Better bang for buck - X2 3800+ or Raptor 150gig?

Associate
Joined
19 Feb 2006
Posts
157
Location
Surrey
I would be grateful for some advice here - I mainly use my computer for Battlefield 2 plus some video encoding and general web surfing. Currently I've got:

Opteron 146 oc to 2.95ghz on air.
DFI nf4 lanparty
2gb ram
x1900xtx
WD Caviar 200gig PATA hard drive

I quite fancy getting a dual core cpu to try and overclock. I can only afford a x2 3800+ though, which in all probability won't clock to the same level as the opteron (unless I get really lucky). Therefore, would changing the opteron for a lower clocked dual core cpu make much difference to gaming speed and general windows usage, or would I be better off going for a 150gig Raptor hard drive which should improve the boot time and loading times?

Cheers.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
15 Jan 2006
Posts
32,369
Location
Tosche Station
BF2 HATES dual cores. You'll have to set the affinity to one core when you run it, hence wasting one core entirely. TH a single core 2.95ghz chip should be enough for anything nowadays, if you can stand the noise then go for a raptor.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Nov 2002
Posts
1,851
Location
Birmingham
Definatly go the 3800+.. if BF2 has issues then it'll be a small hassle to resolve when you run it. But the benefits for videa encoding etc. will be big ( heck you'll be able to encode AND play BF2.

the Raptor will give you NO benefit other than noise of any value.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2005
Posts
4,297
BigDom said:
Definatly go the 3800+.. if BF2 has issues then it'll be a small hassle to resolve when you run it. But the benefits for videa encoding etc. will be big ( heck you'll be able to encode AND play BF2.

the Raptor will give you NO benefit other than noise of any value.

would have to agree with this bit of advice.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
15 Jan 2006
Posts
32,369
Location
Tosche Station
BigDom said:
Definatly go the 3800+.. if BF2 has issues then it'll be a small hassle to resolve when you run it. But the benefits for videa encoding etc. will be big ( heck you'll be able to encode AND play BF2.

the Raptor will give you NO benefit other than noise of any value.

This advice is ENTIRELY based on the fact that you want to encode video etc etc. If you don't need to do stuff like this and simply want to increase your BF2 performance there is absolutely no reason to go dual core.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Nov 2002
Posts
1,851
Location
Birmingham
Zefan said:
This advice is ENTIRELY based on the fact that you want to encode video etc etc. If you don't need to do stuff like this and simply want to increase your BF2 performance there is absolutely no reason to go dual core.

Well out of the two options it's the only option that gives any WORTHWHILE boost to anything he does.

Slightly reduced loading times on games (which implies that you put the game on your boot drive O.o ) is hardly something that is a benefit unless your very impatient. Not to mention his spec should be lapping up BF2 with no issues what so ever. Therefore IF he wants to upgrade going for a Dual core is the best option.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Dec 2004
Posts
3,871
BigDom said:
Well out of the two options it's the only option that gives any WORTHWHILE boost to anything he does.

Quoted for truth.

You say the pc will be used for video encoding and for gaming, well not many games will be able to use the dual core system to gain any amazing burst of speed, many have to be set to run on one core, the hdd will decrease your load times but isnt really good value in my opinion.

If anything get the cpu because it will give you an increase in performance for some of the things you do (IE video encoding) If I were you thought, I would consider just how much video encoding gets done, and on the basis of that decide whether to buy now, or to wait a bit longer.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
19 Feb 2006
Posts
157
Location
Surrey
Thanks for the replies. Reason for upgrading is that I have a bit of spare cash this month. Also I find overclocking fun (adjusting voltages, tweaking the mem latencies etc, etc), so I'm more inclined to go for the cpu.

Or I could save more and wait for Conroe. The last Intel cpu I bought was a Pentium 3 1ghz Coppermine. Since then AMD cpu's have generally offered better performance at a better price. However, everyone seems to be hyping Conroe up at the moment as the next big thing. Do you think it is worth waiting?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
15 Jan 2006
Posts
32,369
Location
Tosche Station
It is worth waiting to see what really happens, don't pin all hopes on Conroe as it is highly possible that it's not going to live up to it's hype. If your system is fine for now just pocket the cash and wait out :)
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Dec 2004
Posts
3,871
mea98rm said:
Or I could save more and wait for Conroe. The last Intel cpu I bought was a Pentium 3 1ghz Coppermine. Since then AMD cpu's have generally offered better performance at a better price. However, everyone seems to be hyping Conroe up at the moment as the next big thing. Do you think it is worth waiting?

Its just the way it is with hardware at the moment, whenever you come to buy something major, theres always something else in the pipeline that could could wait for.

You need to consider your use for it, whether you need the latest stuff, and whether or not you can afford it.

Its also worth remebering that when conroe comes out, certain other products will drop in value, I cant see that applying to the cpu that you were considering though.
 
Back
Top Bottom