1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by mea98rm, 28 May 2006.

  1. mea98rm

    Gangster

    Joined: 19 Feb 2006

    Posts: 160

    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.
     
  2. Zefan

    Don

    Joined: 15 Jan 2006

    Posts: 30,320

    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.
     
  3. BigDom

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 30 Nov 2002

    Posts: 1,852

    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.
     
  4. ACESHIGH

    Mobster

    Joined: 17 Aug 2005

    Posts: 4,305

    would have to agree with this bit of advice.
     
  5. AnastieByte

    Hitman

    Joined: 7 Mar 2005

    Posts: 913

    Location: Northumberland

    I play BF2 a lot and I got a 150GB Raptor and increased my RAM from 1GB to 2GB. The load time for games was significantly reduced.
     
  6. Zefan

    Don

    Joined: 15 Jan 2006

    Posts: 30,320

    Location: Tosche Station

    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.
     
  7. BigDom

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 30 Nov 2002

    Posts: 1,852

    Location: Birmingham

    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.
     
  8. Zefan

    Don

    Joined: 15 Jan 2006

    Posts: 30,320

    Location: Tosche Station

    Okay, just ignore me then :)
     
  9. Nazbit

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Dec 2004

    Posts: 3,864

    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.
     
  10. mea98rm

    Gangster

    Joined: 19 Feb 2006

    Posts: 160

    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?
     
  11. Zefan

    Don

    Joined: 15 Jan 2006

    Posts: 30,320

    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 :)
     
  12. Nazbit

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Dec 2004

    Posts: 3,864

    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.