[Socket 939] Upgrade Processor or Mobo?

Nosyt

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2008
11
0
18,510
0
Hello all. A first time poster so please forgive my.... newness. And please direct me to any threads that would answer my question. I wasn't quiet sure how to search this. Anyways, here it goes.

I've realized it's about time for an upgrade. My specs:

ASUSTeK Computer INC. A8N-SLI DELUXE
Western Digital WD360GD Raptor 36GB 10K RPM SATA-150 8MB hard drive
2.80 gigahertz AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
2816 Megabytes Installed Memory
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT [Display adapter] (2x)

From what I can tell my processor is the biggest thing I need to upgrade? After doing some research, its seems perhaps any upgrade to a 939 processor would almost not be worth the money. So then I'd need to change my mobo.. which would lead to A LOT of changes...

Any recommendations? Thanks in advance!

EDIT: Didn't really ask a question. Basically, would it be recommended to buy the best 939 processor I could find? Or should I just put that money towards a new mobo and start saving?
 

sergage

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2008
14
0
18,510
0
A dual core Athlon is something you could consider. But finding such processor for s939 is almost impossible. The mobo is one of the best for s939, no change needed there IMO.

A more major upgrade will have to involve more components. For example you can upgrade to a DDR2 platform. You'll have to upgrade mobo, CPU and RAM only. The video cards can stay, hard drives too.
 
I have a couple of 7800gt's. Get something better. You'll be glad you did. The fx57..... I'm jealous. Mine died after many years of faithful operation. It still kicks @ss and wouldn't worry too much about it.

If you decide to get a dual core, try for a 4800,4400, or one of the higher clocked server chips. ... 180/185.
 

Nosyt

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2008
11
0
18,510
0
I really appreciate the quick responses.

Sergage - I'm assuming from the context that DDR2 platform means a whole new mobo and everything that comes with it? I wouldn't even know where to begin to look at motherboards.

Swifty - Hmm, I know 3dmarks said that my graphics set up was a bit lower than an "optimum" system. I've read the 8800gt has been getting good reviews for the price. Jealous of the fx57? The 3dmarks test said it was significantly less powerful than suggested. Is it just because it's stable? 180/185? Opteron?
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
3
How Much Money do you have?

You will need new RAM - $40 for 2gb of DDR2800
New Mobo - $90
CPU - $80

Looks like about $210 for a minimum to upgrade to a better system.
 

rallyimprezive

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2007
469
0
18,780
0
I have a very similar system:

ASUS A8N-E
WD Raptor X 150GB
AMD X2-4200 Oc'd to 2.6ghz
2048MB Corsair ValueRAM
EVGA nVidia 7800GT

I recently upgraded this system a bit with a 8800GTS 512 G92.

My 3dmark06 score is about 9500.
The CPU portion of my score was 1700.

You can rum 3dmark06 as well to compare scores.

Also, Tomshardware gives the FX-57 a 3dmark06 CPU score of 1103.

So yes, a dual core proc could help. But it will still be the limiting factor.

The archilles heel is that the X2 4200 939 proc is very hard to find.

So yea, new mobo, CPU and memory is probably in order. :(

 

brett_monkey

Distinguished
Mar 3, 2007
87
0
18,630
0
I would say it depends on what you do with your computer, whether or not it need an upgrade. If you just play games COD4, UT3..etc.. a nice new 8800GT will do wonders for you. Upgrading to an Opteron 180 or 185 will also give you some improvements. As long as you are running your video games at 12X10 or above your current processor should do just fine.
There is no such thing as your CPU bottlenecking your video card at those resolutions or above. I will be able to use my current 939 system to play all of the latest games for at least another 1-2 years with near max quality.
 

sergage

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2008
14
0
18,510
0
I don't think you need to change the video cards. If you have two 7800GT's like you said you do, look into SLI boards when upgrading the whole system. Two 7800GT's in SLI should do a decent job eliminating the need to upgrade GPUs.

By saying DDR2 platform I meant the trinity: CPU, motherboard and RAM. Those three are the only things you need to upgrade in order to switch to DDR2, IMHO. The rest depends on how much greens you're willing to spend.
 

gpippas

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
463
0
18,790
1
There is no point in putting anymore money into that system with components that are already obsolete. The FX-57 had its day a long time ago. Your graphics cards are old and easily outpaced by single midrange gpu's like the 3870 and 8800gt. Ignore 3d mark it means nothing. If you find that your system feels slow then upgrade if you think the performance is fine then don't bother.

Long story short if you are going to upgrade you will need a new cpu, mobo, ram, gpu and probably a new PSU.
 

meadowlands

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
112
0
18,680
0
I agree with gpippas. that system is not worth putting any more money into. You can do a pretty nice dual core upgrade for about $400-500 depending on GPU/CPU. A nice gigabyte MoBo will run about $90. A quad core solution like the Q6600 will be a bit more since the cpu itself is almost $300
 

rallyimprezive

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2007
469
0
18,780
0


I have heard this a few times now, and it just doesnt make sense to me at all, based on my experience. Are you aware of any articles regarding CPU bottlenecks that may help me understand this concept better? I think it would help the OP as well?

Thanks!
:bounce:
 
what I said and what Brettmonkey said................. A great video card will "make" that machine.

I don't look at the 3dmark anything. I go by what I have in my hand and by what the different systems do with what's in them......... as I use them.

Yes, I do like the fx57. I recently gave my nephew a box with a 3700 in it. i miss it badly. Used that machine all the time and it was my favorite. No stumbles no nothing. I do have higher end machines, but rarely plug them in. No need except for work or gaming.

the guy about the 7800gt's in sli........ they suck. you can't play rainbowsix vegas, crysis or any other really demanding game on those cards....... unless you play at 800x600. then you wouldn't want to because of the clarity.... and he is playing at 1600 res. The 7800's don't play nice there.
 

hughyhunter

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2007
865
0
18,980
0
I have the same mobo minus the deluxe... I also have a 4600+ X2 that runs just fine.... however if I had a single core like your I wouldnt even consider upgrading to the proc that I have or even a 4800+ brisbane or venice (which ever one is 939) just because that would cost $50 that is not worth it.
I would keep what you have a wait on any upgrade. With the set up that you have now I bet you play high end graphics games like Crysis just fine and medium-high settings. It wouldnt be worth it to upgrade to anything this year. I would wait until there is true competition in the microproccessor market and until DDR3 memory is cheaper. Right now you would probably be going from a solid 9000 score on 3Dmark06 to a 15000 score for $1500... not worth it IMO. However if you can find a used FX-60 for under $50 that would be a good upgrade. But I wouldnt spend all that money just for a moderate upgrade.
 

rallyimprezive

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2007
469
0
18,780
0
I think I may have to disagree with one aspect of your statement hughyhunter.

I get a 3dmark06 score of 9500

BUT Crysis is playable only at low settings.
Resolution is native 1680 x 1050.

Specs:
ASUS A8N-E
AMD X2-4200 Oc'd to 2.6ghz
EVGA 8800GTS 512 G92 (800/2100)
WD Raptor X 150GB
2048MB Corsair ValueRAM (2.5 CAS)
 

hughyhunter

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2007
865
0
18,980
0
Wait a second... Crysis is only playable at low settings?

I think not. I have a slight larger proc than you o'cd to 2.74 and 2 gigs of low lat mem too... although i am running 2t command rate... Anyhow I have a 8800GT 512 o'c from the factory to 640. I am getting a solid 9300 on 3dmark with those settings and on windows xp home 32 bit I play crysis with everthing jacked up AA 4x at the same 1680x1050 res and I get a SOLID 40 FPS.

So if you think that Crysis isnt playable at those settings than something is wrong with your rig... if you are running Vista I can understand if you are getting about 10% less performance but now more.
 

Nosyt

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2008
11
0
18,510
0
Wow. Thanks for all the replies! I definitely didn't expect so many, so fast.

Basically... right now I could probably scrape together $500 for upgrades. It almost sounds like just gutting "the trinity" as it was put would be better, especially since I can throw a little money at it. Of course, that just leads to all the research on mobos, etc.

Finally, I picked up a..

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-5647

Which I believe wants me to run 1920 x 1200. I'm assuming this is extremely taxing for my computers specs.

Finally, I've never been much for the absolute high end settings on games. What I have always prefered was medium/medium-high settings flawless. I don't need the absolute best.

Guess I got a lot of research to do now.
 

rallyimprezive

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2007
469
0
18,780
0



Aw crud, thats not what I wanted to hear.

I am running Vista x64. Only 10% dif though huh? :pfff:

I have new drivers, clean OS, with all eye candy disabled. Wonder if I need that X2 Core driver thing from AMDs website...hmm.
 

hughyhunter

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2007
865
0
18,980
0
What is the performance of Crysis like on you comp rallyimprezive? With Fraps running on my rig I am averaging 40. All eye candy on... but you may not get that good of performance with 64 bit vista. I Remember an article from Toms talking about running 2 8800GTXs in SLI at max settings on 32 bit OS Vista and averaging 15 FPS.

ARe you running game and ultra high (this option is not available for XP users)? If you are I can understand why you are not getting that great of performance on your rig. But if you reduce the settings as to what it would be on xp (high) then you should be able to run game with no prob... I cant imagine that having 64 bit OS makes that much of a difference. They say that new 1.1 patch is supposed to help but it doesnt seem that way. Did you download it yet?
 

gLip

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2008
42
0
18,530
0
Dual / Quad cores will probably get cheaper now that the newer generation is to be released, and we can hope the same for the nVidia GPUs, with the 9800 being released soon.

I have an AMD 64 3500+, ONE 7800 GT and 2 GB of crappy DDR-RAM (should I mention that I have four sticks, three different brands of sticks and three different timings, as well as two of them being DDR400 and the other two DDR 333) and I am considering an upgrade.

I'm about to order the same Dell monitor this month and I have a feeling that I'm going to need something in the direction of a miracle to get anything running.

Heh, I've been playing Crysis with everything on low and it barely runs, I feel like I'm on the wrong forum.
 

Nosyt

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2008
11
0
18,510
0
I downloaded and ran the 3DMark06 test. I score was 4378. I noticed during the CPU phase it was 0 frames per second. My poor computer can't handle it.

Anyways, thanks for the help all.
 

rallyimprezive

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2007
469
0
18,780
0



I will need to get you framerates to verify. But it sucks.

All settings are on LOW, with AA OFF, and its jerky.

I even tried going to factory clock speeds on EVERYTHING. CPU, GPU, memory, timings, etc...and it seemed to have very little affect.

I will install 1.1 tonight along with the AMD X2 driver timing software.

All other games are fine, by the way, COD4, Unreal 3 Tourney, Supreme Commander, AOE 3, World in Conflict, all great at higher settings.
 

Nosyt

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2008
11
0
18,510
0
Aye, I do know that. Ideally I would love to run everything at 1920x1200 but I'm quickly seeing that I probably won't be able to for awhile.
 

gpippas

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
463
0
18,790
1


hughyhunter wrote:
Wait a second... Crysis is only playable at low settings?

I think not. I have a slight larger proc than you o'cd to 2.74 and 2 gigs of low lat mem too... although i am running 2t command rate... Anyhow I have a 8800GT 512 o'c from the factory to 640. I am getting a solid 9300 on 3dmark with those settings and on windows xp home 32 bit I play crysis with everthing jacked up AA 4x at the same 1680x1050 res and I get a SOLID 40 FPS.

So if you think that Crysis isnt playable at those settings than something is wrong with your rig... if you are running Vista I can understand if you are getting about 10% less performance but now more.

Now you can see why 3d mark scores are completetly irrelavant. They show nothing about real gameplay.

hughyhunter your 3d mark is actually a little lower than it should be using XP. I know you say that you are running all settings on high with 4x AA at 40fps but seeing as almost every reviewer can barely get an 8800 ultra to run those settings with the fastest cpu's I think your overexagerating.

rallyimprezive your system is underperforming. Even though its vista. Sounds more like you havn't got the latest drivers. Also try the crysis patch 1.1.
 

Similar threads