Looking for help picking one of these cpu's....

[buck]

I know about the newer cpus coming out soon, but i am going to do a big upgrade in a few months, but for now, i need something to tide me over on the cheap...
My specs:

amd64 3000+ vanilla doesnt overclock for crap, got it a while back.
msi k8n neo4 platinum
2 gigs ram VALUE RAM
74 gig raptor
xfi sound card
x1800xt 512mb

I would like to upgrade the cpu to to a better one that will overclock. I would like to keep the cpu price below $200 and buy it local.
Some cpus that i am looking at are:

Here

They have an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Socket 939 512K - OEM for $129 that looks good, but honestly, i dont know the difference between the san diegos and the venices. I am looking for one that would over clock decently and shows good performance for gaming.

Thanks very much for any thoughts whatsoever.

 

[o1die]

I'd go for the 3500 retail boxed, about $120 at newegg.

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: o1die
I'd go for the 3500 retail boxed, about $120 at newegg.

San Diego? Venice? Whats the difference between the two overclocking and performance wise?

 

[customcoms]

San Diego has 1mb of L2 cache vs 512kb on the venice; they are identical otherwise. Some say it is easier to hit a higher clock speed on a Venice with the smaller L2 Cache; I say it is negligible with decent and higher air cooling. The 1mb of cache helps in some applications (including games) but for the most part we are taking 5% AT THE MOST, and usually it is under that. Check the overclocking database over at DFI-Street.com or xtremesystems.com for more results.

Are you sure its the processor and not the motherboard? Keep your processor at 1.8ghz using a lower whole number multiplyer and keep rasing your HTT(FSB) speed until it craps out, if it can't go very high that might be your limit.

The cheapest San Diego is the 3700+ for $205 at newegg, clocked at 2.2ghz. You can get the 3800+ for $150, clcoked at 2.4ghz (a faster processor for cheaper). The 3500+ is on sale for $115, clocked at 2.2ghz.

Another idea is wait a month and pick up an X2 3800+ for $150-160. Thats what I'm doing..dual core all the way.

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: customcoms
San Diego has 1mb of L2 cache vs 512kb on the venice; they are identical otherwise. Some say it is easier to hit a higher clock speed on a Venice with the smaller L2 Cache; I say it is negligible with decent and higher air cooling. The 1mb of cache helps in some applications (including games) but for the most part we are taking 5% AT THE MOST, and usually it is under that. Check the overclocking database over at DFI-Street.com or xtremesystems.com for more results.

Are you sure its the processor and not the motherboard? Keep your processor at 1.8ghz using a lower whole number multiplyer and keep rasing your HTT(FSB) speed until it craps out, if it can't go very high that might be your limit.

The cheapest San Diego is the 3700+ for $205 at newegg, clocked at 2.2ghz. You can get the 3800+ for $150, clcoked at 2.4ghz (a faster processor for cheaper). The 3500+ is on sale for $115, clocked at 2.2ghz.

Another idea is wait a month and pick up an X2 3800+ for $150-160. Thats what I'm doing..dual core all the way.

Thank you very much for that detailed explanation, for some reason i saw conflicting posts and now i have it through my thick skull.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

If you're just looking for better gaming performance, you likely won't notice any difference between any of those processors that you're considering. Of course, it depends on what monitor you use and what resolution you play at... as well as what games you play.

Your best bet (since you have a pretty good video card anyway) is to do what customcoms said-- what for some X2 price drops. Though I can't see the 3800 dropping below $200. Either way, that X2 won't really help gaming performance at the moment either (unless you solely play Quak4 at 1280x1024 or below), but the dual-core will help you with your media-encoding times and prehaps offer gaming advantages in the future.

What monitor are you currently using, btw? If you're a high-res gamer already, take that $200 you want to spend, sell your x1800 and get either an x19xt, SLI GTs, or the GX2. You'll spend that $200 and actually *notice* a difference in games.

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
If you're just looking for better gaming performance, you likely won't notice any difference between any of those processors that you're considering. Of course, it depends on what monitor you use and what resolution you play at... as well as what games you play.

Your best bet (since you have a pretty good video card anyway) is to do what customcoms said-- what for some X2 price drops. Though I can't see the 3800 dropping below $200. Either way, that X2 won't really help gaming performance at the moment either (unless you solely play Quak4 at 1280x1024 or below), but the dual-core will help you with your media-encoding times and prehaps offer gaming advantages in the future.

What monitor are you currently using, btw? If you're a high-res gamer already, take that $200 you want to spend, sell your x1800 and get either an x19xt, SLI GTs, or the GX2. You'll spend that $200 and actually *notice* a difference in games.

I use a 2005fpw, playing BF2, at the highest res I can.
So you are saying i wont see much of a difference between this +3000 at default ( wont oc for crap) and an overclocked 3500/3800?

 

[customcoms]

I would say you WILL notice a difference. Your current card is bottlenecked by your cpu; actually, upgrading cards won't really do much because your once again bottlenecked by your cpu. I would keep your current grpahics card; their is no game except MAYBE oblivion that can take advantage of anything better than what you have now graphics wise, but a new processor at 2.6ghz will make a big difference in every game you play.

Squirrel, price charts have already been released indicating the X2 3800+ will drop to $162 on July 24; whether we get it that cheap I'm not sure but it wouldn't surprise me based on the current prices of the single core processors.

I would wait and buy an X2 and overclock it to 2.6ghz+ per core...if your motherboards not holding you back.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: buck
I use a 2005fpw, playing BF2, at the highest res I can.
So you are saying i wont see much of a difference between this +3000 at default ( wont oc for crap) and an overclocked 3500/3800?

That's what I'm saying. Your monitor is a 1600x1080 native res LCD (I think). At that resolution, your video card does most of the work and the CPU speed doesn't make much of a difference.

Originally posted by: customcoms
I would say you WILL notice a difference. Your current card is bottlenecked by your cpu; actually, upgrading cards won't really do much because your once again bottlenecked by your cpu. I would keep your current grpahics card; their is no game except MAYBE oblivion that can take advantage of anything better than what you have now graphics wise, but a new processor at 2.6ghz will make a big difference in every game you play.

Oblivion is one game that is very graphically-demanding. But there are others. Some examples:
Battlefield 2 at 1280x1024 with AA. An FX-57 gets about the same frames as a Sempron. The results are even closer at 16x10.
FEAR is another one. Even at a lowly 1024x768, the CPU power makes no difference. At 1600x1080, it's the exact same.
And I'm not sure why customcoms would say "MAYBE" Oblivion. As you can see, Oblivion could care less if it's a 2.0ghz or 2.6ghz CPU at any resolution 1280x1024 and above.

So, going by these benchmarks, you could upgrade your CPU for $200 and get 0fps benefit at 1600x1080. Or sell your current card for some cash ($250+), add that to the $200 you wanna spend and get yourself an x1900xt (which would give a 20% boost in, for example, Oblivion), or spend about $30-50 more and get SLI GTs if your mobo is capable (which would give you 51% more performance in Oblivion). You may not be crazy for Oblivion-- who knows. Point is, that $200, if you're mainly interested in gaming, is MUCH better used somewhere besides the CPU for your given fixed resolution.

 

[customcoms]

Ok..now I understand what you were saying squirrel. The question is, is that all he does? Basically, I would just sit tight for now and upgrade to a dual core X2 3800+ for this system when it drops to the $150 neighborhood-then go all out on your next build graphics wise.

I guess I'm just content because A) I don't play Oblivion, FEAR or BF2 and B) I'm stuck at 1280x1024 with the CRT I have, so my system can play all those games at decent settings at this resolution anyway.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

You're exactly right. All my info was assuming he was mainly interested in gaming (he mentioned BF2 specifically).

If he spent a lot of time encoding (and liked the prospect of doing so *while* gaming), or had an LCD that limited him to a lower res, or solely played Quake4, a $200 CPU upgrade would be a decent idea. But waiting for price drops, since they're ~30 days away, is an even better idea.

But yeah, I agree with ya-- I don't think he needs an upgrade at all. But I'm thinking about it like you-- as if it were *my* money. He may have "the bug" and just need to upgrade, and, if that's the case, I probably won't be able to convince him to not spend the money, so I might as well show him my idea of the best way to spend the money

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
You're exactly right. All my info was assuming he was mainly interested in gaming (he mentioned BF2 specifically).

If he spent a lot of time encoding (and liked the prospect of doing so *while* gaming), or had an LCD that limited him to a lower res, or solely played Quake4, a $200 CPU upgrade would be a decent idea. But waiting for price drops, since they're ~30 days away, is an even better idea.

But yeah, I agree with ya-- I don't think he needs an upgrade at all. But I'm thinking about it like you-- as if it were *my* money. He may have "the bug" and just need to upgrade, and, if that's the case, I probably won't be able to convince him to not spend the money, so I might as well show him my idea of the best way to spend the money

Well you actually did convince me, thanks very much for those benchies.

 

[v8envy]

So was it the motherboard or CPU that was giving you OCing problems? If it's not the motherboard/RAM, the way to fly would be to sell your 3000+ for $75 or so, and get a newish 3500+ for $120. You should be able to hit 2.4 ghz on that effortlessly. It won't make any difference in gaming performance, but you'll have scratched both the upgrade and OC itch, and done so for minimal money -- about 60 bucks after fees and shipping.

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: v8envy
So was it the motherboard or CPU that was giving you OCing problems? If it's not the motherboard/RAM, the way to fly would be to sell your 3000+ for $75 or so, and get a newish 3500+ for $120. You should be able to hit 2.4 ghz on that effortlessly. It won't make any difference in gaming performance, but you'll have scratched both the upgrade and OC itch, and done so for minimal money -- about 60 bucks after fees and shipping.

Thats what i was initially thinking about, however, I need to find out if my mobo or ram is holding me back. Im gonna read into how to do that this weekend.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: v8envy
So was it the motherboard or CPU that was giving you OCing problems? If it's not the motherboard/RAM, the way to fly would be to sell your 3000+ for $75 or so, and get a newish 3500+ for $120. You should be able to hit 2.4 ghz on that effortlessly. It won't make any difference in gaming performance, but you'll have scratched both the upgrade and OC itch, and done so for minimal money -- about 60 bucks after fees and shipping.

Thats what i was initially thinking about, however, I need to find out if my mobo or ram is holding me back. Im gonna read into how to do that this weekend.

The MSI K8N should hit 240MHz with some BIOS and 260+ if you get the right BIOS (the Neo4 might be slightly different, but you should be able to hit at least 240).
I doubt it's your mobo holding you back, and you can always use dividers to run the RAM at stock speed instead of having it overclocked.