PDA

View Full Version : In the CPU market


Shutdown28
03-22-05, 04:26 PM
I am browsing around gonna build a new PC was just looking for some input from the NVnews community the majority of the new specs are in the sig but i am stuck on what AMD cpu to buy i am some what casual gamer i like to play at max settings at 1280X1024 maybe some AA and such on certain games. At first i look at the AMD 4000+ and since i have heard that gamers wont see much from Dual Core quoted from CPU mag written by Kyle bennet from Hardocp. Does a 4000 seem like over kill is my basic question but i still want some over head

Any advice welcome even flames lol :p

jAkUp
03-22-05, 04:30 PM
There is no overkill when it comes to gaming:) A 4000+ is an awesome processor, I definetely recommend it if you can't pick up an FX55 :D

Shutdown28
03-22-05, 05:52 PM
really with the new job money is no boundry but the price of a FX-55 hurts my eyes. although i am paying like $500 for a case and also paying for a SLI setup but if i went FX-55 i would prolly make my vid cards ultras instead of GT's. I dunno i geuss i am checkout-phobic and once it gets to that final ok button the buyer remorse kicks in lol :)

Daneel Olivaw
03-22-05, 05:55 PM
Isn't the 4000+ identical to the FX? (IE cache, process, core)

Ninjaman09
03-22-05, 06:01 PM
Isn't the 4000+ identical to the FX? (IE cache, process, core)
To the FX53, yes.

Riptide
03-22-05, 06:27 PM
To the FX53, yes.
Kinda stupid isn't that? To have basically the same CPU and slap two names on it. That is unless you and I are missing something there.

Anyway I think the 4000+ is a much better deal bang/buck than the FX55.

Shutdown28
03-22-05, 06:35 PM
The 4000+ has a the other core Clawhammer i believe with a locked multiplier and the retail FX-53 is like $750 rather than $599 like the 4000+

Riptide
03-22-05, 06:38 PM
You might be right about the locked multiplier. That said the locked multiplier didn't do diddly for me - mine was a horrible overclocker. Seriously you better plan on water if you really want to push an FX series chip very far.

I'd still rather get the 4000+, couple it w/some good RAM, and then just push the FSB up.

bkswaney
03-22-05, 10:14 PM
really with the new job money is no boundry but the price of a FX-55 hurts my eyes. although i am paying like $500 for a case and also paying for a SLI setup but if i went FX-55 i would prolly make my vid cards ultras instead of GT's. I dunno i geuss i am checkout-phobic and once it gets to that final ok button the buyer remorse kicks in lol :)


Why not just grab a 3000+ or 3200 and clock it to 4000 speeds?
Do u not overclock? That's what I'm about to do.
I want a 4000+ but do not have the funds to buy one.
My dream is a FX55 but my wife would kill me where I stand. "lol" :angel:

The 3500+ and 3800+ r the best bang for the $.

Daneel Olivaw
03-22-05, 10:19 PM
Why not just grab a 3000+ or 3200 and clock it to 4000 speeds?
Do u not overclock? That's what I'm about to do.
I want a 4000+ but do not have the funds to buy one.
My dream is a FX55 but my wife would kill me where I stand. "lol" :angel:

The core and cache are very different than the 3000+. Not to argue with you, but you're switching from a P4 3.5+Ghz to an Athlon 3000+... I agree they're a bit better for gaming, but not nearly enough to justify a new mobo and CPU... IMO. I'd never think to change my P4C@3.4 with 1133 FSB for any of the current generation Intel or AMD.

keith33
03-22-05, 11:10 PM
The 4200+ with 2.6 ghz speed and (here's the best part) 90nm core is coming out soon (it has 1MB cache as well), I would pick that over a smoking hot FX.

Shutdown28
03-22-05, 11:22 PM
No i dont really OC aleast not CPU's have had some bad luck in that area and some good. I was planing on putting some Zalman coolers on my GT's to push them to ultra speed because i heard its quite possible. And i verified that the only diff between the 4000+ and the FX-53 is the core with the FX having an unlocked multiplier. Next major issue is hard drives to personal IT friends have had raptors burn up on em and i dont like the next closest competiton to the raptor is a P-ATA drive (Diamond Max 10)

keith33
03-24-05, 11:16 PM
From personal experience, I've never had a raptor burn up in 2 years. Also, WD offers a great 5 year warranty on them. Unfortunately, still nothing comes close to a raptor in the SATA interface unless you're looking for high-capacity.

jAkUp
03-24-05, 11:22 PM
yes I have never had any problems with my raptors. I have had 2 of them. My buddy has 4 raptors and hasnt had a single problem.

I sell alot of Raptors at work, and honost to god. I have not seen a single one come back. I don't think I've ever seen a Seagate come back either though.

$n][pErMan
03-25-05, 01:55 AM
I've RMA'd 4 western digital hard drives in 3 years. But they are still the best in speed and noise and the RMA process is so easy with advance RMA that its really not a pain in the ass.