Moving up from soc 754 3400+ help me decide which... ( 3 Views )

1. So I have a 2.4ghz 3400+, Newcastle. ( I think its a newcastle anyway,its the soc 754 one).
   
   I want more proccy power, and socket 939 and a MB that holds my 4 sticks of ram instead of 3... My main goal is framerate in games, so I know the dual cores arent really worth it for me, but the Opteron 170 with its big cache looks interesting. Although if it the game isnt threaded for 2 procs, it is going to run like a single 2.0ghz 1mb cache proccy wont it?
   So I am looking at
   
   2.4ghz SanDiego 4000+ with 1 mb
   2.0ghz Opteron 170 Denmark dual core with 2mb (1mbx 2)
   2.4ghz Opteron 150 Venus single core with 1mb
   
   
   Now, from what I can tell, the San Diego 4000+ and Opteron 150 are the same chip and will have the same performance. And the Opteron 170 has twice the cache, but as a dual core proccy, in games it isnt going to utilize it as a dual core and will be slowwer correct??
   
   Basically the guy next to me at the last LAN had an FX 57 and a 7800GTX, 2 gigs of dual channel ram, and I have the older 754 A64 3400+, 7800GT and 1.5 gigs of single channel ram.
   He pulled roughly 80 frames per sec faster than me in the counterstrike source video test, and ran FEAR much smoother.
   I want to run these games as smoothly as his system can, or close. From the CPU comparison charts I have see, a 4000+ is only a little bit behind an FX57 (which seems weird to me considering the 400mhz speed difference), and my 7800 GT overclocked to 470/1.2 shouldnt be that much slower at all than his stock clock 7800GTX, and with a new MB, I will also have 2 gigs of dual channel ram ( I already have the extra ram)
   
   I am also planning on going SLI on that 7800GT in a couple months...
   
   SO
   
   Help me figure out which of the 3 I am looking at will suit my needs better.
   
   I am thinking that since the 4000+ SanDiego is the cheapest, and the dual core isnt going to do anything for my games, that the 4000+ will be the way to go.
   I just want to know if I am right or not :)
   
   
   (eda, Faroe Islands)


2. hmm u really want to go 939 ? Do you think it gona be worth the money I mean the 3400+ newcastle compares to the 939 4000+ @ 2.4 ghz plus like the 3% of the Dual Chanell ram...Maybe try to overclock the newcastle little more mine does almost 2.7 prime 95 stable and boots at 2.8 gigs.....Also have you looked into a 3700/4000+ Newark chip am sure u could go far with one of those......Idk what to tell you but am satisfied with my 3400+
   
   Also that Source Stress test is BS...That has nothing with ur FPS in the game i mean I get sometimes 40 fps sometimes 150+ it all depends on the map amount of players and the same thing happes to people with FX 57's....Reason for that is the bad net code int he source engine
   
   That why i dont oc my card cuz it like the only game that i play and with fps going up and down like that i dont even bother
   
   But whatever floats your boat ;)
   
   
   (SERTAN, Mexico)


3. CS:S is basically CPU limited, which is why his FX killed your newcastle.
   
   What you have to keep in mind, those are the stock speeds, and why would you buy an opteron s939 to run at stock speeds? People have hit 3ghz+ on water with the 170, and well that is plain crazy. Also, opteron 144/146/148's have hit 3ghz+, some even on air. With the San Diego, it will most likely not clock as high as the opteron's.
   
   
   My vote, Opteron 165/170 > overclock it!
   Or a cheaper version, Opteron 144/146 > overclock it!
   
   Also, nvidia's new drivers seem to do a better job of load balancing games on both cores, which is rather promising, dual core might be the way to go for gaming sooner than we all think. Also, the FX-60 is reported going to be dual core...
   
   
   (YUSUF, Puerto Rico)


4. All i know is im getting an opteron 165 in the near future here...
   
   
   (emre, Macao)


5. i vote 165 :D
   
   
   (ömer, Botswana)

Related Topics ... (or search in 1.720.883 topics !)