ok, here's the deal. I was going to simply upgrade my video card but now I've decided to do what I was going to do a few months ago and turn this pc into an HDTV/media box, and get another, faster, stronger, BETTER computer for games.
My current computer is a 2.4ghz intel @ 2.75ghz, 1gig kingmax ram, gf4 ti4200 p4c800 deluxe mobo.

Here's what I was thinking of:
ASUS A8N-SLI- PREMIUM nForce 4 SLI Socket 939 Motherboard
AMD Athlon™ 64 3800+ Processor Retail (939) Dual Core. Read the user review on this one. Is he smoking the weed, or is this cpu really good for nothing more than watching dvd's browsing the web?

who makes good memory/video cards these days? I've got an asus video card and kingmax ram in this thing that seem to overclock just fine. Going ATI pci-e for video and 1gig of as yet undecided brand ram. Won't be needing keyboard/mouse or a hard drive. I'm really just after someone's opinion on that motherboard/cpu. Are they slow by todays standards or will it run hl2 fine and dandy at 100fps? Will the new one see much of a performance increase over my current one? I'm guessing yes with the decent video cards

ninja edit: oh and, I assume that sli motherboard means it can do pci-e sli video cards yes?

The X2 3800+ should be able to be pushed from 2GHz to at least 2.4GHz on air-cooling, giving you 4600+ speeds for free. Many people even claim 2.5GHz with better cooling. The 3800+ is probably the best value for money in regards to dual-core.

I wouldn't recommend going kingmax. I used to be a kingmax fan, but realised the hard way how badly they mix with other memory. For a few more dollars, you can get better-quality OCZ or Geil. I just had a look, and 2x512MB sticks of OCZ are actually cheaper than the equivalent kingmax!

HL2 is quite CPU dependent. My 3200+ processor is my bottleneck, and not my 6600GT. No amount of graphics card overclocking increases my HL2 framerates, but the framerate scales with increased processor speed. Go figure.

Yep, that's about all I have to say on this matter.

you would be crazy to spend the extra money on an SLI board and then buy ATI. Either go NVIDIA + SLI or ATI + Crossfire. If you can find one, get the DFI lanparty nforce 4 ultra, I have the board u suggested, its pretty sweet, but some issues with the bios.

also u would be nuts to buy the 3800+, the 3700+ is 70$ cheaper, the 3500+ is 130$ cheaper. also just had a look on the amd site,

3800+
2.4GHz
512KB L2 Cache
939-pin

3700+
2.2GHz
1MB L2 Cache
939-pin

So in actual fact, altho your loosing 200mhz, your gaining 512kb of L2 cache. So yeah definately 3700 :D

also u would be nuts to buy the 3800+, the 3700+ is 70$ cheaper, the 3500+ is 130$ cheaper. also just had a look on the amd site,

3800+
2.4GHz
512KB L2 Cache
939-pin

3800+ X2
2.0GHz

We're talking dual-core, not single core. It's pretty much two 3200+ processors.

Also, while people would claim that single-core is faster for games, recent developments such as multi-processor optimised Quake4 show that you can benefit from the second core in games once the support is out.

last edited by parabol at 11:56:11 24/Dec/05

Really dual core processors are pretty useless at the moment. Unless the application supports multiple processors then the 2nd core basically just sits around taking a nap.

If you are futureproofing and don't plan to upgrade for several years then yeah go for it, but if you upgrade pretty much every year it'd really be a waste of money IMO as there still isn't enough out there that supports MP.


I have an Asus A8N SLI and have only positive things to say about it, has been brilliant so far.

For memory I went with 2 x 512 Geil DDR400, Name brand decent performing RAM that doesn't cost your balls. Been great so far, so I ended up buying 2 sticks for my dads new system.

Videocardwise the 6600GT's are good bang for buck towards the cheaper side of the top end range, and with the SLI boards you can easily slap another in later for a bit of a boost.
However if you have a bit more cash to throw at the system I'd be going for a 7800GT, especially if you aren't planning to upgrade again anytime soon.

For video Albatron is a pretty decent brand, similar to Geil I'd say, not the top top of the range but is a well known good performer from what I have read. I was going to get an Alb 6600GT when I build my system but they had none in stock so I ended up going with Gigabyte which I have had 0 complaints with either.

edit: I suck at the spellings

last edited by rubba-chikin at 12:21:42 24/Dec/05

dunno why you just don't drop a P4 3gig and a 6600gt into it :/

cause P4's are crap

oh so dual core amd's aren't like intel's hyperthreadding thing? coz my hyperthreadding cpu uses both threads.
ati don't do sli? oh gay :(

this thing won't just be for games, there may be some video capturing/editing/processing happening on it, but mostly games.

However if you have a bit more cash to throw at the system I'd be going for a 7800GT, especially if you aren't planning to upgrade again anytime soon.

I upgrade my pc once about every 2-3 years or so I believe. Do the 7800's do sli?

dunno why you just don't drop a P4 3gig and a 6600gt into it :/

because as I said, I want this one to be for watching HDTV and a new, faster one, for games. At the moment my "media" pc is a p3 866mhz thing, it's quite slow.

last edited by whoop at 13:45:35 24/Dec/05

hey whoop, to totally confuse you further (ive been looking at either getting video card or new pc as well) in my research I found this cpu ... :(


http://www.skycomp.com.au/product_info.php/cPath/366_36_37/products_id/3713?osCsid=f2602053468e2559ce8f6a8676341111

if it had the appropriate holes, i would have sex with my DFI LanParty UT eXpert NF4 SLI-DR

if it had the appropriate holes, i would have sex with my DFI LanParty UT eXpert NF4 SLI-DR

no hole small enough?

Really dual core processors are pretty useless at the moment. Unless the application supports multiple processors then the 2nd core basically just sits around taking a nap.

Assuming of course you look at your process list and see only one thing running, then yes you are right.

If you're like me and do any programming, you'll probably want a dual core CPU. Being able to have your apps running on one core while compiling/doing other s*** on the other, or actually having that ability to properly test your apps in a multiprocessor environment is nice.

On the other hand if you're running apps that use long loops (eg games), you'll want a single core processor with more L1/L2 cache.

The other problem though is bang for buck. X2 processors really aren't that cost effective at all currently. If you think a 3200+ is sufficient for you for now, you could possibly go the low end now, and upgrade to an X2 later. There's a fair demand for 3000s and 3200s anyway, so you could buy one and sell it in a few months at a 50-100 loss.

Whoop yes the dual core amds are exactly like hyperthreading, HT is virtual when there is really only a single core on the CPU. The amd CPUs have 2 physical cores built onto the single chip.

From what you have said you are going to be using it for, the occasional video editing but primarily games, IMO the cost of the step up to a dual core processor isn't worth it.
Use the money you save and put it towards a 7800GT.

If you were doing a lot of video editing then yeah definately consider it. If its gonna stretch your budget just stick with a single core CPU would be my advice.

And yes all the higher end Nvida cards these days are all SLIable, 6600gt, 6800gt, 7800gt and the 7800gtx. If thats what you are interested in make sure it is an SLI enabled card. Im not too sure if all the GT models are (I think so) but I know some vanilla 6600 non GT cards do not support SLI so just make sure before you hand over your cash :)

Also, while people would claim that single-core is faster for games, recent developments such as multi-processor optimised Quake4 show that you can benefit from the second core in games once the support is out.

I wouldn't be hoping for every game to be supporting dual core cpu's in the near future, it is apparently like coding for multi-processor environments, read it somewhere about the new consoles, that its a pain in the ass. As far as I know carmacks engines were/are basically the only engine that supports multi-processor setups too.

Whoop yes the dual core amds are exactly like hyperthreading, HT is virtual when there is really only a single core on the CPU. The amd CPUs have 2 physical cores built onto the single chip.

That's not really true.

P4HTs have two ALUs and two FPUs, however the rest of the core is shared logically. X2s are two completely independant entire cores, with their own cache etc etc as well.

As for nVidia SLI - all GT cores support SLI. Non-GT cores/cards are not intended to be SLI-able. I don't however know if there's any physical difference between GT and standard cores (eg bridges cut etc), or whether it's just a case of running them at slower speeds.


Multithreaded development is a LOT more difficult than single threaded development to do properly. The smaller software houses would definately be sticking to singlethreaded development. This was what made PS2 development so tricky in the early days - PS2 software was effectively developed for a distributed system (not just a multicore system).

there is also some 6800gt's running around still without sli connections (released before sli)

Raven is right on the ball-listen to this man
you just saved me a s***load of typing, thank you :)

I wouldn't be hoping for every game to be supporting dual core cpu's in the near future,

I used to tell people the same thing until I heard of the Quake4 support as well as several other next-gen engines focusing on multi-core support (to various degrees).

it is apparently like coding for multi-processor environments

Not "like". It is coding for a multi-processor environment.

that its a pain in the ass.

Yes it is a pain in the arse, as most games' data have strong linear dependencies, but it is not impossible. The main way is to build the game from the ground up with multi-core in mind .. and base engine design around that.

Now, I can't imagine a developer not going for multi-core support if it has the potential to give them a framerate/performance boost over competitors' games. Competition rocks =)

Quake 4 support I agree is a huge leap for it, but quake 3 had multiprocessor support yet it failed to take off on other games. I'd be waiting until crytek, unreal or an EA game supported it before admitting it is the future :P *end random drunken speak*

Competition is great for engine building, but only really for the licensing aspect. Thus I wouldn't count on full dual support being incorperated into every engine until at least the next generation of games.

last edited by simul at 20:59:21 24/Dec/05

I wouldn't be hoping for every game to be supporting dual core cpu's in the near future,

agreed - pc gaming gets ahead from it's console cousin mostly thanks to memory and video upgrades. which cpu we choose hasn't been an issue for over a year now

P4HTs have two ALUs and two FPUs, however the rest of the core is shared logically. X2s are two completely independant entire cores, with their own cache etc etc as well.

Hrm interesting... I did not know that about P4 HT cores. Never having owned a P4 chip before I have never investigated too far into what Hyperthreading was exactly. Well thats my new thing learnt for the day :D