TechSpot

Processor advice, AMD 4000+ worth it?

By james_k1988
Aug 21, 2006
  1. Hey there,

    My current Spec is in my sig (apart from i no longer have 3g of ram, having problems and just running on 1g atm). I will be looking to upgrade in the near future, i was going to save up my money and mybye get a duo or something at xmas when they will have went down a bit in price. But i Noticed Overclockers.co.uk are doing a AMD 64 4000+ San Diego for a good price(£90). Ive been told many a time how the AMD 4000+ is a very good processor for gaming and since my birthday is coming up i figured i might just ask for one of these (cant ask for anything TO pricey).

    But what i really wanna know is will it give me much more performance that i have just now? My system is kinda bottlenecked by my CPU atm and i'm curious if this processor will help out.

    As for the games i play, pretty much anything, especially MOH (which is OpenGl, which i think stresses the CPU?) and the processor i have just now can handle MOST games on high spec but it tends to fall in spots.

    I also had a m8 who claimed that with this processor you can record yourself (with FRAPS for example, a demanding tool) and not experiance any performance decrease. He may have been lying as i never saw this for myself, let me know if you have an idea on this one ;)

    Anyways i just wanna know if it would be worth upgrading, remembering that i cannot overclock the CPU with this current motherboard. A long story short, its a prick, and MSI removed the overclocking feature.

    Ive seen alot of ppl on here with the same processor so mybye you guys can give me some idea of how it performs :D

    Thanks :)
     
  2. MetalX

    MetalX TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,388

    You might be better off just getting an overclockable MoBo because then you can probably overclock your CPU to past 4000+ speeds and when you need a new CPU you can just get a X2 4800+.
     
  3. james_k1988

    james_k1988 TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 163

    but clock speed isnt everything. But is that the only difference bewtween the 3200 and the 4000? I think they have different amounts of L1 and L2 cache, would that yield a big boost in performance?
     
  4. MetalX

    MetalX TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,388

    The larger L2 cache would yield slightly bettr performance but if you managed to get the 3200+ to about 2.6 ghz (which is VERY easy if it has a venice core) or so it would more than make up for the extra L2. Also... it would be much better to get a Athlon 64 X2 like the 4000+X2 or the 4200+ X@ than to stay single core (unless you want to get a FX57 :p).
     
  5. james_k1988

    james_k1988 TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 163

    so thats the 4000+ out the window then lol well from wat ive been hearing the new intel duo2 processors rip the AMD ones apart, even the fx-62. And although i am personally a AMD fan but if these new processors are the buisness i might just save up and get one of those at xmas. Unless AMD releases something to counter it

    (and yea it is a Venice core but i cant do anything with it. I cant even used programs within the OS to do it. MSi came with something called digicell but whenever i attempt to use it the pc restarts. And im also having problems getting this motherboard to run dual channel, restarts EVERY time and cant find a soloution. I think i might just aim for a new board but ill need to decide what processor i wanna go for first)

    And i was considering getting a FX-57 at xmas :p , or mybye a FX-60 if it would be worth it. But theres no AM2 socket versions yet so couldnt use DDR2 and i dont know how they perform. Plus again the duo2 is meant to smoke the fx range out the water :s
     
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...