Best bang for the buck AMD 939 CPU

[simsalabim24]

Looking for opinions on the best bang for the buck for a AMD 939 setup. Not quite ready to upgrade the whole system yet. Here is what I have now:

AMD A64 3800+ CPU Stock heatsink
Gigabyte GA-K8nsc-939 MB
3 Gig PNY Optima Memory 3x 1gig chips 400mhz
ATI RADEON X1950PRO 256mb Vram AGP
Creative Sound Blaster Fatality Pro sound card
Antec Trupower 430watt psu
Case is the Antec 900
160 Gig Sata 300mbs 8mb casche HDD

Anyway any opinions welcome thanks.

 

[simsalabim24]

Oh and I don't feel comfortable overclocking at all thanks.

 

[Rottie]

if you want best bang for the buck AMD 939 CPU is to check ebay or for sale forum.

 

[simsalabim24]

But which model?

 

[txtmstrjoe]

If you're not overclocking at all, I would recommend either an X2 4200+ (2.2GHz, 512KB L2 cache) or an X2 4400+ (2.2GHz, 1MB L2 cache).

 

[lopri]

It's hard to answer. I'd say it strongly depends on your budget. Being already low enough, the price differences between different models are 10~20 bucks. Considering the importance of CPU in one's system, 10~20 bucks might not seem a lot at first glance. But then again, the next higher model might be just $20 more, and the next also $20 more, and so on. (We all know how we end up spending a lot more than planned)

I'd say decide on your budget first, and then try to make a purchased based on it.

 

[myocardia]

I'd say that, since you aren't comfortable with overclocking, you wouldn't be happy with anything slower than a 4800. That's the only 2.4 Ghz model, and since you've already a 2.4 Ghz cpu, it doesn't make much sense (to me, at least) to go with a slower, lower performing option.

 

[simsalabim24]

So the 2x 1mb L2 cache on the 4800 wouldnt make much differnce huh?

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: simsalabim24
So the 2x 1mb L2 cache on the 4800 wouldnt make much differnce huh?

it depends on what you're doing. generally, not really.

 

[gOJDO]

4200+ or 4600+

 

[AVP]

the 4600+ isn't really any slower than the 4800+ in tomshardware cpu tests...

 

[simsalabim24]

This cpu would be primarily for gaming so...

I guess I would be willing to try overclocking if it meant best bang for the buck, but gawd I don't trust myself to not F it up!

 

[Noubourne]

You already have the second-best bang for buck athlon 64 s939 rig. You just haven't overclocked it yet. The best is the Opty 165.

At stock speeds, none of them are going to be significantly faster than your chip for most applications. To get a real improvement you'd need to spend cash, and then you're out of the bang for buck category, because you'd really need to jump up at least 500Mhz to see anything at all, and 1000 for good measure. Those chips aren't cheap, and they aren't s939. An FX-60 is $550 and 600Mhz. Not worth it. An X2 4600 is $212, but it's only 400Mhz faster than what you've got. Good luck noticing that outside of CPU-intensive benchmarks. On top of that, even a newb could clock some of the worst X2 3800s up to 400Mhz faster. And that's free!

If you aren't ready to upgrade the whole thing, then just save up and move to C2D later this year.

If you ask me though, your chip is worth next to nothing. Now's the time to start dabbling in overclocking and see what you can do. Start with modest overclocks on stock cooling and see how far you get. There are a hundred excellent guides for Athlon 64s. If you wreck it, it won't cost much, and it will pay off in the future ten times over.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

The best bang for the buck CPU is the Opteron 165. Get that and hit some OCing tutorials. If you're a member of Gamespot, I'll give you an invite to an Overclocking union.

 

[gOJDO]

First you said you are not going to OC, then you are going to OC! Make up your mind
If you OC, then get Opteron 170, it's better OC-er than Opteron 165 and costs a little more. The higher clocked models 175, 180 or 185 would not OC more than the 170.

 

[you2]

I'd go with the 165. It is cheaper and if you're going to just overclock a bit it really isn't worth the extra pennies for the 170. If you plan on overclocking to an extreme than the 170 might be the way to go. Btw the 165 and 170 have very good heat sinks as part of the default package. Depending on your mb/ram you should be able to get 2.6 to 3.0+ ghz without any real concerns (providing you seat the heat sink correctly).

 

[simsalabim24]

Yeah I know I said I was not going to overclock, but I guess everyone is making it sound like that is really the only option and the best bang for the buck solution.

 

[simsalabim24]

Thats just it, one of the reasons I didnt want to overclock is because I think I have crappy ram and a crappy mb. Check the first thread I have them listed there.

Thanks.

 

[simsalabim24]

Is this processor any good the price is about the most I want to spend:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications...m-details.asp?EdpNo=2792677&CatId=1947

 

[AVP]

Check here for any benchmarks on processors and see if the price is worth it to you for the types of applications you most frequently use.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html