont. get an ASUS p4c800 deluxe, excellent mobo 4gb ram total 8x support, built in SOUNDMAX (on board sound, almost as good as any audigy) crystal clear quality, digital audio out, 6 channel 5.1 surround sound support etc.

I think a lot of the newer asus boards carry soundmax, thats what I use with my intel cpus

 

[RoyalEF]

I haven't worked with an any of the currnet AMDs so I'd have to assume that the positive reviews are reasonably true. A 3000 is high end. AMD's top is the 3200.

If you use the AMD number scale, a 2800 is only about 7% lower than a 3000. That isn't a helluva lot. sharkyextreeme shows the price for a 2800 is 34% lower, so you're saving a lot for a little. Games are mostly VPU graphics card issues, that's what makes the difference. WHen a game requires a 2ghz processor it better be doing something utterly fantastic - and I don't mean software rendering!

I've got a 2.4ghz and the only time my processor really gets worked is by CPU greedy programs that grab ALL the CPU regardless of how much there is.

Compiling halflife maps is the only thing that really nails CPU for more than a few seconds.

BTW I was pretty sure you could find an intel board with built in sound. And Asus is a *very* good manufacturer.

 

[Vertigo]

Originally posted by Mr. Redundant
no you wont. get an ASUS p4c800 deluxe, excellent mobo 4gb ram total 8x support, built in SOUNDMAX (on board sound, almost as good as any audigy) crystal clear quality, digital audio out, 6 channel 5.1 surround sound support etc.

I think a lot of the newer asus boards carry soundmax, thats what I use with my intel cpus

Alas, I'm getting my computer from Alienware (please no comments on how they're overpriced/suck/etc.), and so my mobo's always limited to one. For those with Pentiums, I get the Intel D875PBZ Mobo, and for AMD's I seem to get the ASUS A7N8X Deluxe Nforce2 Mobo. The ASUS I know is a good mobo, but I haven't heard anything of the Intel one.

-Vert

 

[[Matt]]

Originally posted by Vertigo
...except that, if I do, I'll be forced to go for an Intel mobo, instead of the ASUS Nforce 2, so I'll have to buy an audio card. Damnedable computers and your super-fast progress!

-Vert

You want my opinion? A sound blaster live is just as good as an audigy or audigy 2... You can pick up SB live cards for as little as $20

 

[Vertigo]

Hmmm...interesting Matt. I could do that, or I could just take the Audigy from this comp and toss in some generic POS into this one. Not like my parents would notice anyway...they've never had use for sound in the first place...

-Vert