Gaming only....

[EffeX]

For pure gaming is 1mb of cache worth 100$?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Not unless 2 GB RAM, a 7900GTX and a Raptor150 are already in your shopping cart.

 

[EffeX]

2gb of ram and 7900GTX,500w seasonic,xfi music,250gb wd hdd.

 

[stevty2889]

Unless you are playing at low resolutions, gaming is going to limited by the video card, so I wouldn't bother spending the extra money for maybe 1-2FPS differance.

 

[EffeX]

Ok, well initially I will be playing at 1024x768 but when i get my new monitor in one month I will be gaming at 1280x1024. Also should I spend the xtra on the 7900GTX if im gaming at under 1600 resolutions?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Yes on the GTX, check the Oblivion benchmarks on the main AnandTech website.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Sure, for Oblivion and newer games you can eat that power up no problemo (AA, AF) and the CPU still won't limit you at all due to the "low" frame rate.

 

[EffeX]

Well im not really into any of the newer games. Im building this for ut2004,ut2007,quake 4, and CS 1.6. I can stretch on the 7900GTX if i get a 3800 X2 would that be better?

 

[Howard]

You can always overclock the X2 3800+ (or any CPU, really). But for those games, at 1280x1024, you won't need a 7900GTX. A 7900GT at 1280x1024 /w 4x AA in Quake 4 will yield close to 100fps.

 

[bobsmith1492]

A 3800 X2 wouldn't limit your frames anywhere below 100 I'm pretty sure, so you'd be fine, plus you could OC it if desired in the future. Also what Howard said; I'd get a GT since they're cheaper.

 

[EffeX]

Ok, well ill stick with gt and if I get some more money between now and next week ill get the GTX.

 

[Tsuwamono]

X1900 or just wait for the Direct X10 Cards. Thats what im doing, im sticking it out with my X800 until i get a Direct X 10 card. Then ill be buying a high end ATI card.

 

[fire400]

x2 4400 is the best bang for the buck - in a price comparison ratio vs heat generation and pure performance, saw it myself in a chart, where the over rated Pentium D's showed much higher heat with lower levels of performance. I don't have the link, but if you've seen it before you know what I'm talking about

but with Intel releasing the Conroe family, I would rather wait and see how AMD reacts to this

1. Intel was first to hit DDR2 with compatible CPU's
2. Intel was first to release dual core, although not as effective in performance compared to AMD X2's
3. AMD AM2 with support for DDR2, it's cool, but DDR2 isn't new you know
4. New family of Intel processors coming out in a short period of time

With the new release of awesome game titles, who wants to settle in for 30 fps on a good game?

X2 4400 is choice

edit: DX10 beta isn't even being talked about, the guy with the x800 will probably be waiting for a few years

 

[obeseotron]

For games only I would drop in an x2 3800+ and spend the rest on video card(s). Also I wouldn't buy a 7900GTX under any circumstances. There is no scenario I can think of where it wouldn't make sense to get an x1900xt instead. As stated above, check out the oblivion benchmarks.

 

[skooma]

Originally posted by: Tsuwamono
X1900 or just wait for the Direct X10 Cards. Thats what im doing, im sticking it out with my X800 until i get a Direct X 10 card. Then ill be buying a high end ATI card.

Definitely. If you want to get a high end card now and can stand the increased noise, get the 1900xt and the x2 3800.

Or get the x2 3800 and a "hold over" card like the 7600gt until the g80/r600 (?) arrive.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: fire400

2. Intel was first to release dual core, although not as effective in performance compared

If memory serves, it was AMD that successfully launched their dual core chips first. Intel's panicked paper launch of a half-baked attempt doesn't count.

 

[DaRkLoRd666]

Originally posted by: EffeX
For pure gaming is 1mb of cache worth 100$?

dont listen to them, 1mb cache vs 512 k makes a HUGE difference. i have 1gb of ram and a 6800gs i got about 10 more fps when i upgraded my 3000+ to 3700+, now i know the ghz also increaced but look at the 3800+ vs the 3700+ in benchmarks and stuff (try tomshardware cpu charts) the 3700+ scores better then the 3800+ so spend then extra 100$

 

[NuroMancer]

Originally posted by: Howard
You can always overclock the X2 3800+ (or any CPU, really). But for those games, at 1280x1024, you won't need a 7900GTX. A 7900GT at 1280x1024 /w 4x AA in Quake 4 will yield close to 100fps.

Winnar! Listen to the man.

 

[NuroMancer]

Originally posted by: DaRkLoRd666

Originally posted by: EffeX
For pure gaming is 1mb of cache worth 100$?

dont listen to them, 1mb cache vs 512 k makes a HUGE difference. i have 1gb of ram and a 6800gs i got about 10 more fps when i upgraded my 3000+ to 3700+, now i know the ghz also increaced but look at the 3800+ vs the 3700+ in benchmarks and stuff (try tomshardware cpu charts) the 3700+ scores better then the 3800+ so spend then extra 100$

He quoted toms hardware..... Don't listen.

A)Toms hardware is a bad site to base decisions on.
B)You did get a big jump in clock going from 3000+ to 3700+ thus probally a part of that "10" fps you measured using?

So yah... Save your money for some newer games Or be like me and enjoy the classics

 

[DaRkLoRd666]

Originally posted by: NuroMancer

Originally posted by: DaRkLoRd666

Originally posted by: EffeX
For pure gaming is 1mb of cache worth 100$?

dont listen to them, 1mb cache vs 512 k makes a HUGE difference. i have 1gb of ram and a 6800gs i got about 10 more fps when i upgraded my 3000+ to 3700+, now i know the ghz also increaced but look at the 3800+ vs the 3700+ in benchmarks and stuff (try tomshardware cpu charts) the 3700+ scores better then the 3800+ so spend then extra 100$

He quoted toms hardware..... Don't listen.

A)Toms hardware is a bad site to base decisions on.
B)You did get a big jump in clock going from 3000+ to 3700+ thus probally a part of that "10" fps you measured using?

So yah... Save your money for some newer games Or be like me and enjoy the classics

a) tomshardware is a GOOD site for decisions (or where the hell do u pull your facts from that its bad)
b) i did say that the jump from 3000+ to 3700+ was different thats why i said the 3700+ is BETTER then the 3800+ because of less ghz but the 1mb vs 512kb

so "yah" u should spend the little $100 to save yourslef another year from the cpu

 

[DaRkLoRd666]

or just look at THIS link cause its from anandtech and prove tomshardware is an good source aswell as proving you wrong finishing witht eh 1mb makes a difference http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2747&p=3 just remember this, everything has to go through the cache before it is used so twice as much space will make it a lot better in evertying, not just gaming (like if you are running music in the backround it will run much better)

 

[NuroMancer]

Originally posted by: DaRkLoRd666
or just look at THIS link cause its from anandtech and prove tomshardware is an good source aswell as proving you wrong finishing witht eh 1mb makes a difference http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2747&p=3 just remember this, everything has to go through the cache before it is used so twice as much space will make it a lot better in evertying, not just gaming (like if you are running music in the backround it will run much better)

So.
first of all the link that supposedly supports your claim only shows a difference of 39.4->41.8. Thats 2.4 frames per second.

Second,
Ask most of the people who read toms hardware reviews, and they will they you that they are sometimes biased, inconsistant, etc. Go ask about it in Off topic...

Third,
to form a decent agrument PLEASE, attempt to make it coherant!

Fourth,
I NEVER said that there wasn't a performance difference, I said the money isn't really worth it. Also you will NOT! get another year out of 2.4 fps.