Which new CPU to buy... AMD advice please!

[Slack]

Hey,

I built my new PC and found that my CPU is a MASSIVE bottleneck and wont really OC that well.

I've had to RMA my PSU so haven't finished trying to get my 3200+ Venice to OC properly... but at present I can't get my FSB up to 230... even if I drop everything else right down.

I had hoped to get my 3200+ clocking at about 2.5ghz but can only muster a pathetic 2.28ghz. So assuming I can't sort this chip out, I will sell it and buy me a newer, better CPU.

Which CPU to buy? I would ideally like to spend £350 / £400 max and guess I would be torn between the new AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4400+ and AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 90nm. (Don't know if there is a comparible venice in that price range?).

I guess the dual core would be the better processor, however, would I benifit from a Dual Core for gaming? I remember reading something somewhere that said Dual Core wouldn't work for gaming... is this true??

If anyone could shed a little light on the dual core for me or if anyone knows of any benchmarks between the 2 CPUs i mentioned, that would be brilliant!!

Cheers, Slack

 

[The Coolest]

Current games don't benefit from dual cores, so any game will run just a wee bit, if at all faster than the same speed/cache size A64, but, everything else you do with the computer will be lots faster and smoother, two cores might not be that much of use in games, but they are in multitasking and general computer use, that's why P4 HTs feel so much faster in windows than many Athlon systems do.
I wouldn't suggest to anyone to get a Single Core if he can pick up a dual core for around the same price, its really not worth it.

 

[rseven]

I think you should wait for bthe new PSU and give the 3200 more time. I would try to OC with just 2x512 of ram, and I'd use the newer of the two sets. I am inclined to think your bottleneck is the ram and not the cpu. I would want to be sure before migrating to a new cpu.

 

[kukyfrope]

I HIGHLY doubt the CPU is your problem.

4x 512mb Kingmaxx PC3500 Dual Channel

Could you post a screenshot of your A64Tweaker settings?
Are you attempting to run these at 1T (CPC Enabled) or 2T (CPC Disabled)? The memory controller on the Venice chips cannot run four sticks of RAM at DDR400 speed, and instead will run them at DDR333 speed. Set it to CPC Disabled and use 2x512 as Rseven suggested and report back.

You have good parts, although I don't know how good that RAM is... I'm fairly sure you haven't tried much to OC your system if you're giving up this easily. You can't just up the HTT with a DFI board and everything on Auto and expect results.

 

[apu318]

If you're going to spend that much on a CPU, I'd look into an FX chip. I think FX-53 or 55 is in your price range. I'm not sure if there is a difference in the 53 and 55 other than block speed but they will both be the best gaming CPUs. You could always get a 3800+ Venice and overclock it like mad, but with 4 sticks of ram, I doubt it'll go anywhere so youd be better off with the FX. You should probably sell your 4 512's and buy two 1gb sticks if you really need it.

 

[darksparkz]

Newest review from Tom's Hardware. Looks as if they loved the FX-57. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050725/athlon_64_fx-04.html

The FX-53 is ~$100 more then a X2 4400+. If your planning to buy a single core, you should either go with a 3700+ or a FX chip. If dual core, the 4400+ is the best.

Games work fine with the dual core, but the current games work slightly better on a FX chip then a dual core. The FX is currently giving the best output for games right now, but maybe in 2-3 years, the dual core will reign. Especially when Windows Vista is released, and the SLI becomes more used, the dual core will have it's benefits later on.

 

[OvaKilla]

Games work fine with the dual core, but the current games work slightly better on a FX chip then a dual core. The FX is currently giving the best output for games right now, but maybe in 2-3 years, the dual core will reign. Especially when Windows Vista is released, and the SLI becomes more used, the dual core will have it's benefits later on.

dang mang, if you could get a fx-53 for that price, i think its a no brainer.

dual core wont be faster than a single in all other computer appliations unless your running 2 programs, right? thats what i thought.

 

[the adam]

ya i don't think your cpu is the problem as my winchester can run at 2.6 on air (with an XP-90 w/ a fan on it)

Also what are your ram timings as I run 4x512mb (running at DDR554) and my timings are 2.5-3-4-10 2T (at 2.8V)

And what is with putting your text in grey?

 

[Sorin]

The memory controller on the Venice chips cannot run four sticks of RAM at DDR400 speed, and instead will run them at DDR333 speed.

I cannot find the words to appropriately express my thoughts on that, so I'll just do a crude summary and say

WTF!?

That's shocking. I would have expected something more like "it can't run 4 sticks at cas2" or "it can't run 4 sticks at 1T," but a chip like that in this day and age not being able to do something as trivial as running RAM at the full 400MHz? That's a complete shock. I would have expected this 2+ years ago, but not today. It's not like this is an A64 Duron or something.

I've heard this elsewhere too, so I guess that answers my question of whether to get 4 x 512MB or 2 x 1GB.

Is there any explanation (preferably official) as to why in the world this is the case? How about the X2 processors, can they do 4 x 512? (I'll probably just get 2 x 1GB anyways though).

 

[rseven]

The Venice is supposed to be able to run 4 sticks at 400MHz, but at 2t.It's the Winchester that is supposed to revert to 333MHZ. However, getting a good overclock with four sticks is difficult.

 

[kukyfrope]

Ahh thanks for the correction/addition on that rseven. Regardless, I do agree with Sorin--it should be able to do it you would think but

Can an Intel run 4x512 at 1T? Does Intel even HAVE 1T/2T options? **Never used Intel**

 

[Slack]

Wow... thanks for all the info and ideas guys.

You're right... I will give it a blast when I get back from holiday (and get my PSU back) and see if I can get my CPU faster.

My ram is OK, I will post the timings back here when I get home and have a look, but I know I had it running at 460mhz... or at least that's what logic and the N Tune / monitor thing said... that was stable too.

Again... thanks for posting and I'll reply back at the weekend with some more info, so if you would be cool enough to look in again next week

Cheers - Slack

 

[inkfx]

If you are still getting no luck with that Venice when you get your PSU back, I suspect the RAM. So before you go out and buy a new processor, maybe new RAM would be a better choice. Good luck with the OCing.

 

[rseven]

Wow... thanks for all the info and ideas guys.

You're right... I will give it a blast when I get back from holiday (and get my PSU back) and see if I can get my CPU faster.

My ram is OK, I will post the timings back here when I get home and have a look, but I know I had it running at 460mhz... or at least that's what logic and the N Tune / monitor thing said... that was stable too.

Again... thanks for posting and I'll reply back at the weekend with some more info, so if you would be cool enough to look in again next week

Cheers - Slack

BTW your posts are much easier to read in white! Thanks for changing it. Enjoy your holiday.

 

[brakezone]

I don't know if i'm right or wrong about this but I had thought the 1T 2T option is a setting for the amd 64's onboard memory controller.

As far as a venice running 4 sticks of ram at 400mhz, i'm running 4 sticks at 425mhz. I'm pretty sure the memory controller can do more so long that you use 2T.

at either 300X9 133 divider or 318X8.5 133 divider I can't get 1T to work with 2 sticks of ram under windows; however, it passes memtest86 and works perfectly under freebsd. On windows it bsod before it even boots up so definitely something strange there. Venice should be able to handle 4 sticks fine but if you want lots of ram I'd reccomend getting 2 1gb sticks instead of using 4 512.