AMD Processors
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: best CPU for gaming
Topic Summary:
Created On: 01/12/2004 09:57 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 3 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 01/12/2004 09:57 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
:::====={XX}
Junior Member

Posts: 10
Joined: 01/07/2004

well should I go with athlon 64 or xp??
 01/12/2004 10:00 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Brian128
Senior Member

Posts: 2644
Joined: 11/06/2003

If you can afford the 64, go for it. With prices of the A64 3000+ so cheap, it should be a no brainer (if you can afford a motherboard, perhaps youlll need to upgrade your RAM too). The A64 is definately a gamers CPU.

-------------------------
 01/12/2004 10:20 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
StormPC
Senior Member

Posts: 548
Joined: 10/06/2003

QUOTE (Brian128 @ Jan 12 2004, 07:00 AM) If you can afford the 64, go for it. With prices of the A64 3000+ so cheap, it should be a no brainer (if you can afford a motherboard, perhaps youlll need to upgrade your RAM too).  The A64 is definately a gamers CPU.

You really shouldn't say "if you can afford it" since an A64 3000+ is cheaper than an XP 3200+. The slowest A64 will eat the fastest XP alive in games and just about anything else.

Yes, if you are buying or building a new computer, the A64 is the only intelligent choice really.
 01/12/2004 10:35 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
ricjax99
Senior Member

Posts: 1393
Joined: 10/06/2003

QUOTE (StormPC @ Jan 12 2004, 07:20 AM)
You really shouldn't say "if you can afford it" since an A64 3000+ is cheaper than an XP 3200+.  The slowest A64 will eat the fastest XP alive in games and just about anything else.

Yes, if you are buying or building a new computer, the A64 is the only intelligent choice really.
If you can afford to spend £165 on a cpu, yes. Maybe its just me but you seem to assume every one is quite well off. £165 is still a lot of money for a cpu. Me ive never paid more than £100 for one lol

for under £400 you can have an A64 3000+, Asus K8V & High quality PC3200
for under £300 you can have a AXP 2800+, Abit / DFI nForce 2 & High quality PC3200 as a rough guide.

If you can get the extra £100 its very worth it but if it means dropping your budget on a graphics card from an ATi 9800XT to a ATi 9600XT its not worth it imo.

Just to set the record straight yes i agree that the A64 3000+ is a much better option.

And storm, unreal clocks on the card , been making use of the lovely winter air?

-------------------------
...regards teh' ricjax99
' ">http://tinyurl.com/25lp4
[Team CPUCITY | Air Cooled] 3DMark 2001 SE = 22299' ">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7793456 | AM3 = <a href=
 01/12/2004 11:50 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pilot
Senior Member

Posts: 2910
Joined: 12/16/2003

You can't say the slowest A64 -- it's like a paradox..


-------------------------
Pilot
AMD 64 3000 @ 2.0GHz || Running Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
Apple iBook G4 1.42GHz (PPC Core) || Running Apple OSX Tiger
 01/12/2004 02:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Logan[TeamX]
Senior Member

Posts: 3185
Joined: 12/07/2003

I've heard nothing but good things on the A64 3000+ Newcastle. If you can get it to overclock high enough, it makes most T'bred/Barton processors look pointless. On the other hand, if you can get your hands on an unlocked XP 2500+ you might be able to hit 2.4 GHz on air and give the A64 more than a run for its money.

The FX-51/53 on the other hand... is it any wonder the Intel guys in the funny suits are no longer dancing but shaking in their boots?
 01/12/2004 02:12 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
LVSeminole
Nanotechnology Guru

Posts: 9124
Joined: 01/06/2004

You got a point there with the FX and the intel guys. Hey, I know maybe, they had to go get 64-bit dance lessons...hahaha

-------------------------
- AMD FX 8120
- ATI/AMD HD 7970
- Biostar TA990FXE
- 16 GB's of some flashy Crucial RAM
- Buncha HDDs sucking up way too much power
- Win7 Ultimate x64/Ubuntu x64
-A lot of other crap that I can't remember.
- Wurd?
 01/12/2004 02:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
StormPC
Senior Member

Posts: 548
Joined: 10/06/2003

QUOTE (ricjax99 @ Jan 12 2004, 07:35 AM) QUOTE (StormPC @ Jan 12 2004, 07:20 AM)
You really shouldn't say "if you can afford it" since an A64 3000+ is cheaper than an XP 3200+.  The slowest A64 will eat the fastest XP alive in games and just about anything else.

Yes, if you are buying or building a new computer, the A64 is the only intelligent choice really.
If you can afford to spend £165 on a cpu, yes. Maybe its just me but you seem to assume every one is quite well off. £165 is still a lot of money for a cpu. Me ive never paid more than £100 for one lol

for under £400 you can have an A64 3000+, Asus K8V & High quality PC3200
for under £300 you can have a AXP 2800+, Abit / DFI nForce 2 & High quality PC3200 as a rough guide.

If you can get the extra £100 its very worth it but if it means dropping your budget on a graphics card from an ATi 9800XT to a ATi 9600XT its not worth it imo.

Just to set the record straight yes i agree that the A64 3000+ is a much better option.

And storm, unreal clocks on the card , been making use of the lovely winter air?

I'm not assuming that everyone is "well-off". It is a matter of fact that computer hardware is at an all time low price if you compare it to other essentials like food, cars, gas, housing, etc...meaning the bang for the buck is quite good and it's easier to have a powerful computer for a lower percentage of one's income.

Technology changes so quickly that it's difficult to keep up with it all. That being the case, I think this time is good for going 64 bit IF YOU'RE BUYING NEW. If you just want something dirt cheap and used then it could make sense to buy 32 bit, and if you already have a nice 32 bit system you need'nt replace it immediately. Buying a new 32 bit system just is not sound. We all know 32 bit is not long for this world because of the success of the AMD64 CPU's, and they have been successful let me assure you.

The fact that most people are dealing with a limited computer budget is even more reason that one should avoid buying a computer that will not last at least 3 years or so. Do you have any idea how many copies of Win XP 64 Bit Edition M$ will have sold in the next 3 years? The sales will be substantial to say the least.

Yep, my Raddy is a good one. Also, the temps are pretty good here for benching, though not that great (58-66F is what I normally bench at). My XT's GPU cooler is one of the best you can get (actually, you can't get it) for an air-cooled VC.

Logan,

An XP can OC as high or higher than an A64, but it (not even a 3200+) will never give an A64 "a run for it's money" in terms of performance if the same VC and cooling is used.
 01/12/2004 02:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Brian128
Senior Member

Posts: 2644
Joined: 11/06/2003

I'm not rich.. its just my computer/technology budget is much larger than any of my other budgets.

-------------------------
 01/12/2004 04:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Logan[TeamX]
Senior Member

Posts: 3185
Joined: 12/07/2003

QUOTE (StormPC @ Jan 12 2004, 11:32 AM) QUOTE (StormPC @ Jan 12 2004, 07:20 AM)

An XP can OC as high or higher than an A64, but it (not even a 3200+) will never give an A64 "a run for it's money" in terms of performance if the same VC and cooling is used.

It may not COMPLETELY equal it, but it comes pretty close

I've been waiting for some S754 and S940 guys to come crunch UD or existing members to bring on new machines, but there doesn't seem to be too many of them.

Gaming is fun, but what my PC does at least 75% of each day is look for a cure for cancer. That's what's most important to me.

So far we've proven there is a minor increase between identically-clocked T'breds and Bartons. I'm still curious as to what the difference is with an Athlon64 and a FX-51 thrown into the mix!

Personally, I'm happy with my 3-4 hours per WU right now... can't beat 6 returns a day (until the new board comes in!
 01/12/2004 05:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
got_cpu_problems
Senior Member

Posts: 888
Joined: 11/26/2003

QUOTE You got a point there with the FX and the intel guys. Hey, I know maybe, they had to go get 64-bit dance lessons...hahaha


I wouldnt laugh so soon, Intel might just come back and sucker punch AMD while its in the spotlight. Just because they havnt released anything yet, doesnt mean that they wont in the future.... It seams to me that this is an indication that they may release something sometime soon.
 01/12/2004 07:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
StormPC
Senior Member

Posts: 548
Joined: 10/06/2003

QUOTE (got_cpu_problems @ Jan 12 2004, 02:16 PM)

I wouldnt laugh so soon, Intel might just come back and sucker punch AMD while its in the spotlight.  Just because they havnt released anything yet, doesnt mean that they wont in the future.... It seams to me that this is an indication that they may release something sometime soon.

What is an indication? Also, what is "soon" to you? Please be more specific because it sounds as if you are just trolling.

Logan,

Sorry, they're not even close. That is a myth common amongst people who don't want to deal with the 64 bit question right now.

If you have a good computer that suits your needs that's really all you need. Still, with the extra speed of the A64's you'd be that much more productive with your folding! Props to you. It's a good cause.
 01/12/2004 07:59 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
:::====={XX}
Junior Member

Posts: 10
Joined: 01/07/2004

I heard that intel was to bring out a 6GB cpu anyone else heard this
 01/12/2004 08:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Brian128
Senior Member

Posts: 2644
Joined: 11/06/2003

Im sure you mean 6GHz, and no I have not heard that. I'll believe it when I see it. I'm sure they'll paper launch it as soon as they can. they're pretty good at paper launches.

-------------------------
 01/12/2004 08:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pilot
Senior Member

Posts: 2910
Joined: 12/16/2003

Yeah, something happens in the transition between paper and silicon.

As for the CPU's, Intel's having a tough time breaking 4, aren't they?

-------------------------
Pilot
AMD 64 3000 @ 2.0GHz || Running Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
Apple iBook G4 1.42GHz (PPC Core) || Running Apple OSX Tiger
 01/13/2004 04:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
got_cpu_problems
Senior Member

Posts: 888
Joined: 11/26/2003

QUOTE What is an indication? Also, what is "soon" to you? Please be more specific because it sounds as if you are just trolling. 


OH, dont act all surprised that Intel is releasing a new cpu.... The prescotts are due this spring, and the tejas are due in 2005.

Well from what i have heard, It seems to me that no one has got the story straight with Intel and x86-64. Everyone is only going on specular it seems, and there hasnt been any solid proof what Intel is going to do exactly.

Intel has quite a few electronic engineers on its payroll, and i would think that they are doing something, as companies do pay ppl to to sit around, esp considering the payroll. They are obviously hard at work at more than just the prescott chip and tejas.

Soon as being within the next 6 months. We can only go on speculation... but I think that intel plans on releasing thier version of a 64 bit cpu later than that... Im thinking maybe tejas will be it? or will it be before then.
 01/13/2004 04:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Ardrid
Heavy Wizardry

Posts: 12398
Joined: 10/08/2003

Well there are only two processors on Intel's roadmap, Prescott and Tejas. There's no way they can add another one and expect to have it out before Tejas because it takes far too much work and time.

-------------------------
Intel Core i7 860
ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
Corsair HX650W
Corsair XMS DDR3-1333 (4GB @ 8-8-8-24)
Sapphire Radeon HD 6870
Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB
 01/13/2004 06:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
ALIEN3001
Senior Member

Posts: 315
Joined: 10/07/2003

QUOTE heard that intel was to bring out a 6GB cpu anyone else heard this
That's true, in about 2 years from now
Anyway, in gaming - A64 3000+ is sometimes better than P4 3.2GHz EE. It's definitly better (faster) than P4 3.2GHz.

-------------------------
{Signature removed. Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines regarding signatures}
http://forums.amd.com/index.php?act=boardrules
 01/14/2004 06:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
StormPC
Senior Member

Posts: 548
Joined: 10/06/2003

QUOTE (got_cpu_problems @ Jan 13 2004, 01:42 PM) QUOTE What is an indication? Also, what is "soon" to you? Please be more specific because it sounds as if you are just trolling. 


OH, dont act all surprised that Intel is releasing a new cpu.... The prescotts are due this spring, and the tejas are due in 2005.

Well from what i have heard, It seems to me that no one has got the story straight with Intel and x86-64. Everyone is only going on specular it seems, and there hasnt been any solid proof what Intel is going to do exactly.

Intel has quite a few electronic engineers on its payroll, and i would think that they are doing something, as companies do pay ppl to to sit around, esp considering the payroll. They are obviously hard at work at more than just the prescott chip and tejas.

Soon as being within the next 6 months. We can only go on speculation... but I think that intel plans on releasing thier version of a 64 bit cpu later than that... Im thinking maybe tejas will be it? or will it be before then.

Well it appears (by what we've seen from Intel lately) that they spend way more on advertising than engineering. Intel realizes that they have the bulk of the unknowing public as their customer base. It remains to be seen how long the public will remain in the dark, but it appears Intel is betting/counting on it being a long long time.
 01/15/2004 12:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
got_cpu_problems
Senior Member

Posts: 888
Joined: 11/26/2003

QUOTE Well there are only two processors on Intel's roadmap, Prescott and Tejas. There's no way they can add another one and expect to have it out before Tejas because it takes far too much work and time.


I havnt seen a road map on Intels website... anything you know that you wouldn't mind sharing

They could build in x86-64 features into tejas if they really wanted to. Personally, i dont think everyone is ready to switch over to 64 bit cpus. To me, i think we are fine where we are. AMD can have thier a64 and intel can have their p4 and soon to be p5. I think this could last quite a while, and i dont think AMD will gain as much a lead as everone has been wanting/hoping for. People have different uses for computers, and many ppl at the monent are satisfied with 32 bit cpus and have no intention of going 64 bit for quite a while.

well and then there is the die hard intel fanbase too...
Statistics
112018 users are registered to the AMD Processors forum.
There are currently 0 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.



Contact AMD Terms and Conditions ©2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Privacy Trademark information