get the 4000+. both cpu's are the same thing except that the fx is multiplier unlocked. since you're not overclocking, the 4000+ will be perfectly fine.
Originally posted by: Mrvile
I said I wouldn't be overclocking my Opterons, but now that I have an easier to use Athlon, will the FX be easier to OC?
And Mikey, I start changing my mind after like 4 people tell me the same thing
lol. the fx will be easier to oc, but keep in mind you will need great cooling and good memory. since you are thinking about overclocking, you might as well stick wtih the 3500+ and oc it to 2.6ghz. that will be as fast, if not faster hten the fx-55 at stock. for memory, i highly recommend the ocz el revision 2.
well, here's the thing about ocing. it's never guaranteed and if you know how to oc, then you can oc it. basically, if you know it, you can do it, so difficulty is the same. for motherboard, the best one is the msi neo4 one, sadly. it's the most popular socket 939 board and oc's well.
oogabooga
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2003
- 7,806
- 3
- 81
mrvile, glad to see your taking single cpu advice :
Unless you're doing video editing, graphics intensive application (and i don't mean games), things of a workstation nature you don't benefit from dual cpu's.
If you have a good lcd, great go with it
Personally i have a 3000+ nad haven't hit the maximum overclocking point. It's stock 2.0ghz(or 2.2, but 2.0 i think), and have gone as high as 2.5ghz no problems and still have lot of room to continue going up. Your system will need a quality setup, wires will need to be decluttered, your fans will need to be effectively placed, the case should have good cooling properties.
The athlon chipsets don't get easier or harder to overclock. Some chipsets they sell are pretty much at their highest speed possible, so in that sense i guess they are harder. But just buy within the generation, and do some research, the cpu forum is a good place to start, and there are a lot of overclockers forums.
Unless you're doing video editing, graphics intensive application (and i don't mean games), things of a workstation nature you don't benefit from dual cpu's.
If you have a good lcd, great go with it
Personally i have a 3000+ nad haven't hit the maximum overclocking point. It's stock 2.0ghz(or 2.2, but 2.0 i think), and have gone as high as 2.5ghz no problems and still have lot of room to continue going up. Your system will need a quality setup, wires will need to be decluttered, your fans will need to be effectively placed, the case should have good cooling properties.
The athlon chipsets don't get easier or harder to overclock. Some chipsets they sell are pretty much at their highest speed possible, so in that sense i guess they are harder. But just buy within the generation, and do some research, the cpu forum is a good place to start, and there are a lot of overclockers forums.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
I wouldn't get MSI anything since I had problems with their boards and many users complain about the problems MSI Neo 2 has given them.
Now personally, I am the opposite of you. I'd rather spend more money towards a faster cpu and less money on RAM since timings mean little for A64. Either way, you'll be better off running a ratio setup with low 2-2-2-5 timings than 250FSB with 3-3-3-8 setup. So getting KingMax Hardcore PC4000 for $100 for 512mb saves you some $$, and lets you run them at 200mhz 2-2-2-5. OCZ PE 2 is some amazing stuff but costs an arm and a leg and still cant run 250FSB at 2-2-2-5. You might just be better off getting some cheapo ram like this one:
Geil 1GB PC3200 400MHz - $139.99
Pretty much this means you have roughly $160 extra towards a faster processor. For A64 200mhz increase is going to be much greater than the effect of running 1:1 or tighter memory timings in my opinion. Oftentimes the cost of stepping up to good ram isnt worth it in my eyes, since higher clocked processors tend to have greater overclocking room or a greater chance of achieving the same overclocking speed as lower grade (ie. getting 2.2ghz p4 to 2.6 should be easier than getting 1.8ghz to 2.6).
Now personally, I am the opposite of you. I'd rather spend more money towards a faster cpu and less money on RAM since timings mean little for A64. Either way, you'll be better off running a ratio setup with low 2-2-2-5 timings than 250FSB with 3-3-3-8 setup. So getting KingMax Hardcore PC4000 for $100 for 512mb saves you some $$, and lets you run them at 200mhz 2-2-2-5. OCZ PE 2 is some amazing stuff but costs an arm and a leg and still cant run 250FSB at 2-2-2-5. You might just be better off getting some cheapo ram like this one:
Geil 1GB PC3200 400MHz - $139.99
Pretty much this means you have roughly $160 extra towards a faster processor. For A64 200mhz increase is going to be much greater than the effect of running 1:1 or tighter memory timings in my opinion. Oftentimes the cost of stepping up to good ram isnt worth it in my eyes, since higher clocked processors tend to have greater overclocking room or a greater chance of achieving the same overclocking speed as lower grade (ie. getting 2.2ghz p4 to 2.6 should be easier than getting 1.8ghz to 2.6).
Russian's recommendations are pretty sound. You're better off spending more money on a faster CPU than faster memory. If you can already squeeze a 3700+ into the budget then I wouldn't buy anything faster than that, as the prices increase well beyond the performance increase you will see past that rating. Instead I would put the $160 towards a 74GB Raptor which is a boot drive far more worthy of the rest of the system, than the drive you have listed now. I would still buy that 2nd drive though and use it for storage.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter