A64 3000+ venice to A64 FX-55 San Diego

[shelaby]

I have a DFI LanParty NF4 Ultra-D mobo with a 3000+ venice OCed to 2.5 ghz right now. Have 2x512mb ram running in dual channel

I mostly game, and do some premiere work, a little bit of photoshop. But for the most part i use my computer to play.

would it be worth it to upgrade my CPU to the FX-55 deal going on at newegg right now.

here are the rest of my specs

A64 3000+ venice @ 2.5
DFI LanParty NF4 Ultra-D
2x512mb corsair
256mb x800 GTO with 16 unlocked pipelines

I really want to get 2x1gb ram but $200+ for ddr just kills it for me

any tips? thanks guys and gals

 

[ColemontHD]

Yes..

 

[Quick1]

For $139 shipped, it's a great deal! You might get up to 2.8 or 3.0, but who knows. Bigger cache will help also. But you're in the gray area at 2.5.

Ordered mine Friday and I'm running a 3000+@2.2, so it was an easier decision for me.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

I don't know. I mean, it's great that these processors are dropping in price and all, but if you're mainly thinking about gaming, then you'd be MUCH better off upgrading that x800. What monitor do you have and what resolution do you prefer to play games at? What games do you play now? What is causing you to want to upgrade-- is it low performance in anything or just the fact that a faster CPU is now a lot cheaper, or is it an upgrade for something coming in the near future?

 

[myocardia]

For what you use your computer for, you'd see much more improvement by having 2x1 GB of RAM. And a faster video card couldn't hurt, either. Of course, that's a very sweet price for a 2.6 Ghz processor, that will run @ 2.8 just by changing the multiplier. But, if you're wanting it mostly for gaming, both the 2x1 GB of RAM and a new video card would both make more difference than a slightly faster processor.

 

[Captante]

Considering you get 2.5ghz out of your 3000+ I wouldn't bother upgrading your cpu, I doubt you'll notice much difference even if you get it stable at 3ghz ... you would be much better off putting the $139 towards a faster video card to increase gaming performance.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: myocardia
For what you use your computer for, you'd see much more improvement by having 2x1 GB of RAM. And a faster video card couldn't hurt, either. Of course, that's a very sweet price for a 2.6 Ghz processor, that will run @ 2.8 just by changing the multiplier. But, if you're wanting it mostly for gaming, both the 2x1 GB of RAM and a new video card would both make more difference than a slightly faster processor.

This isnt true.

1GB is enough for getting the most out of a gaming system.


To the OP- For $139 its tough to not upgrade to the FX for all the benefits it has. Upgrade to the cheap FX and a new video card, no doubt.

But forget this 2GB ram hoopla.
In fact, sometimes more RAM can slow DOWN a gaming rig, as the CPU has more memory addresses to manage, causing slowdowns.

This guy "myocardia" doesnt know what hes talking about

heres proof

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: myocardia
For what you use your computer for, you'd see much more improvement by having 2x1 GB of RAM. And a faster video card couldn't hurt, either. Of course, that's a very sweet price for a 2.6 Ghz processor, that will run @ 2.8 just by changing the multiplier. But, if you're wanting it mostly for gaming, both the 2x1 GB of RAM and a new video card would both make more difference than a slightly faster processor.

This isnt true.

1GB is enough for getting the most out of a gaming system.


To the OP- For $139 its tough to not upgrade to the FX for all the benefits it has. Upgrade to the cheap FX and a new video card, no doubt.

But forget this 2GB ram hoopla.
In fact, sometimes more RAM can slow DOWN a gaming rig, as the CPU has more memory addresses to manage, causing slowdowns.

This guy "myocardia" doesnt know what hes talking about

heres proof

Thats bullcrap, i had 3gb of ram and am currently down to 1gb due to problems with the other two sticks. The latest games, namely fear, oblivion and company of heros were smoother with the extra ram. Theyre choppy at times with the 1gb, not graphical lag, choppy not enough ram thrashing to hdd lag.

Also how the hecks that proof? I see three graphs that show next to crap all difference between 512/1024/2048 mb's of ram, and a bunch of german.

2GB is todays gaming standard, like it or lump it.

Anyways to the OP:

I dont think you will notice the differenct between what is basically an A64 at 2.5 and one at 2.7-3.0ghz. Not with that graphics card anyways, not that its a bad card its just not really good enough to justify a better cpu. Although that fx seems like a sweet deal.

 

[acegazda]

How did you pass the drug test crusader?
OP: You should definetly upgrade your vid card b4 your cpu but it's a tossup between RAM and cpu for the next upgrade. RAM is really expensive ATM, so I'd go with the cpu. Check this out. It's a comparison of the 2 cpus in fear... 20fps gain with the fx.

 

[aka1nas]

If you already have a K8 chip, I wouldn't spend cash on a CPU upgrade unless you are going to go dual-core. The FX-55 is only 100Mhz faster at stock than your OC, and it isn't guaranteed it will OC significantly higher. You can get and OC a dual-core Opty for not much more and still have the full 1MB of cache per core and get a second core to boot.

Personally, I would upgrade your video card first, and then maybe more DDR and lastly a dual-core upgrade. Depends also on how long you will keep the system. If you are going to ditch it in a year for a newer platform I would just sit tight. If you want to keep this rig for a while, then I would get it to 2GB as soon as you can find a reasonable DDR deal as it's only going to get more expensive.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Well, I just did a quick test with Oblivion on my machine.

Here is my machine before and once I start Oblivion. I had some proggies open, so I closed them and mem usage dropped to 400megs or so. I cranked up Oblivion and it steadily rose to 1.5gigs. That was with about 3 minutes of gameplay.

Here's a shot of after I closed Oblivion. Drops right back down to 400megs.

After extended periods gaming, I have noticed it peak at right around 1.8gigs.

More than 1gig is definitely a plus. NOT a hinderance. I didn't try Oblivion with 1gig, but BF2 was choppy as hell with 1GB and when I upgraded to 2GB, it ran fine. Nothing else changed.

 

[Noubourne]

Figure you get 2.8Ghz out of it. So $140 for 300Mhz. Or say you get 3Ghz. $140 for 500Mhz? That's pretty much your best case scenario: $140 for 500Mhz.

I wouldn't!!!

I'd consider moving from a 3000+ to an X2 3800 for $150 though. Actually, I considered it, and then I DID it. Very happy with it too!!!

 

[996GT2]

Upgrading to that FX-55 wouldn't give you much of a performance improvement. I was previously running my CPU at 2.66 GHz on stock volts, and after a bit more OCing to FX-57 speeds at 1.375V I don't notice much difference at all. I would steer you toward upgrading to an Athlon X2 and 2GB RAM first, with the X2 carrying more importance if you can only get one of the two. If you do want to make a GFX upgrade, wait until the next gen are out so that the current gen might be discounted more.

 

[Cheex]

I guess I agree with the majority here. A graphics card upgrade at this point would give you the biggest boost in performance.
If I were to give you an upgrade priority list, it would look something like this:

1. Graphics Card
2. Memory
3. Processor

 

[akshayt]

Upgrading your CPU is a waste. First get a better graphic card, then get 2GB ram, whilst oc as high as possible. After that get a X2, better than a FX 55 for the near future.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Crusader
This isnt true.

1GB is enough for getting the most out of a gaming system.

But forget this 2GB ram hoopla.
In fact, sometimes more RAM can slow DOWN a gaming rig, as the CPU has more memory addresses to manage, causing slowdowns.

You've done a good job spreading FUD in the past, & wow, you just don't stop do you? :roll:

That's absolute nonsense.

1 GB of RAM will often results in stuttering/choppiness that's not measurable in fps.
I wouldn't dream of going back to 1 GB for gaming, & i have used both 1 GB & 2 GB off & on over the last couple years.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: acegazda
How did you pass the drug test crusader?
OP: You should definetly upgrade your vid card b4 your cpu but it's a tossup between RAM and cpu for the next upgrade. RAM is really expensive ATM, so I'd go with the cpu. Check this out. It's a comparison of the 2 cpus in fear... 20fps gain with the fx.

Umm, his 3000 Venice isn't running at 1.8 Ghz, acegazda. It's running at 2.5 Ghz, which makes it at least as fast as a San Diego 4000, which does 109 fps, with the fastest video card available at the time of that article, compared to 113 fps for the FX-55. With the video card he has now, he's not even going to get an extra 1fps difference. His processor is already twice as fast as high video card.

edit: To the OP, why not add an identical 512MB stick of the RAM you have now? 1½ GB is much better for gaming than 1.0 GB. And single 512MB sticks are still fairly cheap.

 

[akshayt]

Venice @ 2.5GHz > FX 53 but < SD 4000

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: akshayt
Venice @ 2.5GHz > FX 53 but < SD 4000

Possibly, but that still doesn't change the fact that his processor is way faster than his video card.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Crusader, why did you use Quake 3 benchmarks (and some other game I've never heard of) to detail performance differences between 512MB, 1GB & 2GB RAM? That game is from 1999!

OP, I would say look for 2 gigs of RAM (the FS/FT forums, perhaps?) - your CPU at 2.5GHz is pretty damn fine. Yes, the processor is pretty cheap and hard to resist but you are better off saving your money or at least investing in more RAM.

 

[WA261]

Yes, it is worth it. I did nothing but bump my voltage and raise the multiplier and I am at 3Ghz with my FX. Once I get some good cooling on it (freezer pro or my Mach II) I expect more. Much more with the Mach II.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
Crusader, why did you use Quake 3 benchmarks (and some other game I've never heard of) to detail performance differences between 512MB, 1GB & 2GB RAM? That game is from 1999!

OP, I would say look for 2 gigs of RAM (the FS/FT forums, perhaps?) - your CPU at 2.5GHz is pretty damn fine. Yes, the processor is pretty cheap and hard to resist but you are better off saving your money or at least investing in more RAM.

Because I've never seen any benchmarks besides BF2 showing improvements with 1+GB of RAM? Even there, it was declared preposterous to need over 1GB of ram, and in a later patch I believe it was fixed.

Hey, I have benchmarks backing up my point. I dont see any of you detractors showing me proof as I'm wrong. I'm sure if you run a bloated system 1GB can not be enough.
Just because people jump on 2GB+ of RAM and its popular doesnt make it the truth as far as maximum FPS is concerned.

Sure, I like 2GB as well. But for a gaming machine (not bloated), 1GB will get maximum FPS and theres no real need to upgrade beyond that.

1GB + FX55 + G80 would be a better rig than 2GB + OC'd A64 (512KB L2) + old video card. The OP is fine with 1GB.
Thats not to forget more memory = more memory addresses for a CPU to manage, sorry.

 

[acegazda]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: acegazda
How did you pass the drug test crusader?
OP: You should definetly upgrade your vid card b4 your cpu but it's a tossup between RAM and cpu for the next upgrade. RAM is really expensive ATM, so I'd go with the cpu. Check this out. It's a comparison of the 2 cpus in fear... 20fps gain with the fx.

Umm, his 3000 Venice isn't running at 1.8 Ghz, acegazda. It's running at 2.5 Ghz, which makes it at least as fast as a San Diego 4000, which does 109 fps, with the fastest video card available at the time of that article, compared to 113 fps for the FX-55. With the video card he has now, he's not even going to get an extra 1fps difference. His processor is already twice as fast as high video card.

edit: To the OP, why not add an identical 512MB stick of the RAM you have now? 1½ GB is much better for gaming than 1.0 GB. And single 512MB sticks are still fairly cheap.

whoops srry 'bout that... you ought to know by now I'm illiterate...
Anyway, gfx card! Yeah!

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: acegazda
whoops srry 'bout that... you ought to know by now I'm illiterate...
Anyway, gfx card! Yeah!

You are not. Your momma knows who your daddy is.:laugh:

 

[acegazda]

Hey, that was crude and uncalled for... I like it.