Personally, I wouldn't spend the cash on an AMD 64 just yet. They're still more expensive than the 32 bit cpus, don't offer enough performance gains over 32 bit yet and the price of motherboards and RAM is a factor as well.UberSkippy said:Personally, I'm an AMD fan. If the new x64 chips are inline with prices for the rest of the market (meaning they're not insanely spendy) you might look there. If they're still pricey I wouldn't personally spend much money on one.
Nvidia never made a 9xxx line, it's probably an ATI.n00b head said:I think I have a Nvidia geforce 9200 in this computer.
Why not? The CPU I listed was $145, both the mohterboards were under $100 and the 6600GT is $160.dull_bullet said:if his budget is only 550, i don't think he can get a 6600GT
You're wrong about that sir. You can get an AMD 64 now for around the same price, which is still cheaper than a Pentium and performance is much better. One thing is that they have a 800 mhz FSB but because of HT the FSB actually operates at a 1600 - 2000 Mhz data rate. I know because I have one. The one I have is a 2800+ which operates between 1800 and 2400 mhz, with dynamic overclocking enabled, and cost around $145.00 now. If you look at the bench marks my CPU is performing along side a 3.2 ghz Pentium. Last I checked anyway. And that's in 32bit mode and there IS a definite performance increase in 64bit mode most of the time. I am actually amazed with the performance of this CPU. Price per FPS is the absolute best.junglizm said:Personally, I wouldn't spend the cash on an AMD 64 just yet. They're still more expensive than the 32 bit cpus, don't offer enough performance gains over 32 bit yet and the price of motherboards and RAM is a factor as well.
That's fine, but he specifically stated that he's on a budget. Looking on NewEgg, I found these results, both are for the cheapest 32bit and 64bit Athlon 3200s in their respective categories.Cyn said:You're wrong about that sir. You can get an AMD 64 now for around the same price
Any performance gain is due to the on chip memory controller, and marginal in a pure 32 bit enviroment. [edit: and additional L2 cache] I'm not advocating that anyone buy Intel, they're not the best all around processors. However, I don't see the benifit from going 64 bit just yet. Unless you're running Linux there's no stable 64 bit OS yet, and hardly any applications support the 64 bit architecture at this time. I'm aware that XP64 is out, but it's driver and software support is horrid right now. I'd give it about six months before I even thought about running it. Also, like you said, the current cores are all but phased out. Buying anything but 939 right now is extremely foolish, but you WILL end up paying for 939. For someone on a budget, it's just not worth it right now.And that's in 32bit mode and there IS a definite performance increase in 64bit mode most of the time. I am actually amazed with the performance of this CPU.
Hell, my overclocked 2600 does that.Cyn said:If you look at the bench marks my CPU is performing along side a 3.2 ghz Pentium.
Sure, if you're not on a budget. There's absolutely no point in getting 100+ FPS in ANY game. The system I listed above will give him VERY playable FPS in any game on the market right now.Price per FPS is the absolute best.
A64s don't have an "FSB," per se, they have a Hyper Transport.Cyn said:Also, I'm pretty sure that the FSB offers a huge performance increase in many games and multimedia apps.
I honeslty can't see the 32 bit architecture going anywhere soon. Current software/OS/hardware trends don't show this even being close to happening.I feel that if someone is going to spend $500+ dollars on an upgrade right now they may as well go with a 64 bit CPU because the price difference is almost none and the older hardware will most definitely phase out even before this does.
Thanks for pointing that out. One of the domain names I use for images and such contains my first name as well, I'm not too worried about a first name.Cyn said:Oh and dude. Did you just post your real name on those benches? Just pointing that out.
I don't think that it will either but I do think that withen another year or two the 64bit OS's will be common ground and also will offer a little performance increase in most apps and a big increase in some apps. Meaning less reason to upgrade. I'm not even close to being an expert on all of that other info that you posted. Though I do understand how multipliers work. My system is a terrible overclocker BTW because it doesn't have a PCI/AGP lock. It does support dynamic overclocking, however. And that's not too bad. All in all it looks like we agree on most of this. I guess I should have checked prices on the hardware that I originally suggested. Oh well, I learn something new everyday.junglizm said:I honeslty can't see the 32 bit architecture going anywhere soon. Current software/OS/hardware trends don't show this even being close to happening.
I wish I could say the same for mine but I had to buy a new case and power supply so I'm still stuck with the same dinosaur GPU.junglizm said:Edit: And my OC'd 2600 and 6800 Ultra run every game I play at full FPS and 1680 x 1050 res.