• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
cjwilson

Is it worth it?

8 posts in this topic

Is the bang worth the buck? I have a older 939 socket AMD64 3400+ 2gigs Ram(I think its maxed...I get little to no stutters) and a Radeon 1650 512mb.

I cant afford a complete rebuild right now, which would require a new mobo, new CPU and ram.

Im in no rush to even get to a multi-core since WWIIOnline doesnt utilize it...plus my mobo cant handle the AM2s and other multi-cores. So Im looking to get my hands on the few and hard to get single core AMD64 4000+ CPUs.

Its like $200...maybe a tad bit more for an approximatly 17% increase in processing power if I can trust the designation.

Is the increase in performance worth the costs? I might be able to build a new gaming system from the ground up this time next year, but the 4000+ is the best single core I can get for my mobo.

Hmmm...I take that back...it looks like it can handle a dual core...but will a dual core be worth it or better than the single core 4000+?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I ran a Opteron 146(same core as the 4000+) at 3100MHz for a long time which had the 1MB L2 cache and it performed quite well. The 1MB L2 cache on the San Diego basically was equal to 200MHz higher performance vs the 512KB L2 Winchester and Venice core chips at the same clock speed.

If you can't locate a used 1MB 939 chip for under $50 USD I would say it's a total waste of money to *upgrade* to a faster chip. The ones you want to find are the 3700/4000+ or the Opteron 146/148/152(there may be others, I don't recall more) which in all honesty, should be easy to source for very little money.

Really the only thing that dictates what to get is what CPU's your motherboard has microcode for.

The 512KB dual core X2's aren't all the bad either, some of the later ones overclock quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I ran a Opteron 146(same core as the 4000+) at 3100MHz for a long time which had the 1MB L2 cache and it performed quite well. The 1MB L2 cache on the San Diego basically was equal to 200MHz higher performance vs the 512KB L2 Winchester and Venice core chips at the same clock speed.

If you can't locate a used 1MB 939 chip for under $50 USD I would say it's a total waste of money to *upgrade* to a faster chip. The ones you want to find are the 3700/4000+ or the Opteron 146/148/152(there may be others, I don't recall more) which in all honesty, should be easy to source for very little money.

Really the only thing that dictates what to get is what CPU's your motherboard has microcode for.

The 512KB dual core X2's aren't all the bad either, some of the later ones overclock quite well.

Supposedly this is what I can handle.

Opteron Daul-Core (90nm, L2 Cache 2 x 1MB)

AMD Opteron 165 (E6 version) 200 9 OK

AMD Opteron 170 (E6 version) 200 10 UNDER TESTING

AMD Opteron 175 (E6 version) 200 11 OK

AMD Opteron 180 (E6 version) 200 12 UNDER TESTING

Opteron Single-Core (90nm, L2 Cache 1MB)

AMD Opteron 144 (E4 version) 200 9 UNDER TESTING

AMD Opteron 146 (E4 version) 200 10 OK

AMD Opteron 148 (E4 version) 200 11 OK

AMD Opteron 150 (E4 version) 200 12 OK

AMD Opteron 154 (E4 version) 200 14 OK

Athlon 64 FX Dual-Core (Toledo, 90nm, L2 Cache 2 x 1MB)

Athlon 64 FX60 (E6 version) 200 13 OK

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core (Toledo, 90nm, L2 Cache 2 x 1MB)

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4400+ (E6 version) 200 11 OK

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4800+ (E6 version) 200 12 OK

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core (Manchester, 90nm, L2 Cache 2 x 512KB)

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 3800+ (E6 version) 200 10 OK

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4200+ (E6 version) 200 11 OK

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4600+ (E6 version) 200 12 OK

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core (Manchester, 90nm, L2 Cache 2 x 512KB)

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 3800+ (E4 version) 200 10 OK

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4200+ (E4 version) 200 11 OK

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4600+ (E4 version) 200 12 OK

Athlon 64 FX (San Diego, 90nm, L2 Cache 1MB)

Athlon 64 FX-55 (E4 version) 200 13 OK

Athlon 64 FX-57 (E4 version) 200 14 OK

Athlon 64 FX (ClawHammer, 130nm, L2 Cache 1MB)

Athlon 64 FX53 (CG version) 200 12 OK

Athlon 64 FX55 (CG version) 200 13 OK

Athlon 64 (Toledo, 90nm, L2 Cache 1MB)

Athlon 64 3700+ (E6 version) 200 11 OK

Athlon 64 4000+ (E6 version) 200 12 OK

Athlon 64 (San Diego, 90nm, L2 Cache 1MB)

Athlon 64 3700+ (E4 version) 200 11 OK

Athlon 64 4000+ (E4 version) 200 12 OK

Athlon 64 (Venice, 90nm, L2 Cache 512KB)

Athlon 64 3000+ (E6 version) 200 9 OK

Athlon 64 3200+ (E6 version) 200 10 OK

Athlon 64 3400+ (E6 version) 200 11 OK (<--------I might have this one)

Athlon 64 3500+ (E6 version) 200 11 OK

Athlon 64 3800+ (E6 version) 200 12 OK

Athlon 64 (Manchester, 90nm, L2 Cache 512KB)

Athlon 64 3200+ (E4 version) 200 10 OK

Athlon 64 3500+ (E4 version) 200 11 OK

Athlon 64 (Venice, 90nm, L2 Cache 512KB)

Athlon 64 3000+ (E3 version) 200 9 OK

Athlon 64 3200+ (E3 version) 200 10 OK

Athlon 64 3500+ (E3 version) 200 11 OK

Athlon 64 3800+ (E3 version) 200 12 OK

Athlon 64 (Winchester, 90nm, L2 Cache 512KB)

Athlon 64 3000+ (D0 version) 200 9 OK

Athlon 64 3200+ (D0 version) 200 10 OK

Athlon 64 3500+ (D0 version) 200 11 OK

Athlon 64 (Newcastle, 130nm, L2 Cache 512KB)

Athlon 64 3000+ (CG version) 200 9 OK

Athlon 64 3200+ (CG version) 200 10 OK

Athlon 64 3400+ (CG version, Hypertransport) 200 11 OK (<------I might have this one)

Athlon 64 3500+ (CG version) 200 11 OK

Athlon 64 3800+ (CG version) 200 12 OK

Athlon 64 (ClawHammer, 130nm, L2 Cache 1MB)

Athlon 64 4000+ (CG version) 200 12 OK

Athlon 64 (ClawHammer, 130nm, L2 Cache 512KB)

Athlon 64 3500+ (CG version) 200 11 OK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These would be the ones to look for:

AMD Opteron 148 (E4 version) 200 11 OK 2200MHz

AMD Opteron 150 (E4 version) 200 12 OK 2400MHz

AMD Opteron 154 (E4 version) 200 14 OK 2800MHz

Athlon 64 FX-55 (E4 version) 200 13 OK 2600MHz

Athlon 64 FX-57 (E4 version) 200 14 OK 2800MHz

Athlon 64 3700+ (E4 version) 200 11 OK 2200MHz

Athlon 64 4000+ (E4 version) 200 12 OK 2400MHz

Or if you want dualcore:

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core (Toledo, 90nm, L2 Cache 2 x 1MB)

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4400+ (E6 version) 200 11 OK 2200MHz

Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4800+ (E6 version) 200 12 OK 2400MHz

The Opteron 154 or the FX-57 would be my choice if you could find one sub $75 or so. There really shouldn't be much demand for those nowadays.

LOL kinda makes me want to bust out the old Opty 146 and do some benching. Highest I ever got it was 3250 or so. I think the motherboard FSB was stopping it there. I actually held the 6600gt singlecard record for quite some time with that system in 3dmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the bang worth the buck? I have a older 939 socket AMD64 3400+ 2gigs Ram(I think its maxed...I get little to no stutters) and a Radeon 1650 512mb.

I cant afford a complete rebuild right now, which would require a new mobo, new CPU and ram.

Im in no rush to even get to a multi-core since WWIIOnline doesnt utilize it...plus my mobo cant handle the AM2s and other multi-cores. So Im looking to get my hands on the few and hard to get single core AMD64 4000+ CPUs.

Its like $200...maybe a tad bit more for an approximatly 17% increase in processing power if I can trust the designation.

Is the increase in performance worth the costs? I might be able to build a new gaming system from the ground up this time next year, but the 4000+ is the best single core I can get for my mobo.

Hmmm...I take that back...it looks like it can handle a dual core...but will a dual core be worth it or better than the single core 4000+?

200$ would get you a dual core 4400+ and a socket AM2 board.

dual core is lol better then single cores. Although most games dont use both cores you can set other applications like windows stuff and fraps to only run on the 2nd core freeing up cycles for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200$ would get you a dual core 4400+ and a socket AM2 board.

dual core is lol better then single cores. Although most games dont use both cores you can set other applications like windows stuff and fraps to only run on the 2nd core freeing up cycles for the game.

Hmmm...yeah, fraps or Growler.

I started looking into the X2 4600+ its dual xcore for my 939 socket. Im thinking I'll try that..but i'll check out the Opties too.

*edit*

Ooo...the Opties arent that bad...good prices

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a amd4000+ san diego that is just laying around. Ill get rid of it you really want it.

I might consider it...but it looks like I can get something more powerful now at a half way descent price...how much would you be willing to let it go for?

you can PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.