Upgrade from 3500+ to X2 4800+?

[hennethannun]

don't thank AM2, thank Core 2 Duo. that is the only reason that AMD's processors are 50% less across the board compared to last spring.

as for replacing a newcastle 3500+ with a venice 3800+, you are going from 130 or 110 nm (i forget what size the newcastle/hammer cores were) to 90nm process, so the chip should run cooler with lower voltage.
you are also getting a jump from 2.2 ghz to 2.4 ghz, so there will be a nice performance boost too.

 

[imported_stev]

I will probably not spend more than about $150 on a CPU upgrade since it will only speed up some multitasking a bit and hopefully keep my mp3s from stuttering when I open large programs (but that might be the same hard drive limitation I had with my DVR setup...I'll need to check that out!). I also wouldn't go lower than 4200+ since each core has the same clock speed as my 3500+. Of course, I'd like to go a little faster, which is why I would go for the 4600+ or 4800+, but I first need to do some research on what difference the 2 MB versus 1 MB total cache will make.

If the X2 CPUs disappear or go back up in price before they reach those levels, I won't lose any sleep over it.

However, I won't overclock. Overclocking is said to shorten the life of a CPU (how much it would affect a CPU with, say, a 200 MHz overclock, I don't know) and I plan to have this system for awhile. I do a tiny bit of PC gaming, but it's on a 17" CRT with speakers from my old Dell so I'm obviously not looking for the best settings in my games!

 

[hennethannun]

overclocking certainly can reduce the lifespan of your CPU. However, since most CPUs can be expected to run 10 or 20 years at stock settings, shaving a year or two off that lifespan in exchange for increased performance now is not really too bad an idea. virtually every CPU ever made is destined to become hopelessly obsolete LONG before it becomes physically incapable of working.