Priority - FSB or Clock Spped?

[DaGato]

I'm thinking of getting AM2 CPUs for an internet cafe - for internet and - naturally - gaming. Initially, for testing purposes, I will be getting a Sempron LE-1150 (2.0GHz 256KB), and an Athlon64 LE-1640+ (2.6GHz 1024KB), and an X2. The X2 will be for the server.

The lower the price the better - particularly for the X2 CPUs. I have my sights set on the X2 4400+, but the faster CPUs are not excluded from consideration. I have a problem, though - I only want to get one X2 because I can't affored to get both a 2.3GHz AND a 2.2GHz X2 4400+ to see the results for myself. What should be the deciding factor - the FSB or the clock speed? Even if the difference is negligible, which will provide faster gaming performance?

Here is the list of X2 CPUs that got me confused because in some cases, the prices are the same, so I am not sure which to get:

A64 X2 4400+ 2.2GHz 2x1024KB
A64 X2 4400+ 2.3GHz 2x512KB

A64 X2 4600+ 2.3GHz 2x1024KB
A64 X2 4700+ 2.4GHz 2x512KB

A64 X2 4800+ 2.4GHz 2x1024KB
A64 X2 4800+ 2.5GHz 2x512KB

A64 X2 5000+ 2.5GHz 2x1024KB
A64 X2 5000+ 2.6GHz 2x512KB

A64 X2 5200+ 2.6GHz 2x1024KB
A64 X2 5200+ 2.7GHz 2x512KB

A64 X2 5600+ 2.8GHz 2x1024KB
A64 X2 5600+ 2.9GHz 2x512KB

Since I can get two Semprons for the price of the cheapest X2, if the Sempron's performance is satisfactory, the client PCs will all be Semprons. Otherwise, will go higher up the hierarchy if necessary. However, since I will be running mostly free MMO games on them, I think the most demanding games I will be running on it are 2Moons and RFOnline, and those will probably even work without hitches on Semprons and Athlon LEs.

Planning to use 780G or MCP78S boards with 2GB RAM on Windows XP Pro (and maybe later switch to Ubuntu if my test on that OS work out well). Steam games will for future expansion in the coming months - once I am able to afford it along with CS:Source. OSs will either be Windows XP or Ubuntu, depending on the results of my experiments.

Thanks in advance...

 

[mancunian]

I'm assuming by 'FSB' you actually mean 'cache', given that cache is what you are referring to in the list of processors.

In which case, I'd always take the slower clockspeed with more cache. The reason I'd say this is because if you need more clockspeed, you can attain that with a bit of tweaking. You can't add extra cache.

You probably don't want to hear this either, but if you are expecting folk to *pay* to game on your machines, it might not be the best idea to have the Sempron chip.

Besides, you mentioned Source games, which are apparently more CPU heavy than some games.

So I'd sack off any idea of buying a Sempron chip. Don't get me wrong, they're good, cool chips.


But perhaps a little underpowered for gaming.


$0.02


P.S. You don't mention the graphics card you will use, that's maybe quite important for people here to know.

 

[myocardia]

There's a 75-100 Mhz speed differential, between AMD processors, when you drop down to 512KB of L2 cache, from 1MB. That's if both processors are running at the same speed, on the same motherboard, same memory timings, and you happen to be gaming. For other apps, there is less of a speed differential.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: mancunian
P.S. You don't mention the graphics card you will use, that's maybe quite important for people here to know.

It is my understanding from reading the post that he plans to use the IGP of the 780G chipset.

For DaGato, I'd just say forget with any "testing" and just choose a price point, and get whatever x2 is available at that price point. If it is within your budget, the $110 65W Windsor chip is a good one. Don't bother going any higher than that even if you can afford it because it should be really easy to clock this 2.6GHz chip up. The other Windsor chips (2x1MB cache) are all higher wattage, which is why I feel this is the better choice. If $110 is too much, then get whatever Brisbane core x2 is available at your price point.

 

[DaGato]

@mancunian: OOPs! My bad... yeah that's what I meant.... CACHE... eheheh very embarassing mistake there... As for CS:Source, that hasn't been finalized yet, but I guess it IS better to future proof my setups as much as possible, eh?

@Myocardia - thanks for the info. So THAT'S why AMD decreased the cache on the 2.3GHz 4400+... does that mean that the performances of both 2.2 and 2.3 GHz 4400+ CPUs in games will be similar?

@Zap:yup, it's either the IGP (I think it's based on the Radeon3450) of the 780G or the MCP78S (GF8200).

Anyway, most of the games that are popular here are Starcraft (yup, still has a strong following), WoW, Defense of the Ancients, and MMOs like what I mentioned in the first post of this thread, along with CS (the original), Perfect World, 2Moons, Lineage II, FlyFF, Khan, and NFS. So how about the Athlon LEs? Won't they be OK for the client PCs? There's a large price gap between the Athlons and the X2. The X2 was what I had wanted for the server - I was going for a quad-core Phenom initially, but for the price of a Phenom, and a bit more cash, I can buy two 780G or 78S motherboards and two Athlon 64 LEs.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: DaGato
@Myocardia - thanks for the info. So THAT'S why AMD decreased the cache on the 2.3GHz 4400+... does that mean that the performances of both 2.2 and 2.3 GHz 4400+ CPUs in games will be similar?

If you mean the 2.2 Ghz 1MB x 2 cache Skt. 939 4400, compared to the 2.3 Ghz Brisbane, then yes, they should perform nearly identically, except for the fact that the Brisbane will have higher memory bandwidth. Not alot of apps benefit from memory bandwidth, but thost that do will run a tiny bit faster on the 2.3 Ghz Brisbane.

 

[aigomorla]

fsb vs clockspeed.

Isnt this kinda like the chicken or the egg?

Sorry, what im trying to say is one of the product of the other, ie the chicken and then egg.

So this question is kinda funny.

 

[mancunian]

Originally posted by: DaGato
@mancunian: OOPs! My bad... yeah that's what I meant.... CACHE... eheheh very embarassing mistake there... As for CS:Source, that hasn't been finalized yet, but I guess it IS better to future proof my setups as much as possible, eh?

Good. Glad we understood ok.

Future proofing wasn't really my reason for answering what I did, I'm quite sceptical that future proofing is actually viable with PCs, although single core chips are becoming less and less useful for gaming. This is why I recommended a slightly beefier chip. I was thinking an X2 should be the absolute minimum you should throw in there, just feel that the Semprons while good chips for general use, are a little lightweight on the gaming end, much like Celerons are also a little lacking in that respect. Plus, you're using integrated graphics, so any extra horsepower would never be wasted. The choice is yours though. And given the games you plan on playing, perhaps you can get by with a less expensive chip for now. You can always chuck in a dual core chip later on if you feel the need.

An X2 would appear to be just fine for games right now though. I asked a question on these forums myself and the folks here, Myocardia included, helped me come to a good conclusion about whether to upgrade this X2 or not. The general concensus was to stick with what I've got, so I'm going to hold out a little while longer and wait for new graphics cards to come along.


Good luck.

 

[chinaman1472]

Small increments have small differences, but it's nice for the peace of mind.

 

[Mondoman]

To play devil's advocate here, it seems to me that the best CPU performance for the lowest price is something like an e2160/80 w/stock hsf OC'd to 3GHz. Sure, you won't have the integrated graphics, but you can get PCIexpress graphics cards dirt cheap these days (even on ebay if necessary) that will give you better graphics performance.
That way, you can upgrade some or all graphics cards in the future (perhaps market them as "premium workstations") without having to dump the MB. You could also upgrade some MBs to quad-core in the future, again perhaps for "premium workstation".