The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Which one should i chose....
AMD 64 --3000
P4 3ghz.
I want to surf the net, type on mircosoft word, and most of all draw on paint.
I might want to even play on games. Yeah, i think i want to do that. ;)
Any help is welcomed, thanks in advance.
>note, i posted this in the PC gaming room, and realised i'd posted it in the wrong place. Doh!
AMD 64 --3000
P4 3ghz.
I want to surf the net, type on mircosoft word, and most of all draw on paint.
I might want to even play on games. Yeah, i think i want to do that. ;)
Any help is welcomed, thanks in advance.
>note, i posted this in the PC gaming room, and realised i'd posted it in the wrong place. Doh!
Page:
That's true to a degree. Especially important if you have a board that doesn't have 1 MHz increments on the FSB.
For instance I'm about to pick up a Duron and a cheap Asrock motherboard. The mobo though only does 133, 166 or 200 MHz FSB via a jumper. The Duron comes in 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 GHz flavours at the moment, with the FSB at 133 MHz. That means multipliers of 10.5, 12 and 13.5. I'll put the FSB to 200 MHz and using a 12 multiplier get 2.4 GHz. Possibly.
If that doesn't work I'll try it at 166 MHz.
But the 13.5 multipler would be just too high. I'd end up trying for 2.7 GHz or 2.25 GHz with the Duron 1.8.
I'm making little sense here.
For instance I'm about to pick up a Duron and a cheap Asrock motherboard. The mobo though only does 133, 166 or 200 MHz FSB via a jumper. The Duron comes in 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 GHz flavours at the moment, with the FSB at 133 MHz. That means multipliers of 10.5, 12 and 13.5. I'll put the FSB to 200 MHz and using a 12 multiplier get 2.4 GHz. Possibly.
If that doesn't work I'll try it at 166 MHz.
But the 13.5 multipler would be just too high. I'd end up trying for 2.7 GHz or 2.25 GHz with the Duron 1.8.
I'm making little sense here.
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
>
> Having said that I will be replacing my CPU soon and I will most
> likely get a Pentium 4 3.0 GHZ + and clock it to run at 3.6 GHZ
> speeds.
A word of warning!!! ->
I overclocked my 2.8 upto 3.22Ghz which is an increase of roughly 400Mhz, and Im fast coming to terms with the fact that the higher multiplier CPUs are more likely to be worse overclockers than say the 2.4C and the 2.6C.
The 2.4c and 2.6C CPUs can fairly easily handle a 600-800 Mhz overclock, where as my 2.8C has "issues" above fsb speeds of 239...
Although having said that I read a post in this forum with a 2.8C running happily at 3.6!!
Its hit and miss really but the lower the multiplier the more likely you are to have an OC capable processor...
>
> Having said that I will be replacing my CPU soon and I will most
> likely get a Pentium 4 3.0 GHZ + and clock it to run at 3.6 GHZ
> speeds.
A word of warning!!! ->
I overclocked my 2.8 upto 3.22Ghz which is an increase of roughly 400Mhz, and Im fast coming to terms with the fact that the higher multiplier CPUs are more likely to be worse overclockers than say the 2.4C and the 2.6C.
The 2.4c and 2.6C CPUs can fairly easily handle a 600-800 Mhz overclock, where as my 2.8C has "issues" above fsb speeds of 239...
Although having said that I read a post in this forum with a 2.8C running happily at 3.6!!
Its hit and miss really but the lower the multiplier the more likely you are to have an OC capable processor...
Thanks for your help, its looking like a Pentium now ;)
cheers !
cheers !
nothing really about for amd64, i would save your money until a 64bit version of windows is out or get it now if u have a 64bit version of linux
Buck1 wrote:
> Go for the pentium 4 as they will be arond for some time and well they
> are made by pentium.
Think your meant to say there made by Intel and not Pentium.
> Go for the pentium 4 as they will be arond for some time and well they
> are made by pentium.
Think your meant to say there made by Intel and not Pentium.
Go for the pentium 4 as they will be arond for some time and well they are made by pentium.
The AMD would be good but the socket wont be around for that long
The AMD would be good but the socket wont be around for that long
Yes there is a socket 940, and it gets discontinued soon as well I believe. But seeing as the FX series is only available to people who only have a left arm, and Opteron owners, I never bothered mentioning it.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> I better clarify a bit here. The A64 *is* better for gaming than the
> P4.
>
> But, I just feel it is too limited. Socket 754 is going to be
> dicontinued, Socket 939 is the way forward for 64 bit. It just isn't
> out yet.
Isnt there a 940 as well? As the FX 51 runs on 940.
> I better clarify a bit here. The A64 *is* better for gaming than the
> P4.
>
> But, I just feel it is too limited. Socket 754 is going to be
> dicontinued, Socket 939 is the way forward for 64 bit. It just isn't
> out yet.
Isnt there a 940 as well? As the FX 51 runs on 940.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> At least with the P4 it would be a bit cheaper and the performance
> difference is only noticable in benchmarks. Plus it might have a bit
> more of a future.
True, and having seen both running the A64 actually is more jalty on screen beacuse of the slower thaiwanise chipsets (the GFx card has a higher framerate but doesnt actually have a new signal to change to, I would assume). I also noticed this on Tom's Hardware Guide on video 10 on the cpu cooler removed bit (http://www.tomshardware.com/images (SPACE) /thg_video_10_athlon64.zip at 2:20 through)
> The reason I'm holding off 64 bit is that I'm waiting on socket 939
> coming out. It isn't like I'm talking about years. This is due in the
> next month or two. And then I can recommend the A64, because it will
> have a future. Socket 754 is the Slot A of the PC world at the
> moment. Socket 939 is the new Socket A.
I'd agree. I'ts like the new Intel socket with round connectors (more conduction) thats coming soon for the faster prescott cores.
> At least with the P4 it would be a bit cheaper and the performance
> difference is only noticable in benchmarks. Plus it might have a bit
> more of a future.
True, and having seen both running the A64 actually is more jalty on screen beacuse of the slower thaiwanise chipsets (the GFx card has a higher framerate but doesnt actually have a new signal to change to, I would assume). I also noticed this on Tom's Hardware Guide on video 10 on the cpu cooler removed bit (http://www.tomshardware.com/images (SPACE) /thg_video_10_athlon64.zip at 2:20 through)
> The reason I'm holding off 64 bit is that I'm waiting on socket 939
> coming out. It isn't like I'm talking about years. This is due in the
> next month or two. And then I can recommend the A64, because it will
> have a future. Socket 754 is the Slot A of the PC world at the
> moment. Socket 939 is the new Socket A.
I'd agree. I'ts like the new Intel socket with round connectors (more conduction) thats coming soon for the faster prescott cores.
Decent RAM and an Nforce chipset motherboard are my main priorities as well as a new heatsink and fan for my CPU so I can clock it towards the 2.4GHZ mark.
Page: