CityLifeCrew.net

I'm looking for a new processor for around 70quid, because my processor is bad. To be quite frank. . It's an AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual core processor 3800+. Running at standard clock, 2ghz. So i have been looking on novatech.co.uk and this one is looking quite nice, and would fit my mobo. http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/s...tml?AMD-X2M264. (X2 Dual Core AM2 Athlon 64 6400 3.2GHz 2x1MB)

Currently my system is:
AMD Athlon 3800 (2.00 ghz)
2gb RAM (DDR 2, afaik)
Nvidia Geforce 9500 GT
And some unknown powersupply, which is probably crap, but hasn't failed me yet.
And some 250gb Harddrive.
(On VISTA (and seriously considering going back to xp for better performance))

I figured that it would probably be best to upgrade the processor at this point, but i've also been thinking of getting some more RAM. And could probably get both if my dad feels generous

Yes get that cpu if your mobo supports it.

Do not do what Rikki did and get a much slower quad core -_-

An upgrate to 4gb would be nice, but you'll need a 64bit version of vista or xp to recognise more than 3.5gb of it.

My advise would be not to switch back to xp at this point, you have a direct x 10 card now and anything you buy from now on will be dx10, so you'll only switch back to vista later on.

Thanks Bobo - I have ordered that processor, not sure on the arrival date, but it should be good! Thanks for the advice on Vista, I don't have 64bit, so i think i'll stick with 2gb, but i have another PC with faster ram so i will be taking that ram for this one, if you get me. Should be good. A nice improvement would be nice and i don't think i will be dissapointed.

doesnt rly matter whether its 2 or 4gb, 2gb is fine tho, the mhz is much more important
if ur mobo supports 1066mhz, get that

AMD cpu's have a different FSB to Intels.

I believe this particular processor runs a 2000Mhz/x1.6 configuration at stock

Chris wrote:doesnt rly matter whether its 2 or 4gb, 2gb is fine tho, the mhz is much more important
if ur mobo supports 1066mhz, get that

I know for a fact older AMD CPUs had more benefit with lower latencies than faster MHz. I believe that's still the case now. So having 2GB is fine if it was fast, expensive memory.
You see, computer power comes from all components... motherboard, cpu, memory, harddisk, operating system... you name it... all of these parts can add to a faster system.

Chris wrote:doesnt rly matter whether its 2 or 4gb, 2gb is fine tho, the mhz is much more important
if ur mobo supports 1066mhz, get that

Ehhhmmm. Uhhh.. Hmpf.

So, you're saying 4GB of DDR2-800 is worse than 2GB of DDR2-1066 ?

Chris wrote:doesnt rly matter whether its 2 or 4gb, 2gb is fine tho, the mhz is much more important
if ur mobo supports 1066mhz, get that

omg, no, no, no.
Dude.. you are so wrong..
4GB is MUCH better than 2GB, while if you compare 800 mhz with 1066 mhz you get no perfomance increase AT ALL.

Quad core ftw!!! lol.

u got quad chesta?

Blackbird wrote:

Chris wrote:doesnt rly matter whether its 2 or 4gb, 2gb is fine tho, the mhz is much more important
if ur mobo supports 1066mhz, get that

omg, no, no, no.
Dude.. you are so wrong..
4GB is MUCH better than 2GB, while if you compare 800 mhz with 1066 mhz you get no perfomance increase AT ALL.

Rubbish, the speed of the modules does make a difference, but I will agree that you're more likely to get better performance from having more RAM. But look at it this way, if you're only using 1.5GB then you're going to get more performance from the higher speed because you're not using the extra memory.

Might be looking at replacing this beast at some time. It only has the 4200+ version of the AMD 64 X2, and that's on a 939 board with DDR(1) RAM. I like the Dell Quads we have bought at work (I'm an IT tech now) but my current PC has a top of the range mobo, RAM and coolers. I don't really want to replace these with some down-to-a-price parts in an off the shelf PC.

Matt2000, you can get some very good cash for all dual core 929's, if I had the money I would take it off your hands right now.

"Do Not Do WHat Rikki Did" ?

The reason i didnt get the dual core which i weant in for is becase the actual cores ran at 2.7ghz nto the 3200 it says. What ever the case i am happy with what ever i have - it runs better than the older one. Yes i bought a 2.3 ghz quad core but im happy with itanyway.

Well i ended up buying the 6000 AMD X2 Dual core processor. I'm very happy with it, lfs runs at 25+fps behind a full grid of AI at full graphics, hi-res mods and bloom. I can record LFS with FRAPS behind a full grid of AI at 20fps. This is a great improvement for me .

I made the other thread about my memory, yes i bought 2x2gb 800mhz sticks of RAM, along with a new motherboard (which is still coming) which is compatible with upto 8gb ram, (4 ram slots), It's got Hybrid SLI with a pretty slow onboard card (but i will probably be getting another 9500gt sometime), it supports quad cores, and has 2 PCI-E slots.

So when that comes my system will be;

AMD X2 6000+ Dual core (3.00ghz)
4gb RAM at 800mhz (could use upto 6gb, i will have to try it out)
Nvidia geforce 9500gt running with the motherboards onboard card (Hybrid SLI)
A rofllolmeloncat 350watt powersupply (I am shivering in my boots, cuz i think this is going to blow with all my parts in)
and a very cool fat old moniter which is like 18".


So, i'm happy

I will just point out a few things,

A 350Watt powersupply will be cutting it very short, if you get any instability, this is probably your culprit.


'Hybrid-SLi' is a myth o_O (Well, not literally, but you won't see a whole bunch of improvement at all)

In my opinion, having multiple GPU's is really only worth getting when you've already got a very good single GPU.

Budget GPU + Budget GPU = An expensive, only slightly improved budget gpu. Best to just spend all the money on a better single card.