Check my upgrade please.

MiGSY · 16 Mar 2006 at 18:49

Ok, I've finally decided to upgrade from socket 754:

HIS Excalibur ATI Radeon X1900 XT-X - £323.07

Asus A8N-E nForce4 Ultra (Socket 939) - £70.44

AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Venice 90nm - £170.32

Crucial 2GB (2x1GB) DDR PC4000 Ballistix Dual Channel Kit - £176.19

Total: £742.02

Any changes that you would suggest to this selection of hardware? Especially performance wise for the same price or less.

Thanks in advance.

MiGSY · 16 Mar 2006 at 23:09

Thanks for the replies, much appreciated

Think I'll go with that spec Monstermunch, sounds good to me

MiGSY · 17 Mar 2006 at 18:54

I've just been looking into some reviews and benchmarks for the AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+.

I use my machine primarily for gaming, and it appears that the AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Venice outperforms the dual core version on every single gaming benchmark performed. I'm not too bothered about multi-tasking performance to be honest. Think I'd be better off going for the AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Venice over AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+....

MiGSY · 17 Mar 2006 at 20:40

bustburr said:
MiGSY

How do you get your BF2 stats as a signature at the bottom of your post??

Register at http://www.bf2tracker.com

From the User CP create a custom signature. You can't use the pre-made signature since it's over the 400x75 size limit for these forums.

And next time email me about such matters instead of taking the thread off-topic.

MiGSY · 17 Mar 2006 at 21:55

I've gone with the single core processor. I'll probably be upgrading at the end of the year anyway.

According to Quake 4(With the dual core patch) benchmarks by firingsquad.com when running at high resolutions(1600x1200+) with high levels of AA and AF the difference between the single core and dual core processor is a matter of a single FPS.

At low resolutions with little/no AA and AF the difference is huge, but I won't be running games at these settings.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_performance/page4.asp