He has the Intel 630 which is 3GHZ with HT technology, would he see a huge diffrence in multitasking and gaming if he went up to an X24800+, his video card is a 7800GT and he has 2GB of RAM, my guess would be that when it comes to multitasking there's probobly no contest, but with gaming, would the diffrence be big?
Would going from a Pentium 4 3GHZ to a 4800+ a big diffrence?
- Thread starter Smartazz
- Start date
Depends a lot on the type of multitasking. If he is running a lot of CPU intensive programs, there would be a huge differance. If he's running any SMP aware programs there would be a huge differance. When it comes to gaming, there would likely be a small differance, but not much since gaming is video card limited anyway.
It would be better in gaming and multi-tasking now if you want to beat your friend get an Intel conroe
If you had a single core AMD64 clocked at the same speed as his 4800 X2 than you could beat him in gaming as dual cores tend to be slower in gaming.
I am glad I didn't buy a AMD64 dual core though as it doesn't improve the gaming aspect and just multi-tasking with the conroe it'll be faster in gaming and multi-tasking
If you had a single core AMD64 clocked at the same speed as his 4800 X2 than you could beat him in gaming as dual cores tend to be slower in gaming.
I am glad I didn't buy a AMD64 dual core though as it doesn't improve the gaming aspect and just multi-tasking with the conroe it'll be faster in gaming and multi-tasking
Opteron @ 2.6GHZ beats an X2 @ 2.4GHZ, what real benefit will conroe prove, games are so gpu limited anyway, why does anyone need that much power that the Conroe XE will provide, bragging rights perhaps?
If you multitask alot, dual CPU is a godsend.
If you have enough memory, fast hard drives, and a dual core CPU, you can't slow the PC down, ever.
You can be decoding a DVD or recording TV, etc, while playing BF2, and it runs smooth as silk. I love my Opteron 170 .. and I love my 820D at work. I would never go single core again.
Now in FPS for games? no difference from a single core if they are teh same clock speed. a P4 3.0 would be similar in games to a 4800, but the 4800 would have the edge in FPS due to the fact it's an AMD and a 2.4 or 2.6 AMD would beat a 3.0P4 anyday.
If you have enough memory, fast hard drives, and a dual core CPU, you can't slow the PC down, ever.
You can be decoding a DVD or recording TV, etc, while playing BF2, and it runs smooth as silk. I love my Opteron 170 .. and I love my 820D at work. I would never go single core again.
Now in FPS for games? no difference from a single core if they are teh same clock speed. a P4 3.0 would be similar in games to a 4800, but the 4800 would have the edge in FPS due to the fact it's an AMD and a 2.4 or 2.6 AMD would beat a 3.0P4 anyday.
lol, sorry but your compare is terrible how are you going to compare two of basically the same chips and one with a higher clock speed. let me put this into Intel terms for you
it's like putting your Intel 3GHZ HT vs a 3.2GHZ HT which one do you think is going to be better.
yes, there is going to be a big difference and yes I know gaming is gpu dependent. even though it's gpu depedent you forget it's like comparing a AMD XP 3200+ barton with a X1900XT vs a AMD64 3200+ with a X1900XT which ones going to do better in gaming and multi-tasking?
So can I designate one core to run: Mcafee virus scan, spy subtract, adaware without using the other core, and use the second core just for bf2 with minimal slowdown?
He'll defiintely see a difference, but I don't know if it's worth it. I went from a P4 2.8c to an x2 4200+. Both computers run regular office and graphics apps just fine. With the x2, I was able to install a game off a DVD while doing tons of other stuff without even a hiccup though. Things would have slowed down a bit with the P4.
Why does anyone need the power that an FX series processor provides? You don't need anything more than the minimum system requirments. It's because people want more performance, and they'll pay for it.
i beileve you do need a little more than the minimum requirements for a specific program. and yes i went from a p43.2 prescott to a 4800 and i saw big differences in running spyware checks, virusscans while gaming while decoding dvd and gaming etc. and especially temps
thescreensavers
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2005
- 9,916
- 2
- 81
If that 630 processor is socket 775, why not go Intel 9xx if his board supports it? (If i915, never mind.) 
I went from a Northwood 3Ghz to an Opteron 170 @2667. The difference is amazing. Not only can I multitask with no performance hit (Defrag + Antivirus Scan + CS:S = No Problem), but single threaded things run faster too. There is no comparison honestly.
X2 4800 would be generally faster than the P4 630 @ 3GHz, in an overall environment for the typical enthusiast.
in gaming, you'll see faster frames with the X2. GPU limited, so what, a faster processor will still pick up more frames than a CPU that isn't as fast.
in gaming, you'll see faster frames with the X2. GPU limited, so what, a faster processor will still pick up more frames than a CPU that isn't as fast.
Originally posted by: bluemax
If that 630 processor is socket 775, why not go Intel 9xx if his board supports it? (If i915, never mind.)
He checked it, it doesn't support it.
It's something like 63 watts for the non extreme versions of them, maybe that has something to do with the fact they stay so cool, some games the FX62 looks like it'll win in, such as far cry, but later on we might see a huge diffrence between the two. Anyone try cooling one with a phase change cooler yet?
edit: What can we expect with overclocking the cheapest model?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter