CreativeOne

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2005
46
0
18,530
Hello guys! First timer here and im excited to have found you guys.

First of all I, I am a novice trying to build my first CPU from scratch. Hell it took me 2 months to research a motherboard, I wanted to do it right the first time. I wanted to upgrade it years from now.

Ive always been a AMD fan, so I heard 939 was the craze. So I went and bought the ECS Nforce 939

Next I bought 1 gigs of DDR ram, And I bought a Box with a 500 watt PS. So im getting ready to buy the next important part of the computer. The CPU.. That is when my jaw dropped... Athlon 64/FX. Those cpus are expensive! I did all the research on Motherboard specs and upgradability but not the price down the road.

Well I am fairly cheap because the wife is kinda second guessing the financial situation because of me building a cpu.

What im asking is for some help or some sites on getting an Athlon without having to spend 200 bucks?

Thanks so much!
Corey
 

mpasternak

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2005
533
0
18,980
ABSOLUTELY what Kman said

the FX series is not worth it unless you're a serious overclocking gamer. the only difference between them and the other san diego cored CPU's are the MHZ and the unlocked multiplier.

otherwise, if you want CLOSE performance get the 3700+. it's 2.2ghz (400mhz less than the FX55) but can be easily overclocked to the 2.6ghz of the FX with the stock cooling (and good ram). otherwise it's the same chip.

same cache, same architecture, same everything. probably the best bang for the buck.

the other really good choice is the 3200+. it's got 1/2 the cache, but runs lickity split and overclcoks like a beast. and with AMD the cahce difference isnt a huge hit
 

CreativeOne

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2005
46
0
18,530
Well the board that I got isn't much of an overclocking board. I just know the board runs neck and neck with the Abit fatality board and it impressed me. Some reviews didn't claim it was a board to overclock with.

But I'm with stability here anywho.

Thanks for the advice guys. It seems the 3200 is a good chip. I am a gamer and some games are requireing about a 1.6 min req. And im getting around 2.0G. How long will the 2.0 last me before I spend abother 400 bucks on another chip to keep up?
 

mpasternak

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2005
533
0
18,980
don't be confused like a lot of people are

when games quote a minimum CPU speed, they are reffering normally to an Intel MHZ rating. remember, untill recently the belief was purely that MHZ ruled all.

a 1.6ghz AMD does NOT equal a 1.6ghz Intel. the clock speeds on AMD are much lower, but they're not indicitave of their performance. the close estimation is that the 3200+ is about equivelant as a 3.2ghz Intel.

it's a rough comparison to use the AMD rating against the MHZ of the intel. but not exact. so with that 3200+ just imagine you've got a intel around 3ghz - 3.4ghz.. I think thats a safe estimation
 

CreativeOne

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2005
46
0
18,530
wow! Thats excellent stuff, Because I almost bought a Intel Celeron 3.0ghz for 150 bucks. I always assumed the higher the G the better chip your going to get regardless of mfr.

Then someone says the Celeron chip is considered the welfare chip of PC users.
 

mpasternak

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2005
533
0
18,980
do NOT BUY A CELERON! lol. glad you avoided it!

the celeron is a highly crippled P4. they take out all the advanced stuff and just leave the MHZ up. and sell it for mega cheapo.

don't get me wrong, the celeron has it's place. for business machines or home machines for your grandma who wants to do nothing mroe than browse the web and watch a video or two. otherwise it's useless. never use it for gaming

and yes, that confusion you had with Ghz comparison is exactly what Intel hoped for. that was their hole marketing campaign.

"Don't buy AMD.. look, they've got low clock speeds... the higher the speed, the better the CPU!"

unfortunately for Intel to reach those higher Clock speeds, they sacrificed efficiency and other things which slowed the CPU down anyways and made it hotter than hell. that is what went wrong with the Prescott, to make it run up to 3.8ghz, they had to add more length to the pipeline which takes longer, and added even more heat.

that is why a AMD Ahtlon of much lower Clock can compete and stomp the intels
 

CreativeOne

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2005
46
0
18,530
So the AMD 3200 is what I need to be searching for to last me for awhile?

What your saying is the 3200 might be 2.2Ghz but it also has more technology to compensate for the low clock speeds unlike the Intel chips?

And the Intel chips have High Clock speeds but lowers in technology.
 

mpasternak

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2005
533
0
18,980
not lower / higher technology.

but efficiency

the intel is less efficient at what it does per cock than the AMD so AMD is able to keep their clock speeds lower, heat disapation and power consumption lower, and still maintain the same if not more performance than the Intel

right now, AMD CPU's absolutely demolish Intel in gaming

(these are all laymans definitions though. i'm sure other users here can give you a far greater and more technical reasons than i am)
 

julius

Distinguished
May 19, 2004
168
0
18,680
yeah, it works fine, might need a bios flash to see both cores. i wouldnt get too ecstatic though, 150 bucks for a 400 chip seems a little too good to be true, but wouldnt hurt to try it out.
 

TRENDING THREADS