Best AMD CPU for Gaming?

July 25, 2005 at 17:02:24
Specs: WinXP Pro SP2, AMD/2GB

I am building a new PC and must decide between 3 AMD CPUs:

1. Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego ($475)
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16819103529

2. Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Toledo ($615)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103542

3. Athlon 64 FX55 San Diego ($799)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103526

The X2 4400+ has the 2MB (2 x 1MB) L2 cache, but the cheaper 4000+ runs faster. To top it off, the most expensive FX55 is only 0.2GHz faster than the 4000+, but has the 1GHz FSB (although I'm not really sure what having an "integrated" FSB means).

All the reviews I've read for each CPU say that their chip is great, fast, etc., but none really say what the difference is between the 3 product lines. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? The PC will be used primarily for games, as well as the less intensive stuff (Internet, Word, etc.).

Thanks!




See More: Best AMD CPU for Gaming?

Report •


#1
July 25, 2005 at 17:20:48

A lot of people don't even pay that much for an entire system w/monitor. There is a CPU/GPU relationship but do you really "need" that much horsepower? What video card do you have or plan to get? How much system RAM? If it's 2GB like you have listed - "CPU/Ram: AMD/2GB", you could have saved yourself some cash & just gotten 1GB, then spent the extra on a high quality PSU (you're gonna need one). A decent A64 Venice core is 1/2 the price of the 4000+ San Diego & should be more than sufficient...by the time you outgrow it, you could either upgrade to one of the above (which will most likely me much cheaper), or there may even be totally new technology you'll wanna get into

ASUS A7N8X-X
Athlon XP 1800+
8.5 x 200MHz
1024MB PC3200 2.5-3-3-7
Asus A9550GE/TD 128MB
WinME/WinXP Pro SP1


Report •

#2
July 25, 2005 at 17:31:49

Thanks for the quick reply Jam.

Yes, I know it's a lot of dough, but since I recently came into a good amount of money, I figured I would finally go out and get the computer I always wanted :) However, the cheap b---tard that I've been for most of my life is still around, and wants to make sure I'm getting the best performance for the money. So I'm wondering if the 4000+ will yeild comparable results to, say, the X2 4400+.

I plan on getting one Nvidia 7800GTX for now, then a second in an SLI hook-up.

I agree on the RAM - I'll probably just get 1.0GB for now.

Does anyone out there know how big a difference these CPUs have? I mostly play HL2, Doom3, & Farcry.

Thanks!


Report •

#3
July 25, 2005 at 17:45:12

There are others out there that will be more than happy to help, but I can't in good conscious, recommend any of the CPUs listed above, or the 7800GTX video card for that matter...LOL! It's not about being cheap, it's about being practical. Good luck.


ASUS A7N8X-X
Athlon XP 1800+
8.5 x 200MHz
1024MB PC3200 2.5-3-3-7
Asus A9550GE/TD 128MB
WinME/WinXP Pro SP1


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
July 25, 2005 at 19:32:38

There is no possible way you are going to need a single processor and 2 GPU's that cost a fortune. Doom 3 may be a graphically intense game but it doesn't need that much power. You are gonna need one he** of a psu to power all that. Even ONE 7800 is overkill, so 2 is just plain stupid. What performance boost do you expect to get out of 2 overpowered GPUs (2 GPU does NOT by all means mean twice the power)? It is not worth more than 1 thousand dollars. You can quote me on this, you WILL regret this later. If nothing will phase you out of this, get the Athlon 4000+ There is hardly a noticeable difference between it and the other overpriced ones. You obviously are not an overclocker. The cheap b---tard with you is actually smart and would probably be able to get a pc as fast as yours for half the price. Also, if you really want to maximize performance get a 10k RPM hard drive, preferrably SCSI "scuzzy" drives since they are faster. They are not cheap but the Hard Drive is one of the biggest bottlenecks of system performance, it would be wiser to invest in one of those drives than what you want to spend your money on. You will have to do a bit of researching to get the stuff to use a SCSI drive but it will be worth it.


Report •

#5
July 25, 2005 at 19:48:26

Im in the market for an AMD for gaming as well, as you might have read in my thread below. A lot of the research has told me that there will be no benefit right now with a dual core (AMD X2) CPU, as few games, if any, support dual core or multi-threading architecture. Luckily, many AMD boards today support all three current AMD CHIPS (64, X2 & FX). So why not get a 64 for now, and upgrade in the future when they wil most definately be cheaper, and will have greater support?

That's what i'm going to be doing.


Report •

#6
July 25, 2005 at 19:50:43

BTW, this is just preliminary, but this is the mobo I'm looking at for my latest project.

CPU Socket Type - Socket 939
CPU Type - Athlon 64 FX/Athlon 64/Athlon X2


http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16813127206


Report •

#7
July 25, 2005 at 19:54:21

Sorry for the thread spam, but I just wanted to add that I will most likely be getting a 4000+ San Diego, or at the very least, a 3700+ San Diego.

Report •

#8
July 25, 2005 at 21:08:13

Thanks JB - I looked at the Fatal1ty (very impressive), too, but ultimately decided on the A8N-SLI Deluxe for this setup.

I've also reviewed some comparative data on the FX55 - That's one I'll go with for the games.


Report •

#9
July 26, 2005 at 08:37:00

*agrees with Jam*

If you don't know what your doing (and choosing something because its the most expensive/latest shows that) then you are going to be wasting alot of money.

Whatever you get, I'll be interested to see your FPS rates on HL2 - I bet my system (below) will compete with it.

AMD Athlon XP 1.8GHz
1GB RAM
120GB HDD SATA
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Nvidia nforce2 chipset w/ soundstorm
Pioneer DVD/RW
ABIT NF-7S Rev 2 Motherboard


Report •

#10
July 26, 2005 at 09:39:01

No need to be rude. You know, I come to computing.net and almost always post responses to other people to help them out - without being arrogant and judgemental. But I guess some people can't show the same courtesy.

It would have been a nice experiment, all this hardware, and I could have posted the results for everyone to see - for better or for worst. Too bad this is my last post. I'll take my $1.2 million (minus the hardware I decide to buy) and leave.


Report •

#11
July 26, 2005 at 10:04:00

It really does not matter if you had 1.2 billion dollars. Computers go obsolete faster than you can spend that money. By making wise decisions now, you can have more money to put in to a future computer. I hope you don't blow it, 1.2 million is a lot but it only goes as far as you let it.


Report •

#12
July 26, 2005 at 10:37:32

Jesus mate,you dont need no advice in making a new pc if you got that amount of money.

like you said your loaded so if anythings goes bang or fcuk you could easily buy another one or ten parts. so why not buy all three of them cpu and test it out ureself n have fun with it.

n wen you need to ask real advice come back...

have fun thou.. Mr millionare


Report •

#13
July 26, 2005 at 10:41:11

Someone with $1.2 million isn't gonna come to computing.net to ask how best to spend $3000 of it...LOL

ASUS A7N8X-X
Athlon XP 1800+
8.5 x 200MHz
1024MB PC3200 2.5-3-3-7
Asus A9550GE/TD 128MB
WinME/WinXP Pro SP1


Report •

#14
July 26, 2005 at 11:39:54

In case Joe Millionaire checks back, here's something from Tom's Hardware:

"Although it's true that the Athlon 64 FX-57 is a very fast processor, we also generally advise against it for the average user. The differences between a PC with a run-of-the-mill processor and one fitted with the top model are just too slight these days. Or, to put it another way: The sometimes drastic added costs for faster-clocked chips should only be contemplated if you can afford to part with the extra cash or if you really benefit from the added value. Don't forget to factor in the higher energy costs, either.

A fast graphics card is much more important for games these days than the very best processor money will buy. A faster hard disk can also make a difference, too."

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050725/athlon_64_fx-01.html


ASUS A7N8X-X
Athlon XP 1800+
8.5 x 200MHz
1024MB PC3200 2.5-3-3-7
Asus A9550GE/TD 128MB
WinME/WinXP Pro SP1


Report •

#15
July 26, 2005 at 14:35:54

I'd like to think that even if I had $1.2 million, I wouldn't spend that kind of money on a computer system...

I'd idiotically blow it on my home theater instead. :-)

"Republicans in Congress are moving to ratify a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, thus ending the Iraq insurgency."


Report •

#16
July 26, 2005 at 14:42:11

Hmmm this is a hard decision to spend my 1.2 million....a new computer or a Ferrari.....hmmmmmmmmm this IS tough....LOL!!

Report •

#17
July 26, 2005 at 14:43:40

OH! and while you're at it, get some friends, build about 16 gaming PCs and have your own LANParty 2005 at your house. lol...

Report •

#18
July 27, 2005 at 02:00:56

I'm thinking that money will last about a week.

What a waste...

AMD Athlon XP 1.8GHz
1GB RAM
120GB HDD SATA
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Nvidia nforce2 chipset w/ soundstorm
Pioneer DVD/RW
ABIT NF-7S Rev 2 Motherboard


Report •


Ask Question