39 replies to this topic

[shawn_nee]

I am piecing together a new system here's what I have.

AMD 64 X2 4400
http://www.zipzoomfl...uctCode=80726-1

Corsair TwinX2048-3200PT 2GB DDR400 XMS3200
http://www.zipzoomfl...ctCode=80097-41

but I'm looking for a good board for them...

I need some help with the options out there. I want good not cheaply built, but not stupid expensive either. I plan on putting an ATI X1800XT on it so it has to play well with the video card too.

Any suggestions are wanted.

Thank you

[Jito463]

My advice, go AM2. I know the performance gains aren't that much, but considering it's almost the same price you'll be better off with the upgradability factor. Even when AMD starts producing AM3 chips, they'll still work in AM2 boards initially, so it's really a better option overall. Now, the downside to that is I don't know if you'll be able to find a 1MB/core X2 processor on the AM2. AMD nixed those pretty quickly, so it's not like there's a stockpile of them out there. However, the extra cache doesn't appear to make as much of a difference on AM2 as it does on 939.

[Ljugtomten]

I recently bought this rig:
AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+
ASUS A8N-SLI Premium
ASUS GeForce 7900GT
2*1024MB PC3200 Corsair

I really like this motherboard.. I recommend you to have a look at it

[shawn_nee]

You mean dual core like these?

http://www.zipzoomfl...goryCode=010430

They seem to have a few laying around...

I need to do some research first, so what exactly is going to be the upside of going AM2? I know I can then go with DDR2 memory, and it seems that I can get a dual core chip, but what is the benefit of it vs. the 64 X2 chips out now?

[2005]

AMD's really do not benifit from DDR2 ram nearly as much as Intels did/do. I would suggest either going the opteron 165 route (if you want to overclock) or the Conroe route (of which I know little, dont keep up with Intel). Conroes do beat AMDs in price/performance. But you can pick up an X2 3800+ 939 for as little as 180$ and when OC'ed to 2.5ghz they will get the job done.

For a GPU, dont get an X1800XT... you can get an X1900XT for the same price or cheaper. If you cant find that deal (newegg had a X1900XT for 330$) then get an X1900GT.

For a motherboard, I suggest the DFI Lanparty UT nF4 Ultra-D or the ASUS A8N board both are good OC'ers (with the DFI being a better OC but alittle harder to fine tune and finicky as to what hardware it likes)

Edited by 2005, 01 August 2006 - 08:54 AM.

[shawn_nee]

For the price range right now the x1800xt is where I want it at, the 1900 is $100 more, and wouldn't fit the budget right now. Maybe a bit down the road it will, I'm just setting up the specs now and researching everything. I am looking at some of the reviews on the AM2 platform, qand they are saying the 939 is still faster then the 940 even with DDR2 800 on board. (granted it is only from 1 or 2 sites so far) I may OC a bit but for now my upgrades are not mainly for OCing, but more an upgrade from the current system. I am looking for more research on the AM2 to see if the change is worth it so far close to it's infancy and seeing as the chip was recently released and mobo's are still playing catch up. If there are links to different sites you know of please post, pm, or email them to me so I can see them.

Thank you,

Shawn_nee

[2005]

Read tomshardware review on socket AM2.

Right now you need to be running atleast 2.6ghz cpu to best socket 939 and DDR1 speeds. The problem is the doubled cas latency... AMD's thrive on low latencys because the mem IC is built into the CPU and doesnt rely on the northbridge.

Maybe when you get 1066mhz DDR2 ram with a cas latency of 2 it would be a plausible idea.

Right now on newegg.com their is a X1900XT for 355.99 (325.99 after MIR).

Crap though, the 256mb version of the X1800XT is now over 100$ less then what I paid for mine 3 months ago =/ (althought mine is a 512MB version). The extra Vram is pretty useless as of now.

Now that I just research it, the X1800XT 256mb for 225$ is the way to go.

I strongly suggest aginst AM2, unless you wont be able to rebuild for 3-4 more years. (There are opteron 165's hitting 2.8ghz on air and 3.0+ on water!!!!)

Edited by 2005, 01 August 2006 - 12:20 PM.

[shawn_nee]

Ok finding more info the difference between the AM2 and the regular X2 chips is roughly only 1% (according to AMD themselves).

[Jito463]

The performance difference is negligible, as I said. However, the reason I mentioned it is for future upgradability. Like it or not, 939 is on it's way out and AM2/AM3 is the future. I just spent $500 a couple months ago on my 4400+ X2, so I hate to say it. But it's the truth, and it's something to consider when deciding on components for a new computer.

[2005]

AMD fumbled big time with AM2 really, lets hope AM3 isnt a total core redesign (i hate to say its in order though, as intergrating DDR2 ram didnt do much for it).

My next system may very well be a conroe

[Jito463]

DDR3 isn't that much different from DDR2, just a little faster and with lower voltages. And AMD has already stated that AM3 chips will work in AM2 boards using DDR2 memory now, and can then be moved to AM3 boards with DDR3 memory later. But that only matters once AM3 chips are being produced anyway. Right now, they are not. I wouldn't say they fumbled, it just wasn't the right time. They're setting the stage for performance enhancements that they can wring out of DDR2/DDR3. Their biggest problem is the lack of AM2 chips with higher than a 200MHz frequency. They should have had 333MHz chips out by now, but they don't. I'm not sure if they're waiting for something, or if they're delayed by this Ati merger. We'll have to wait and see. Several people have said they're going Conroe (Core 2 Duo) next, and from a performance perspective I can understand it. But I'm an AMD fan, and I'm sure they'll come back with something stronger. So for my money, I'm sticking with AMD for now.

[shawn_nee]

Right now I am hoping for it to hold me over for a 2-4 year period or untill I need a new video card and the board wont support it. oh and I got BF2 and have been getting killed for the last 3 days on it.

[2005]

Well, I havent heard anything about AM3 other then what you mention and you make bold points.

Either way its just as feeble to invest in a new proven chipset as it is to wait for one thats comming out. If you wait it out and it fails, you have not only nothing in that meantime but a dud you shelled out good cash for. If you go now your looking at maybe 2 years before soemthing else puts it to shame.

You really cant win, you can just do better lol.

I love this 939 Opty 165 and dont see myself parting with it for quite a few years.

[Jito463]

That is true. I'll be sticking with my 4400+ X2 for quite a while as well, but that has more to do with the amount of money I have invested in my XLL Corsair XMS and how much I just spent on my CPU (close to $1000 combined between them), plus the fact that I'm now paying for a new car with higher insurance payments than it is my lack of faith in AM2.

[shawn_nee]

OK Great news!!!!!

The parts have finally been ordered, and will be here today!!!!


I got the athlon 64 x2 4400
ATI 100-435801 Radeon X1900XT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 VIVO
ASPIRE 680w POWER SUPPLY
Asus A8R-MVP Radeon Xpress 200 motherboard
and I already have the HDD's and 2 gigs of memory.

[Jito463]

Looks like a good system.

[shawn_nee]

I read a few bad reviews on the power supply about a few DOA's, so my fingers are crossed on it.

[Jito463]

Can't speak for the 680WT, but as you can see in my sig I'm running the 600WT and have had no issues whatsoever if that helps at all.

[Tron]

It is amazing how quick a new computer become obsolete!

[Charalambos]

Personaly I think that a Pentium 4- or an AMD equivalent- based computer will be good for many many years. Even my 1 GHz Pentium 3 desktop one with 256 MBs of SDRAM is capable of most of the tasks that a computer is called to do today, it isn't the same with i486 and Pentium or Pentium and Pentium 2 where the differences were important.
Perhaps the problem is that we are never satisfied with what we have. It is the same as with cars. The bigger the maximum speed the better the car is rated. But who and in what road will run at, lets say, 200 km per hour? In this way we can neglect things that are really important, as the contribution in air polution in the case of a car. We say that the 64 bit systems support 16 TB of physical memory. Who of us will ever need or use more than 4 GBs of memory or, even more, the 64 GBs of memory that my Amilo's Pentium M with the Physical Adress Extension suports? I think that better programs- and especially games- to use this memory is what we really lack.