Socket A vs 754

[jlswier1988]

I have heard that i wont be very much satisfied with a Socket 754 mobo with a AMD64 3200 or 3000+ vs my Socket A mobo with a 2500+ barton with a video card of a 6800 GT 256mb made bad XFX. Here is my system now in full.

Amd 2500+ Barton good 2 years old
Leadtek Winfast k7ncr18d Pro Nforce 2 ultra 400 Motherboard
Samsung pc3200 Ram
XFX 6800 GT
Theres the basics.
the barton would be running under either 2.0ghz at 200 FSB with 10 muliplers or 2.2 at 11 multiplers and its not very stable with those two.

Vs
AMD 64 3000+ at 2.2ghz if not higher
on a 754 motherboard havent decided yet
same ram
same video card.

how much performance gain will i recieve from this upgrade?

 

[NokiaDude]

Very little. Save up for a 939 based system!

 

[Promethply]

Depending on which criteria your performance increase is based on,

You may actually see quite a gain:

The Mother of All CPU Charts Part 2

But if I were you, I'll go for the socket 939 system, since it's more "futureproof"

 

[jlswier1988]

Do you think the single channel 754 is that much of a decres from the dual channel 939? im looking to get 100 fps constat in cs:s should be that difficult considering i was close with my old video card with the 2500 barton the video card was a 9800 pro

 

[MustangSVT]

dont upgrade unless u need to ..

 

[Promethply]

Originally posted by: jlswier1988
Do you think the single channel 754 is that much of a decres from the dual channel 939? im looking to get 100 fps constat in cs:s should be that difficult considering i was close with my old video card with the 2500 barton the video card was a 9800 pro

In most games, the 754's probably is at least on par with the 939, with some Socket 754 CPU performing like a champ (the 3400+ comes to mind)

It's just that the 939 will have longer lifespan, maybe, and AMD stated that the some early dual cored Athlon64 CPUs will run on Socket 939 mobos, making it more "futureproof"

 

[Quentin]

How about putting more time and thought into your overclock. You may be able to get 2.2GHz stable for no cost or very little. Changes to vCore, vDIMM and RAM timings cost nothing if your power supply and case&CPU cooling are adequate.

 

[jlswier1988]

I have spent countless hours tweaking voltage and everything possible on it me and my friend both and its never stable. do u think that my video card could be causing the pc to restart? cause of getting so hot? or what do u think the cause of it is. i have increased the voltage all the way up to 1.850 and still not stable bumping one up at a time.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

You have a fast vid card already, so economically speaking just grabbing a 2200+ 35W Barton-M and overclocking to 2.4-2.5ghz stable is the cheapest out for easing the CPU bottleneck. Your old 2500+ should get you $45-$50 so it would be dirt cheap as an upgrade; No re-install or anything required that way either Although I have gotten away with going from nF2 to nF3 in the past with just a throw&go, thanks to the UDPs.

 

[Zap]

Common knowledge that as long as you aren't terribly CPU starved, most performance gains in 3D games are from video card. If you already have a 6800GT, then you're good to go. If it will make you feel better to have a s754 system or if you just want to ditch your unstable overclocker, then by all means go with s754. All your other parts will work fine, just grab a new motherboard and retail box CPU. For instance, get the Athlon 64 2800+ "AX" for $120 and an Epox board for $70 or a DFI board for $110. The Epox board is good for 275-300HTT and the DFI is good for 300-325HTT. The "AX" CPU has been known to hit 2.5-2.8GHz. Of course YMMV with overclocking, but as long as you choose the right components the most terrible stable overclock should beat out your unstable socket A overclock in performance. With the cheaper Epox board the cost will be around $190, minus whatever you can sell your socket A board and CPU for (it's stable at default speeds, right?).

An idea for your socket A stability. Some boards would not run stable at 200 FSB if the detected CPU wasn't that bus speed. The way to test for it is to run it at a higher multiplier but at the default 333 FSB. 166x13 would give you around 2.15GHz, in between your 2.0 and 2.2GHz clock speeds - as I understand which both are unstable? If it is indeed stable with a higher multiplier and lower bus, then next step is to use the multiplier to raise RAM speeds to test it independently. If all tests fine, then you'll need to do the "wire trick" to fool your motherboard into thinking it has a native 200MHz FSB chip in it.