[Socket 939] Upgrade Processor or Mobo?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
The thing you want to pay attention to for gaming when you upgrade from a single core CPU to a dual core is the speed. If you go from a 2.8ghz single core processor to a 2.6ghz dual core, the only games that are going to see much improvement are the ones that are optimized for a dual core processor, any other games are not going to show much improvement. The dual core will "smooth" out your gameplay on a game that is not dual core optimized, but going from your FX57 to say a 4200 X2 is going to leave you disappointed and feeling like you invested money needlessly, in everything except probably Crysis.
As for the processor score in 3Dmark06, even the fastest processors, will only get about 3 fps. My 4600x2 at 2.8ghz will only score 1fps. At 3ghz it will sometimes hit 2fps.
If you want to go dual core, and I am not saying you should not, they are much better, but be sure to get something that will clock at least as fast as your current processor.
 
I think a lot will depend on your budget. If it is limited, and not likely to grow much, then putting $59 into a dual-core S939 chip like this one:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Manchester 2.0GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket 939 89W Dual-Core Processor - OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103561

...will make a difference. You'll offload lots of background crap and really smooth out your gameplay. Even though maximum frame rate may not change [much], the minimum frame rate almost certainly will, reducing or even eliminating stutter. Note that this is an OEM chip, so it won't come with a cooler. You can probably re-use the one you have, provided you clean off the thermal paste and re-apply new paste.
Yes, you will need to load the AMD multicore driver, available from their web site (or Google for it). A Windows re-install should not be needed.
If, otoh, your budget allows a more substantial upgrade, there is no reason to spend this $59. With a limited budget, you may still want AMD, but you'll get best performance these days with Intel. Please tell us your budget.
I don't have Crysis, so I can't comment on that, but have the general impression that SLI / Crossfire aren't worthwhile. Once again, it will depend on your budget, but a single good card will perform better than your pair of old 7800GTs.
Another thought on performance. Assuming that 36GB Raptor is the only drive in your system, how full is it? If it is so full that Windows can't maintain a decent swap file, you'll take a serious performance hit.
Also, what is your RAM configuration?
 


sorry i don't buy your crysis fps. ultra's and gtx's can't breach a solid 40fps even when running quad core cpu's...and again your 3dmark is a hair low you might want to check your drivers and/or background tasks. point is its even more hard to swallow your getting frame rates that sli barely allows for (and then not SOLID as you put it)and your 3dmark is not up to snuff? i bet you have some great fishing stories.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/20/crysis_sli/
http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/16/crysis_demo_vs_full/



 
This is going to have to be proved then... I do get a solid 40 FPS in Crysis... I think one thing that you have to remember is that i'm running windows xp not vista. I dont have the option to run "ultra high" settings like you can on Vista. The people that are running SLI GTXs are running it on Vista on ultra high settings... makes a huge difference considering DX10 is utilized and another step in settings. So I dont think that I could be exaggerating about my performance in Crysis... later on tonight I will post a screen shot with FRAPs in the background.

Also how are you all to say that my 3Dmark06 score is too low. I have a 4600+ X2 and 8800GT. At stock speeds on all I was getting 8500 but overclocked to the moon I was at 9993. That was with an unstable (barly passing) overclock of 2.94 and GPU set to 730/1000. I thought that was a pretty good score but I may be wrong... show me a comparable system that get's higher scores than that.
 
hughyhunter

I've done some research and I stand corrected about the 3d mark yours is fine. I didn't realise our A64's were starting to show there age in junk like 3d mark. I have a skt 939 4800x2@stock or max OC 2.93ghz if needed.

TBH I still think your exagerating your Crysis fps. But as I have shown I'm willing to be proved wrong. It will also make me feel better about my old girl, especially when I get a 3870 soon. So prove me wrong.
 
Click on my advitar to get my system specs...socket 939 rules.
This is one of seven I have for my home LAN and they play all games just fine.
When I bought the parts I paid $70 for the OEM Optrons and got a deal on the 7900GT for $180 each...the PSU I use cost a bit less than the GFX and CPU added together!

Moveing from an FX to an Optron and useing DDR-500 ram will be faster even without overclocking the RAM and less power hungry.
Many people run Optron dual cores @ 3Ghz on stock volts and I myself have built such systems for people.

In memory tests my system gets higher Read/Write/Copy scores than the fastest DDR2 ram that Corsair/OCZ sales for about $600 a set...and with a T1 command rate and 1:1 ratio.

Change out the CPU and Ram and use everything else you still have.
 
4 hughly:

first off i checked on 3dmark and gpippas is right. your not as far off score as i thought. my bad there. though did look into crysis benchies of the dx9 flavor. while one site i found got close to but still short of your 40 fps they did it at a lower resolution 1280x1024. so again i think your strectching a bit. though its nice to see someone feel "solid" about there machine in crysis, i still think your reaching. sorry.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1234/18/page_18_benchmarks_crysis/index.html
 
Alright... I will give Crysis a shot tonight and see if I wasnt "imagining 40 FPS". I do remember however that the settings were all on High, AA 4x, 1680x1050.

I also remember the only time my frame rates dropped substantially was during the movies at the beginning and one in the middle. Also when I tried playing multiplayer (only tried once for 10 minutes) I got horrible choppiness but wasnt running Fraps to see what frame rates were... I figured it was internet connection because it doesnt do that during single player mode.

We'll see tonight what my rig is doing. I'll post screen shot while i'm running around.
 


I agree homey....
 
Here is my 2 cents worth. I have the same mobo but premium edition and a pair of 7800 GT in SLI as well. I upgraded from a 4000+ to a opty 180 about 1 year ago. I wanted to fulfill my original intent of an upgrade path with my 1 year old socket 939. Anyway I asked the same question as you are now. But one thing you need to remember was that memory was about 3 - 5x the cost it is today. At this point in time I think your best bet is to build a new system. Heck the MOBO, Mem, and a good core 2 duo processor will cost you about what I paid for the Opty. About $300.00.
At the same time I upgraded to my opty I also built a new Core 2 duo for my desk at work w/ a SFF it is sweet! And just last month since memory is so cheap I took one of our old Dell boxes put in a Power supply, MOBO, and some sticks and found a use for that great 4000+. It is kicking all the other 5 + year old dell systems. 😀
I figure my opty and current cards will last me 1 more year then I build new again. So far it is handling everything quite well but I have a 19" monitor so I run 12x10.
Anyway best of luck.
 
Sorry to have hijacked this thread as there are now multiple discussions under one thread. Those who are offering advise to me, please keep an eye out, I will start my own thread.
 
Alright... for those who are still interested.

My wife and I sat down for some slumber Crysis graphic party and to my dissmay and huge dissapointment... I am not getting 40 FPS. In fact the closest I saw to 40 was 38 and that was when looking at the ground running or a wall of rocks when walking.

During the movie at the beginning of the show I get about 15 on average... then at night I get a whopping 12... Had my wife tell me what I was getting when I was in a fire fight and I got about 12-15 she said.

Once day light broke I was averaging about 20-25 for the rest of my play time. I guess I was totally off with 40 but 20-25 at day looking at distance and near plus firefights is alright for me. Very playable and no jitters and no choppiness.

My settings are 1680x1050 (all stock clocks for system) with AA 4x, all settings high.

On Vista I probably wouldnt see high settings... I would be on medium with that performance. I think with a nice overclock though I would be close to 30.
 
thanks for taking the time to debunk your crysis scores. and for whats its worth i am sorry your not getting a stable 40, cause if u were i would have u screen shot of your processes and clone your booted machine as best i could via task manager. your scoring about what i get on my machine it sounds like...which is more realistic as we are spec fairly similary. should try running the dx10 hack on dx9. when i did it it cost me about 5-8 fps but the visuals are stunningly better.

hey rallyim, sorry we high jacked your thread, wasn't intentional just got away from us after hearing the crysis fps. any who back to your needs. if were you i would wait for the 790i to hit the market then ponder an upgrade to an intel chip if u r needing sli....or possibley wait for the b3 stepping see where amd performance is headed long term and by then the 790a will be out, or the spider platform will have matured enough to know how it holds up in real world preformance...i am speced close to you and doing the same myself, kinda in a holding pattern now to see what happens in the next few weeks. already done a few "vitual" builds on newegg i am getting to anxious to upgrade.
 
hughyhunter

Thankyou for the info. I'm still keeping my skt 4800x2 regardless of any benchies. I have a policy of not upgrading until my computer feels slow. At the moment it still doesn't really get bogged down with anything. Which brings me onto the OP.

Nosyt

Sorry for hijacking the thread just got a little off track. Like I already said ignore 3d mark it means nothing. If you want to make yourself feel better run 3d mark 05 or 03 even instead of 06. If your computer feels sluggish to you then it might be time to upgrade. If not keep it.

As for upgrading you system your better off getting a full upgrade. New mobo, ram, cpu can be had for like $300. I paid $400 for my 4800x2 alone. Someone else said they paid $600. My best advice is don't invest in a dead system unless the components can be used again. i.e HDD, PSU, GPU.
 


Where can I find that DX10 hack?

You are running an SLI set up right? You should be exceding my system at least by 50%. What settings are you running Crysis at?

I agree with everyones advice to the original poster. If you arent having a hard time running your favorite game titles and decent settings than you are really just throwing money into the fire by upgrading. It's call premature upgrading. It's actually a condition that there is not cure for... what happens is Intel and AMD flood the market with "marketable" chips and then we as consumers feel that we have to have them for some odd reason... like we cant live without a Q6600 or something. Well that's the case for so many of us and we just have to fight the urge and temptation until something comes out that we "truly have to have"... that should be in a few months time... Or when a game comes out like Crysis that we are all like "gosh *()&^ it!"
 


Good way to put. So true. Especially here on the forums. I've had my system for about 2-3 years (so long ago I don't actually remember) and like I said it still doesn't seem to struggle. Thats why I keep it at stock so I have some headroom for the future. Upgrading for a single game is crazy. The amount of threads we used to have on here asking if this "will play crysis max settings" when nobody new anything about it. At least upgrading to a q6600 gives them a couple of extra cores. Some of the people on here upgrade for like an extra 200mhz.
 
Ok, since this thread is still somewhat OT on Crysis talk.

I am happy now.

I decreased the clock on my 8800GTS 512 to 700/1000.
I installed the Crysis 1.1 patch
I installed the Vista nvidia hotfixes
I installed the AMD X2 timing driver.

Now, with medium settings and 2xFSAA (x64 executable) the crysis bench is showing 32.45fps average across 3 loops with a max of ~40fps and min of 19fps.

Motion blur is turned on 50% by the way, and it is a truely excellent visual affect. That alone makes the gameplay dramatically more immersive.

So anyway, not bad for Vista x64 really. IM done hijacking.
 


What is the Crysis bench? I've heard that before but have yet to see what it is. How do you hack a DX10 while running DX9.

Those are great scores considering... Are you running a SLI config?
 
http://www.crysis-online.com/?id=449

just make sure you back up your files as you need to over write the cvargroups file. there some directions on the link. use high setting after you have installed the hack and it will actually be very high settings. the link explains this to some degree. anyways hope you enjoy it.

to answer your hunter, yes i am running sli but i beat the game before the new patch that supposed boosted the frame rate in sli and quad core some. plus i game at 1920x1080 though i only used 2x smoothing and it was very taxing even with sli. i got around 20-25 fps even sometimes as high as the low thirties then would dip to 10-17 if i got to a large area of map showing or the action got really intense. since ur playing at a lower res you should get better results. at the very least its just neat to see how how pretty crysis can be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom