faust
New Member
It so happens that I am in the market for a new PC (my old one will likely have to be relagated to webserver/fileserver because the AGP slot is fried). So I did a bit of research, and at the end of the day I kept coming back to Velocity Micro because they seemed to have the best story on price/performance. I also don't trust Compaq/HP when it comes to PCs, I have been quite dissappointed with their choice of non-standard hardware components in the past, and current reviews (which demonstrating that they have improved their hardware) show that they don't seem to build machines that get the most out of the hardware they put in. Go figure. Dell flat out doesn't offer AMD processors, and the bottom line is AMD is the best by far right now for $$/performance (though I have bought primarily Dell computers over the past 4 or so years and have been happy with them).
So I am debating between the AMD 64 4000+ or the AMD X2 4200+ as they are around the same price. For single tasks, like running a game the 4000+ is a better choice, but when multitasking the X2 4200+ is the better choice by far. My basis for comparison is Tom's Hardware Guide: CPU Benchmark. I compared the performance when running several games, vs the performance under the two multitasking benchmarks. So what are you thoughts? Which would you get? The X2 costs $60 more on the system I am pricing out at Velocity Micro, so money isn't the big issue here.
I am inclined to say that the X2 is the better choice overall, because while it does perform not as well on single tasks like a game, if it performs well enough for just about any game I want to play now. In the future, with the number of multicore processors on the market now (and also a number with hyperthreading), it would not surprise me if games start getting crafted to take advantage of the extra core, if that turns out to be the case, then the X2 would be a much better choice. As you know I tend to run voice programs while playing games, so I wonder if that would be enough of a load to make the X2 at least equal, if not better, performance wise. Any thoughts/experience?
I am also wondering if the quality of the GPU really plays a bigger role w/ games anyway. I am thinking of getting a single 7900GT, as it seems to be able to run games really well, even at 1600x1200 (like I typically run games). It is my understanding that I could pickup a second 7900GT later if I needed extra horsepower. I am open to ideas here as well, should I save $120 and just go for a 7600GT? Not really eager to go for dual 7x00GT's just yet (would rather wait until I find that I need more HP, since I am happy running around 20-30 fps in my games). It also seems like from the benchmarks that dual 7600GT's aren't a ton better than a single 7900GT, especially when considering the difference in $$: CNet Comparison. I understand that ATI's cards allow for anti-aliasing and dynamic lighting at the same time, but to be honest, I typically don't bother turning anti-aliasing on, since I tend to run games at 1600x1200, where the AA effects aren't as noticable (or perhaps I'm blind
).
So I am debating between the AMD 64 4000+ or the AMD X2 4200+ as they are around the same price. For single tasks, like running a game the 4000+ is a better choice, but when multitasking the X2 4200+ is the better choice by far. My basis for comparison is Tom's Hardware Guide: CPU Benchmark. I compared the performance when running several games, vs the performance under the two multitasking benchmarks. So what are you thoughts? Which would you get? The X2 costs $60 more on the system I am pricing out at Velocity Micro, so money isn't the big issue here.
I am inclined to say that the X2 is the better choice overall, because while it does perform not as well on single tasks like a game, if it performs well enough for just about any game I want to play now. In the future, with the number of multicore processors on the market now (and also a number with hyperthreading), it would not surprise me if games start getting crafted to take advantage of the extra core, if that turns out to be the case, then the X2 would be a much better choice. As you know I tend to run voice programs while playing games, so I wonder if that would be enough of a load to make the X2 at least equal, if not better, performance wise. Any thoughts/experience?
I am also wondering if the quality of the GPU really plays a bigger role w/ games anyway. I am thinking of getting a single 7900GT, as it seems to be able to run games really well, even at 1600x1200 (like I typically run games). It is my understanding that I could pickup a second 7900GT later if I needed extra horsepower. I am open to ideas here as well, should I save $120 and just go for a 7600GT? Not really eager to go for dual 7x00GT's just yet (would rather wait until I find that I need more HP, since I am happy running around 20-30 fps in my games). It also seems like from the benchmarks that dual 7600GT's aren't a ton better than a single 7900GT, especially when considering the difference in $$: CNet Comparison. I understand that ATI's cards allow for anti-aliasing and dynamic lighting at the same time, but to be honest, I typically don't bother turning anti-aliasing on, since I tend to run games at 1600x1200, where the AA effects aren't as noticable (or perhaps I'm blind
).
I build all my own, I won't buy a brand name due to the issues you have raised. Build your own if you have the experience and if you don't, buy brand.