Go for the xepnsive 64 3000 or choose the XP M 2600, need a definite answer.

[nvfx]

Well,

Is a 64 3000 really worth its price, or does the XP M perform considerably well in games.

Since i am buying Seperate Coolers so i will over clock but only a little bit.

Will the 64 Bit come in handy for future games.

I need to assemble a system for the next 2 years atleast

 

[Cheetah8799]

I use my XP 2500+ Mobile OC'd to 2.5ghz for every game up through Far Cry. I have 1gb ram and a Radeon 9800 Pro which is OC'd. I doubt I'll need a new rig for quite a while, maybe 1.5 years max. Depends on price of hardware in the future for me, cost of upgrade vs. performance increase.

It's pretty hard to make any rig that will last you two years and still perform up to your expectations. Just look back two years and figure what you would have built then. Do you think you would still be using that rig now? For bleeding edge apps, like Far Cry for example, I doubt any rig will last you more than a year. Assuming you want top performance in the latest greatest games.

 

[zodder]

I need to assemble a system for the next 2 years atleast

A64. The 64-bit version of XP will be out by the end of this year and software will probably be soon to follow. If you are going to keep it for at least 2 years, at least you'd be able to check out the latest and greatest 64-bit stuff if/when it comes out.

 

[irenealan]

It's a hard decision. I guess alot of people here (including me) wonder about that when they build their rigs. 2600+ is the more economical version but even if it's OC to 2.5 or 2.6, I don't know if it can pair up with a A64 3000+ OC to 2.2 or 2.3. I have my A64 3000+ OC to 2.2 and I still wonder if I should have got the XP M 2600 and OC it to 2.5 or 2.6!

Sorry not much help here but just wonder if my people can chip in, this is a good topic!

 

[zodder]

You'll also notice a speed boost when 64-bit stuff becomes available with the A64. It'll be like a free upgrade.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: zodder
You'll also notice a speed boost when 64-bit stuff becomes available with the A64. It'll be like a free upgrade.

It will be far from free to get Windows XP-64

 

[Bar81]

It's free...

 

[jagec]

if you are going to keep that system for two full years, I'd go for a athlon64.

HOWEVER keep in mind that you'll be able to upgrade your mobile processor three times for the same price as a athlon64

So I recommend you get a mobile now, then once the mobile 3200s come out (I think that's as high as they plan to go in the near future on socket A?), get one of those.

My mobile 2400+ is running at 2.4GHz right now on air.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: jagec
if you are going to keep that system for two full years, I'd go for a athlon64.

HOWEVER keep in mind that you'll be able to upgrade your mobile processor three times for the same price as a athlon64

So I recommend you get a mobile now, then once the mobile 3200s come out (I think that's as high as they plan to go in the near future on socket A?), get one of those.

My mobile 2400+ is running at 2.4GHz right now on air.

I don't follow your reasoning, if he gets a 2600 mobile now that's capable of say 2.6ghz on air then there would be no point in buying a higher binned mobile later. The 3200+ will be stocked clocked higher yes, but it isn't likely to have any more overclocking capability. Besides, he is stating that what he builds now will need to last 2yrs.

Look people sktA is dead for all intents and purposes, deal with it. AMD is making castrated 32bit A64 based CPUs for skt754 now and that will be the replacement for sktA as the value line. sktA is a dead end, whatever you get now from a mobile overclock is very likely the peak and it's all downhill from here.

On the other hand, if he builds an A64 system and gets 2.4ghz from it which is as likely as mobile Bartons reaching 2.6ghz on air, he'll have a system that is significantly faster for gaming. Furthermore, If he gets ram that can run 1:1 it'll be faster than a stock A64 3700+ will be when it's available thanks to the extra system bandwidth. That means he would have a faster gaming system than any non-FX CPU AMD currently makes which means he's already ahead of the curve instead of behind the 8ball starting out He'll also be able to use 64bit apps and games as they become available and he will get the beta 64bit XP Pro to play with now.

 

[zodder]

My point exactly.

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: jagec
if you are going to keep that system for two full years, I'd go for a athlon64.

HOWEVER keep in mind that you'll be able to upgrade your mobile processor three times for the same price as a athlon64

So I recommend you get a mobile now, then once the mobile 3200s come out (I think that's as high as they plan to go in the near future on socket A?), get one of those.

My mobile 2400+ is running at 2.4GHz right now on air.

I don't follow your reasoning, if he gets a 2600 mobile now that's capable of say 2.6ghz on air then there would be no point in buying a higher binned mobile later. The 3200+ will be stocked clocked higher yes, but it isn't likely to have any more overclocking capability. Besides, he is stating that what he builds now will need to last 2yrs.

Look people sktA is dead for all intents and purposes, deal with it. AMD is making castrated 32bit A64 based CPUs for skt754 now and that will be the replacement for sktA as the value line. sktA is a dead end, whatever you get now from a mobile overclock is very likely the peak and it's all downhill from here.

On the other hand, if he builds an A64 system and gets 2.4ghz from it which is as likely as mobile Bartons reaching 2.6ghz on air, he'll have a system that is significantly faster for gaming. Furthermore, If he gets ram that can run 1:1 it'll be faster than a stock A64 3800+ will be when it's available thanks to the extra system bandwidth. That means he would have a faster gaming system than any non-FX CPU AMD currently makes which means he's already ahead of the curve instead of behind the 8ball starting out He'll also be able to use 64bit apps and games as they become available and he will get the beta 64bit XP Pro to play with now.

blah blah is all i see....

j/k j/k

i agree... as much as these mobiles rock... if you plan on NOT upgrading for at least 1.5 to 2 years, your best bet is to go with the A64 3000+ or even the A64 2800+.

if you plan on upgrading within the next six months though, i'd say get a mobile barton.

i plan on upgrading to the new socket 775 or 939 (or possibly FX that uses non-ecc memory) within the next 3 to 4 months. that's why i sold off my A64 3200+ and have a mobile system (selling the processor paid for my mobile barton + board)...

 

[Vette73]

2 years then have to go Athlon 64

If loking for cheap and fast for NOW, then Athlon XP-M

 

[Tiamat]

Right now, its the graphics card that will determine the bulk of your gaming performance. I have a DLT3C 1800+ (2200mhz) and Radeon 8500, 1 gig of PC3500 Mushkin Level 2 ram, and this system plays UT2k4 at 1600x1200 fine. Some lag sometimes when there are mroe than 14 players, but not too too bad. This costed me 60$ for processor. as opposed to the close to 200$ price tag of the A64s. Its always cool to have the Eye Popping system, but it may not be exactly what you personally need.

Bottom of line. I dont believe you will need an A64 specifically for games until A64 is very mainstream and cheaper. Sure there will be optimizations for 64-bit, but do you really need them / understand what they would do for you? I do believe you will need an ATI 9800Pro or better for this year.

Save money now, Buy 64bit in a year to year and a half when its cheaper. Thus the viscious cycle of technological advancement.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Tiamat
Right now, its the graphics card that will determine the bulk of your gaming performance. I have a DLT3C 1800+ (2200mhz) and Radeon 8500, 1 gig of PC3500 Mushkin Level 2 ram, and this system plays UT2k4 at 1600x1200 fine. Some lag sometimes when there are mroe than 14 players, but not too too bad. This costed me 60$ for processor. as opposed to the close to 200$ price tag of the A64s. Its always cool to have the Eye Popping system, but it may not be exactly what you personally need.

Bottom of line. I dont believe you will need an A64 specifically for games until A64 is very mainstream and cheaper. Sure there will be optimizations for 64-bit, but do you really need them / understand what they would do for you? I do believe you will need an ATI 9800Pro or better for this year.

Save money now, Buy 64bit in a year to year and a half when its cheaper. Thus the viscious cycle of technological advancement.

If you buy a r420 or nv40 you'll be more CPU limited until you hit 16x12 with all the eye candy and AA/AF cranked up and even then you'll probably see a significant performance difference compared to a A64@2.4ghz.

BTW, try FarCry with that system of your's and you'll see it ain't up to snuff brudda

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Tiamat
Right now, its the graphics card that will determine the bulk of your gaming performance. I have a DLT3C 1800+ (2200mhz) and Radeon 8500, 1 gig of PC3500 Mushkin Level 2 ram, and this system plays UT2k4 at 1600x1200 fine. Some lag sometimes when there are mroe than 14 players, but not too too bad. This costed me 60$ for processor. as opposed to the close to 200$ price tag of the A64s. Its always cool to have the Eye Popping system, but it may not be exactly what you personally need.

Bottom of line. I dont believe you will need an A64 specifically for games until A64 is very mainstream and cheaper. Sure there will be optimizations for 64-bit, but do you really need them / understand what they would do for you? I do believe you will need an ATI 9800Pro or better for this year.

Save money now, Buy 64bit in a year to year and a half when its cheaper. Thus the viscious cycle of technological advancement.

If you buy a r420 or nv40 you'll be more CPU limited until you hit 16x12 with all the eye candy and AA/AF cranked up and even then you'll probably see a significant performance difference compared to a A64@2.4ghz.

BTW, try FarCry with that system of your's and you'll see it ain't up to snuff brudda

I was not interested with FarCry. And, if i were to play DX9 based games, i would get a DX9 based card first, not an A64. Processor limited... I bet you cannot tell a 200+$ worth increase between 1600x1200 no AA/AF and 1600x1200 AA/AF max. If you can, Props to your eyesight, but i dont like stopping to take a look at the beautiful scenary while getting my head shot off

BTW, games plays the same if hypothetically, a card grants 30fps minimum vs a card granting 90fps minimum.
No flame intended if any given.

 

[hifisoftware]

I am also need to upgrade my P3 800Mhz and I also stuck with this questin. I am changing my opinion once a day it seems. (+100$ for 64 is not much, but if it is going to be completely useless, then why not save...?)
I do not think that a lot of games would be faster in 64 bit, at least not soon. I am mostly an application programmer, but in all of my programs switching to 64 bit would not add anything. Games are little bit more advanced then business app, but still to realize 64 bit benefit games would have to be recoded which would take time. I think that at best there will be some games that would run faster in 64 bit in say two years, but by that time current 64bit CPU would be too slow for them... As you can see I am more incline to go with Mobile for now/today...

The main advantage for 64bit in my view is amount of memory that can be put in the system. For a database system or for designing levels in a game a lot would be nice. I it seems that none of the popular motherbards can handle say 16G of RAM, but even if they could, buying this much RAM with current prices is going to cost...

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Tiamat

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Tiamat
Right now, its the graphics card that will determine the bulk of your gaming performance. I have a DLT3C 1800+ (2200mhz) and Radeon 8500, 1 gig of PC3500 Mushkin Level 2 ram, and this system plays UT2k4 at 1600x1200 fine. Some lag sometimes when there are mroe than 14 players, but not too too bad. This costed me 60$ for processor. as opposed to the close to 200$ price tag of the A64s. Its always cool to have the Eye Popping system, but it may not be exactly what you personally need.

Bottom of line. I dont believe you will need an A64 specifically for games until A64 is very mainstream and cheaper. Sure there will be optimizations for 64-bit, but do you really need them / understand what they would do for you? I do believe you will need an ATI 9800Pro or better for this year.

Save money now, Buy 64bit in a year to year and a half when its cheaper. Thus the viscious cycle of technological advancement.

If you buy a r420 or nv40 you'll be more CPU limited until you hit 16x12 with all the eye candy and AA/AF cranked up and even then you'll probably see a significant performance difference compared to a A64@2.4ghz.

BTW, try FarCry with that system of your's and you'll see it ain't up to snuff brudda

I was not interested with FarCry. And, if i were to play DX9 based games, i would get a DX9 based card first, not an A64. Processor limited... I bet you cannot tell a 200+$ worth increase between 1600x1200 no AA/AF and 1600x1200 AA/AF max. If you can, Props to your eyesight, but i dont like stopping to take a look at the beautiful scenary while getting my head shot off

BTW, games plays the same if hypothetically, a card grants 30fps minimum vs a card granting 90fps minimum.
No flame intended if any given.

We are just discussing our oppossing views, no flames here brudda, it's all good

I don't agree with your take on this and feel you are rationalizing which is normal, but you just don't seem to grasp the concept that he needs this to last 2 years!

Now, not all games are the mindless run around shooting UT variety and they give ample time to enjoy the scenery. Your preferences are your own but just because you aren't interested in FarCry doesn't amount to dick in the scheme of things. Many gamers are very interested in titles like this and future titles as well. In the final analysis, this guy is trying to build a system that'll hold up as well as possible for 2years and the mobile sktA ain't gonna fit the bill nearly as well as the A64 will.

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Tiamat

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Tiamat
Right now, its the graphics card that will determine the bulk of your gaming performance. I have a DLT3C 1800+ (2200mhz) and Radeon 8500, 1 gig of PC3500 Mushkin Level 2 ram, and this system plays UT2k4 at 1600x1200 fine. Some lag sometimes when there are mroe than 14 players, but not too too bad. This costed me 60$ for processor. as opposed to the close to 200$ price tag of the A64s. Its always cool to have the Eye Popping system, but it may not be exactly what you personally need.

Bottom of line. I dont believe you will need an A64 specifically for games until A64 is very mainstream and cheaper. Sure there will be optimizations for 64-bit, but do you really need them / understand what they would do for you? I do believe you will need an ATI 9800Pro or better for this year.

Save money now, Buy 64bit in a year to year and a half when its cheaper. Thus the viscious cycle of technological advancement.

If you buy a r420 or nv40 you'll be more CPU limited until you hit 16x12 with all the eye candy and AA/AF cranked up and even then you'll probably see a significant performance difference compared to a A64@2.4ghz.

BTW, try FarCry with that system of your's and you'll see it ain't up to snuff brudda

I was not interested with FarCry. And, if i were to play DX9 based games, i would get a DX9 based card first, not an A64. Processor limited... I bet you cannot tell a 200+$ worth increase between 1600x1200 no AA/AF and 1600x1200 AA/AF max. If you can, Props to your eyesight, but i dont like stopping to take a look at the beautiful scenary while getting my head shot off

BTW, games plays the same if hypothetically, a card grants 30fps minimum vs a card granting 90fps minimum.
No flame intended if any given.

We are just discussing our oppossing views, no flames here brudda, it's all good

I don't agree with your take on this and feel you are rationalizing which is normal, but you just don't seem to grasp the concept that he needs this to last 2 years!

Now, not all games are the mindless run around shooting UT variety and they give ample time to enjoy the scenery. Your preferences are your own but just because you aren't interested in FarCry doesn't amount to dick in the scheme of things. Many gamers are very interested in titles like this and future titles as well. In the final analysis, this guy is trying to build a system that'll hold up as well as possible for 2years and the mobile sktA ain't gonna fit the bill nearly as well as the A64 will.

I get your point, but we also need to realize that A R420 or NV 40 is just as importnat to him as getting an A64 processor/mobo set. You cannot get utmost performance without spending a good amount of cash. Im just rationalizing that dumping the money in teh R420 or NV40 would probbaly get you futher than dumping money on a A64/mobo set. Perhaps you have an unlimited cash fund, and perhaps he does as well. Im just coming from the standpoint of a normal college student who wants the most impact for the amount of extra cash i have in the bank. By all means if you can afford to, get Both the A64 and Highest end VPU. but that will set you back at least 850$ or 1100$ if you go with the more expensive A64 non-FX.

IMHO. For future titles, the R420/NV40 will be the component at allows players to "enjoy the scenery."
You cannot enjoy the scenery (as much as a person like you would want to) if you simply have an A64 and NV3x/R3xx. Of course I have not seen future games since they are obviously not available, but the trend is that the software is forcing the VPU to work much much harder - and you need a VPU that can handle that.

To end - (I apologize for such an almost unnecessary digression) If you want a system for 2 years and you want to play high quality - eye candy - graphics intensive games, your first step is Graphics card. With your remaining money go for the highest end cpu/mobo/ram you can get.

Of course, since you only requested a CPU shootout here, my posts are perhaps inadequate for your decision making. If you already have a really high end GPU, i guess you can discount everything i said and just shoot the moon - go for the A64.