As some of you guys know, I'm getting a new PC, and I have a few questions that are troubling me: 1. Is it worth it to get an Athlon 64. The PC I'm looking for is gaming used for gaming, since I'm a Gaming Toiletman. The Athlon 64 I'm talking about here is not the FX edition but the normal edition. I'm thinking this PC will last me for around 3 years or so. What I'm really worried about here is: Will a 64-Bit Windows OS give me any advantages/boost in frames per second, better graphics, and loading times. After all, if those 64-Bits are going to do nothing for me, why should I get them. 2. If I shouldn't get an Athlon 64, what processor should I get? Keep in mind I'm leaning more towards an AMD processor, because of OCing, but maybe I should get a P4 3.2 instead for gaming applications. I'm getting very mixed response from other forums. 3. From the "Dream PC" sticky at the top of this forum, I see Praetor hasn't mentioned any Kingston brand RAM. I haven't kept on the technology news for months, and when I stopped being "geeky" (in a good way of course) I thought Kingston was the best. I'm not going to OC my RAM unless it provides me with a huge and noticable speed boost. In other words, did Kingston become Rubbish? (I hear OCZ RAM is perfect for OCing, but will OCing RAM give me a good speed boost?) 4. I'm getting a X800. No arguing with me. I am solid on that decision. Thing is, I've checked from a local retailer, and they only have the Spahhire version, which I'm not too happy about, since it costs CAN$605. Do you know where I can get an orginial ATi brand X800? Note: Keep in mind that I'm a gaming person, and although I am a hardcore gamer, I don't play higher than 1024 x 786 in most of the latest games because frankly, I don't see a difference. Also I don't care about getting 300000 fps in a game. My eyes can't see past 60 fps, so why even bother. Oh and an interesting fact: The X800 in an Athlon FX-51 gets over 500+ fps in Quake III: Team Arena. That's fusking amazing.
Without reading the rest of your post -- probably and potentially probably not. The A64 line is there for three reasons (1) to put pressure on Intel (2) for people who actually NEED 64bit support and (3) the AthlonXP line was getting old, something new had to come up. Short of spending $10000 thats not happening. Obviously not. The strength of 64bit interfaces is that (1) you can run a lot more memory and (2) you can do 64bit calculations which normally required fancy ass hardware to do. So if you are just getting the A64 for kicks, I wouldnt reccomend it. You can prolly get a Barton of NorthwoodC for cheaper. You are getting mixed responses because guess what -- there is no right answer. Personally I would get the A64 because I have a use for 64bit calculations and stuff but if you just want a system to play games, sure the A64 is more than enough -- but do you really want to pay that kinda money for a system when you arent going to utilizing its greatest strength? I would either get a Barton or NorthwoodC. That's because, IMHO, Kingston is a midrange company making midrange products and marketing them as if they were top end chips -- dont get me wrong, their HyperX series are awesome -- but so is the price tag -- and not so, their reputation as a big-boy competitor. Kingstong was never really rubbish -- they just certaintly arent the #1 dog in town. Again, about the OCing, if you are (a) spending someone else's money (b) getting a system purely for the sake of bragging then sure go for the super premium memory -- but unless you intend to run benchmarks every day or do some serious xfers through memory (none of this video game crap but I mean serious shit) then go for it ... in most cases you will find however the benifits of a OCd memory (unless there is a significant OC) to be purely an on-paper advantage. As for OCZ, in the past some of the RAM has been shipped pre-OCd -- which is a bad thing because they market PC3200 but its really PC2700 that was OCd at the factory so you get it and expect to be able to OC starting from PC3200 but find out you are already OCd and yeah.... Ive seen it happen in only a few cases so it could just be a fluke. And why arent you happy with the Sapphire version? You are terribly mistaken if you think its gonna mean a 20fps drop somewhere. In most cases the difference between the Sapphire and the stock-ATi, like most of this crap is purely a on-paper difference and unnoticeable to most people in practise. Then why the blazes are you getting an X800 -- sure its a good card -- but the 98P will be fine. Then why the blazes are you getting a X800 -- bragging rights? Or mom-dad's money? Not really considering how antiquated the Q3 engine is ... gosh people on P2's can play that game hehe.
I think People just like the bragging rights for all of this stuff. If I ever got a 64 bit processor I would wait until the 64 bit programs are out, give the processor time to come down in price. Alot of this stuff that comes out it's expensive at first, and then later comes down in price, like anything else. Just like the X800 Video card, I'm sure an ATI 9800 pro would hold you over until the x800 comes down a hundred or two. Is their any game out now that the 9800pro wouldn't make a great gaming experience with any game? Hell alot of these Video cards that are less than the 9800 pro could play these games the way they were meant to be played. You don't gotta have the biggest badest processor to play these games either, like Praetor said it's overkill. You go out and buy a 64 Processor you won't benefit much from it, and buy the time you will need a 64 Processor there will be better more powerful faster versions of the current 64 Processor for alot cheaper. If you are into video games hardcore, Get a PS2 Or Xbox....Or even better when it comes out PS3
You have got to be crapping me... right? Again... you're kidding right? You honestly think that a console game -- designed for a 60Hz, 0.70dp screen is gonna outdo a computer? Like I mean consoels are good -- but there's a reason they dont cost $2500+ or something like that. Better, more powerful yes but cheaper probably not.
Sorry for being long winded:- 1. Is there any "noticable" difference between OCZ Premier Dual Channel and Enhanced Latency DualChannel? 1GB of Premier Dual Channel CL2.5 is cheaper than 1GB of Kingston DDR400 CL3. Which one do you recommend I should get? 2. Is the P4 Prescott better than the P4 HyperThreading in any way. You see, according to most website's benchmarks, the Athlon 64 is actually better for gaming applications than any P4 system that exists (apart from the EE thing, which I do not intend to buy). The shop which I'm getting it from has Athlon 64 3200+ 1MB L2 Cache with Heatsink and Fan for $399.99 It has the 3.2E Ghz Prescott 1 MB Cache for $395.00 That's a $4 dollar difference.... the HT version is just $5 less. Surely I should get the Athlon64... right?
No The cheaper one. Its a theoreticall (i.e, on-paper) more advanced processor although the heat it puts out puts most AMD chips to shame. Dude .... whether you geta NorthwoodC, A64, FX53, P4EE --- its all the same -- 'sides what are you gonna be doing? Enjoying the game and having a damn good time or are you gonna be getting into pissing contests with your 'buddies' who wanna dispute a 5fps difference. Read my above. I'd prolly go with the A64.
Thankyou for all your information guys (mainly Praetor actually =P ), I've decided to go for an Athlon 64!
