Best "Bang for your buck" A64

[TheGeek]

What would be the best socket 939 Athlon 64 for my buck. I need it to be fast enough to not be too much of a bottleneck for 2 7800GTXs

 

[Twista]

they paired your vid cards up with that cpu.
Processor Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Retail $1099
http://www.pcper.com/hwlb.php?&guide1=y&guide2=y#guide1



cpu for high end
Processor Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Retail $555
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a...547&CMP=BAC-pcparticle1204&ATT=HighEnd



http://www.pcper.com/hwlb.php?&guide2=y#guide2

 

[Cobalt]

3700+ SD and OC it to FX-57~59 speeds.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

If gaming is your primary usage, and multi-tasking isn't a big conceren I would recommend a San Diego 3700+, it will overclock to FX speeds without problem.

 

[l Xes l]

best bang is $120 3000+ clocked to 2.7ghz! =P

 

[KoolDrew]

3000+

 

[Hacp]

3000+ is best bang.

 

[MDE]

3000\3200+

 

[richardrds]

3000+ Venice core and OC it to 2.5-2.7Ghz!!!!!! Retail version with HSF goes for about $135.

 

[jkresh]

4400 if you are into multitasking probably 4000+ if not, unles you feel you can justify going with a $200 processor to match your $1100 worth of graphics in which case the 3200 will work well

 

[latresillustre]

3000+ Venice OC'd.

$120 for a 2.5 - 2.7ghz A64 is dreamy.

 

[fstime]

Overclocking? 3000+ Venice.

Not overclocking? 3700+ SD.

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: latresillustre
3000+ Venice OC'd.

$120 for a 2.5 - 2.7ghz A64 is dreamy.

I hit 2.5 on my Winchester 3000+, why is it dreamy on a Venice?

 

[fstime]

I wasn't impressed one bit with my Venice overclocking wise, I only hit 303 fsb, my old Winchester already was at 300 fsb!

I probably need a SD for 2.8 ghz.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: latresillustre
3000+ Venice OC'd.

$120 for a 2.5 - 2.7ghz A64 is dreamy.

Sig.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: krnxpride83
best bang is $120 3000+ clocked to 2.7ghz! =P

QFT

2.2GHz (A64) is enough for one GTX, you'd need more GHz for 2 of them in SLI. 2.6+ out of a 3000+ venice should be plenty and thus easily "best bang for buck"

However you didn't say overclocking was an option, and thus the best bang would be something faster than 3500+ seeing as a 3500+ is just about fast enough for 1 GTX, you'd need something a bit faster. A 3800+ or 4000+ would probably do the trick, don't bother with the FXs because they don't offer a whole lot of value for the premium you pay. If you're ever CPU limmited, just crank up the AA/AF to make sure your video power isn't going to waste.

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: latresillustre
3000+ Venice OC'd.

$120 for a 2.5 - 2.7ghz A64 is dreamy.

I hit 2.5 on my Winchester 3000+, why is it dreamy on a Venice?

because 2.5GHz is a great OC for a 1.8GHz chip, Winch or Venice. And if I remember correctly, 3000+ Winches went for $150+ back when they were all the rage. These cheaper Venices do higher at a more consistent rate for an even cheap price.

We just need the 3800+ X2 to come down below $300 (the price of two 3000+'s together) for it to be the new "3000+"

 

[imported_Frallan]

The 3700+ SD imho. 1Mb cache and easily OC:able

 

[jose]

3700+ SD or the 4400+ X2 take your pick... You didn't list your use's...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: BouZouki
Overclocking? 3000+ Venice.

Not overclocking? 3700+ SD.

It does'nt matter if you're overclocking or not 3000 is still the best bang for the buck, period.

Or are you saying the 3700 is 110% faster than a 3000 to justify it's 110% price premium?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: BouZouki
Overclocking? 3000+ Venice.

Not overclocking? 3700+ SD.

It does'nt matter if you're overclocking or not 3000 is still the best bang for the buck, period.

Or are you saying the 3700 is 110% faster than a 3000 to justify it's 110% price premium?

The op doesn't want to bottleneck his 2x7800GTX's

 

[blckgrffn]

Didn't some site publish that 3500+ is fast enough right now to not bottleneck 7800's? I seem to remember that... but seriously, if you can afford a SLI set, then a 3700+/4000+ should be doable.

Nat

 

[SonicIce]

no cpu will bottleneck 7800's at 2048x1536 with aa/af unless it really sucks

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
Didn't some site publish that 3500+ is fast enough right now to not bottleneck 7800's? I seem to remember that... but seriously, if you can afford a SLI set, then a 3700+/4000+ should be doable.

Nat

It was said that A64 3500+ was the sweet spot for a single 7800GTX but would require more CPU power for 2x7800GTX's. I think Zebo linked to the article showing how CPU's are not bottlenecks at higher resolutions.

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: BouZouki
Overclocking? 3000+ Venice.

Not overclocking? 3700+ SD.

It does'nt matter if you're overclocking or not 3000 is still the best bang for the buck, period.

Or are you saying the 3700 is 110% faster than a 3000 to justify it's 110% price

IMO a stock 1.8 ghz 3000+ is too wimpy for SLI GTX's, that's just me though.

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
Didn't some site publish that 3500+ is fast enough right now to not bottleneck 7800's? I seem to remember that... but seriously, if you can afford a SLI set, then a 3700+/4000+ should be doable.

Nat

It was said that A64 3500+ was the sweet spot for a single 7800GTX but would require more CPU power for 2x7800GTX's. I think Zebo linked to the article showing how CPU's are not bottlenecks at higher resolutions.

Gotcha. I still think that someone with that kind of setup should go for something a bit more powerful than average, a 3700+ would probably do it even with a mild OC. lol, I have a $1000 video card setup and a $120 processor! What is wrong with that picture

Best bang for the buck? 3000+, yes, but all your friends will laugh at you

Nat