PDA

View Full Version : Can't decide which cpu to get for 7800 GTX


Odral
06-23-05, 03:54 PM
Please help me decide which cpu to get for my new card. was thinking of x2 4400, fx-57 due next week or a 4000 rev e san diego. I play mostly games but with miniuem backround apps running but seemd like the speed of a x2 4400 can be overcloaked to great speeds for gaming.

The fx-57 will be a price killer so I would like to get great cpu but not so expensive still thinking about this one. The San diego 4000 seems like a nice chip for $500 but was wondering if the way to go is the x2 4400 best price for high end cpu atm? thanks for your input

OWA
06-23-05, 04:05 PM
The X2s are expensive but that's what I'm looking at for pairing with the GTX as well. I haven't decided which one to go with yet though.

Riptide
06-23-05, 04:33 PM
I wouldn't get the 57. Not worth the premium. The X2 is not going to help you much right now because games won't support that extra core yet - and you say that background apps aren't a big concern for you while you run your games.

I'd get the 4000+. Overclocking is NOT a guarantee, don't let people give you that impression. Not that many people have X2's either so we don't really know very much about their overclockability.

Pandora's Box
06-23-05, 05:54 PM
I wouldn't get the 57. Not worth the premium. The X2 is not going to help you much right now because games won't support that extra core yet - and you say that background apps aren't a big concern for you while you run your games.

I'd get the 4000+. Overclocking is NOT a guarantee, don't let people give you that impression. Not that many people have X2's either so we don't really know very much about their overclockability.


theres already one game that will more than likely use dual core, age of empires 3. i think it was confirmed by a developer.

anandtech did a review on the amd 64 x2 4200+ overclockability. i think it got 2.8ghz...

PaiN
06-23-05, 06:07 PM
I wouldn't get the 57. Not worth the premium. The X2 is not going to help you much right now because games won't support that extra core yet - and you say that background apps aren't a big concern for you while you run your games.

I'd get the 4000+. Overclocking is NOT a guarantee, don't let people give you that impression. Not that many people have X2's either so we don't really know very much about their overclockability.

Words of wisdom.....I totaly agree the 4000+ would be your best bet and if your mobo is an nf4, going to an X2 later on is "drop-in" upgrade :)

BrianG
06-23-05, 06:19 PM
This help make up your mind?

You could overclock the 4400+ to 4800+ speeds, so this is what you are looking at for performance levels. The really cool thing is that with or with out things in the background running, games play the same; and I mean everything from level loads to heavy AI and physics. At one point I had Q3A dedicated server running with bots, and two game windows logged into the server while running virus scan. Case in point, Outlook was archiving, Media Player ripping at 128kbps, Virus Scan running on the C: drive and Quake 3 single player only got the dual core up to about 80%. How cool is that?

Temps only went up one degree at idle and about four degrees under load from a 3200+ Venice.

Riptide
06-23-05, 06:48 PM
anandtech did a review on the amd 64 x2 4200+ overclockability. i think it got 2.8ghz...Yeah so a few people get them reviewed, some people on extremesystems has them, etc.. That doesn't mean we have a concrete idea that it's a great overclocker. I don't care if a few reviewers got it to do that.

No offense, but until I see tons of users overclocking these things with ease I don't believe we know what is a typical result or not. And even then, there is no guarantee. Ever. If there were they would be selling them at higher clocks and charging more.

PaiN
06-23-05, 11:26 PM
Yeah so a few people get them reviewed, some people on extremesystems has them, etc.. That doesn't mean we have a concrete idea that it's a great overclocker. I don't care if a few reviewers got it to do that.

No offense, but until I see tons of users overclocking these things with ease I don't believe we know what is a typical result or not. And even then, there is no guarantee. Ever. If there were they would be selling them at higher clocks and charging more.

I'm on Rip's side....I've been doing this a long time, most of this type stuff is hype.....If your going to buy with the intent of OCing, keep your expectations low.

Superfly
06-24-05, 10:22 AM
in my opinion they dont make a CPU fast enough for the 6800 series cards let alone the 7800 series.

roll on 2007.

Ninjaman09
06-24-05, 10:33 AM
I dunno, I got my 4000+ with my single 7800 GTX and at 1280x1024 I can run every single game I own at 4xAA 8xAF with transparency AA and it's smooth as butter ALL THE TIME. Like, minimum framerates are better than 40-50 constantly. This includes complex outdoor scenes in Far Cry and shader-heavy scenes in Half-Life 2. I don't care about multitasking right now and no games will support dual core for like a year or two by my estimation so for your money, I'd say go with the 4000+. You don't even need to overclock this bad boy, it's fast enough as it is. :D

OWA
06-24-05, 11:17 AM
Nice system Ninjaman09.

Dazz
06-24-05, 01:18 PM
Stop doing this too me you will make be want to put my credit card through the roof lol

Riptide
06-24-05, 01:31 PM
in my opinion they dont make a CPU fast enough for the 6800 series cards let alone the 7800 series.I agree with this. CPUs right now are in a real transitionary period. Ramping clock speeds has become extremely difficult. Thus the transition to dual cores, and down the road quad cores. But in the mean time software has to start being optimized around it before we see meaningful performance gains.

Ninjaman09
06-24-05, 01:33 PM
Nice system Ninjaman09.
Thanks. :D

FraGTastiK
06-24-05, 02:43 PM
I think AMD should finally have "X2FX!" procs out at some point.you cannot declare a CPU best for gaming(FX) and ignore the fact that there's gonna be games with multi threaded engines.I get it from jAkUp's interview with Tim sweeney that UE3 will be using both cores.

but speaking of this X2FX thing I made up,it shouldnt happen any time soon if EVER because right now AMD is thinking about pushing the market for athlon 64 X2s,IIRC there would be no new model for athlon64 single core chips.

when you think about the time that games using both cores are out there one thinks that getting the fastest X2 is a better choice than the fastest FX.

Ninjaman09
06-24-05, 03:01 PM
Well the Toledo cores are basically dual-core San Diegos (FX line). I think they're going to phase out the FX naming scheme soon.

fasedww
06-25-05, 10:45 AM
I dunno, I got my 4000+ with my single 7800 GTX and at 1280x1024 I can run every single game I own at 4xAA 8xAF with transparency AA and it's smooth as butter ALL THE TIME. Like, minimum framerates are better than 40-50 constantly. This includes complex outdoor scenes in Far Cry and shader-heavy scenes in Half-Life 2. I don't care about multitasking right now and no games will support dual core for like a year or two by my estimation so for your money, I'd say go with the 4000+. You don't even need to overclock this bad boy, it's fast enough as it is. :DHe is right ' Guess what I'm watercooled on ,my 4000+ runing 2.7mhz this is a fast cpu no doubht about that manor' :D

Dazz
06-25-05, 12:40 PM
NO it's offical AMD says they where oing to continue with the FX line up and in 2006 they will have dual core FX's Possibly with DDR 2?

anthonyl
06-27-05, 10:04 PM
I have an AMD 64 3800+ with 2 x 6800 Ultras at the moment and have a 7800GTX on order and was wondering the same thing. I guess the 3800+ should be fine for now.

Odral
06-28-05, 02:00 AM
Thanks for all the replies guys. I decided to go with the 4000+ san diego :)