Worth to jump ship?

[UJ09]

I'm a Celeron Tualatin user, running 1.1A@1584mhz(144X11) on MSI BX Master along with the MSI 6309 Slotket. So far I'm quite please with this setup, but is it worth to switch it to AMD AXP 1600 and o/c it at least 166mhz FSB? Will I get a significant performance gain compare with my current setup?

 

[kumanchu]

yes.

 

[rogue1979]

Don't listen to all the artifical benchmarks. 3DMark2001 and Sandra memory would have you believe that the DDR system is much faster. Hogwash! I am running both a Athlon DDR and Tualatin system with the same video cards, no difference. I saw a review where a guy was running a highly overclocked G3 Ti500 and did the same comparison, no difference again. Toms or somebody did a review with a bunch of video cards at various cpu speeds. Above 1200MHz there was very little improvement, only the Radeon 9700 and G4 Ti4600 showed significant improvements with a faster cpu. If gaming is your thing then enjoy your very nice Tualatin system. If benchmarks are what matters to you, then get out your wallet and fall into the foolish upgrade trap

 

[vladgur]

I think what rogue said is true but with a but......

Most of the times if you go above 1ghz, your system will be fast enough for most things. If you have Geforce3 TI500 card, then its already fast enough to run most of todays and tommorows games at good detail settings. Now if you get into extreme number crunching like DIVX-encoding, Premiere/3Dstudio rendering, etc,etc thats when you will find the need for more Ghz. If youre just a gamer and even a developer, save your money, if time it takes to execute the tasks I outlined above is worth the money to you, then it might be time for upgrade.

 

[THUGSROOK]

get a P4

 

[PhoenixOfWater]

Keep using your Tualatin and wait for the new chip to come out..that what i would do

 

[UJ09]

I think I'll stick with my Tualatin wait until Hammer/Barton/Prescott release, summer 2003 would be a perfect timing for my next upgrade.

Yes, this's a gaming machine, seldom do other stuffs. I just played the UT2003 demo and ran it at 1024x768, 32bits 2X FSAA and high details on GF4 Ti4200 64mb(300X600), all I can say is smooth, no slow down or whatsoever. Rogue1979 you're right, why spend your money for upgrading to chase the benchmark score? My current system was already fast enough to play today and tommorow(maybe) games, I'm not a 1600x1200-32bits-8XFSAA-MaxEverything freak, FYI.

I'm thinking to skip this round and go for water cooling, more reasonable, at least for me.

 

[rogue1979]

THUGSROOK, that is an awesome P4 overclock you have there, nice system. However, I just bought the XP1600MHz for $54 shipped. I am typing this at 1860MHz air-cooled. This is with an AX-7 and a relatively quiet 40cfm 80mm fan at 1.95v. If I were to upgrade to a G4 Ti4600 like you, I would be getting the same framerates in games. The point I am trying to make is that AMD is far ahead of Intel in bang for the buck. Most people are fooled by 3DMark 2001 and Sandra memory benchmarks into believing higher scores equate to a faster system. Not true, especially if you are talking fps in games.

No disrespect to your system intended, if I could build one for the same price as an AGIOA-Y Athlon system, I would give it a try

Just trying to educate some of the newer enthusiasts here that think they have to spend alot of green for a high performance gaming system.

While the newer P4's overclocked at 3GHz+ are dominating the benchmark scene, I would like to see a new kind of competition.
How does this sound?

Categorize systems by cost and let them compete in all the normal benchmarks as well as game framerates! I would love to see classes for under $300, $300-$500, $500-$750, $750-$1000, up to $1500 and unlimited. If you are competing in the same price class, there should be a mathematical formula to compensate for the price difference between two systems. I compete in amatuer power-lifting and we do this with competitors weight differences, it works well and is fair.

What do you guys think?

 

[Paolo]

Rogue 1979 - I agree a "bang-for-buck" benchmark would really put things into perspective.

This is with an AX-7 and a relatively quiet 40cfm 80mm fan at 1.95v.

Hey did you voltage mod to get this? I thought the max cpu voltage on this board was 1.85v ?

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Paolo
Rogue 1979 - I agree a "bang-for-buck" benchmark would really put things into perspective.

This is with an AX-7 and a relatively quiet 40cfm 80mm fan at 1.95v.

Hey did you voltage mod to get this? I thought the max cpu voltage on this board was 1.85v ?

Not sure what board he is using, but the Epox 8K5A2 series of boards allows up to 2.2v in the bios. I had an o/c'ed 1.6A and I am selling it because I prefer my two 1600+'s on 8K5A2+ boards. One is @ 166mhz FSB, 1.75ghz, 1.75v default vcore, with a $15 Taisol and no case fans and the other is running 172mhz FSB, 1.8ghz, 1.80v with a Alpha/Panaflo L1A combo with no case fans as well. My 1.6A @ 2.4ghz, DDR 400 benched better, but I like the "feel" of the XP rigs.

$50 for a 333mhz FSB 2100+/2200+ is a hell of a deal.

 

[rogue1979]

The Abit KG7 is limited to 1.85v stock. But I put a 22k ohm resistor on there to add .2v

This AGOIA-Y amazes me. I have been thoroughly testing it and these are the results:

2.01v = 1860MHz stable @ 54c full load - case fans at 12v/cpu fan at 3900rpm's
1.93v = 1800MHz stable @ 51c full load - case fans at 12v/cpu fan at 3600rpm's
1.80v = 1776MHz stable @ 46c full load - case fans at 7v/cpu fan at 3400rpm's

I have really got into the quiet thing, so 1776MHz@1.80v is the configuration I prefer.

The voltage mod is available at ocinside

 

[alkemyst]

I say stay with the Tualatin until things start slowing down...in just about everything out right now you wouldn't notice anything.


Once machines at the computer stores start performing differently than your's then upgrade.