I have a 3.0 Ghz P4 (800 mhz FSB) w/ a p4p800 mobo.

When I upgrade, I want to notice some differences in performance such as in 3D gaming.

Any suggestions? AMD64 3400+ seems very appealing as well as the 3200+. I'm on a semi-tight budget meaning I don't want to be blowing $500 for a CPU alone.



Cheers,

Bryan

 

May very well want to consider purchasing a new video card instead of a CPU (this would be determined by what video card you currently have installed)

 

I'm actually running a 9800 Pro 128 meg.

 

well, the only CPU family that will add any real performance from a 3Ghz P4C is the Athlon64. The newer P4Es, the Prescott core with 1MB are slower, clock for clock, than the 512K P4C Northwood core you have now. The reason? The E model has a 31 stage pipeline vs 21 on yours. Basically, when you increase the number of stages, each does less work and thus you can clock the CPU higher. The problem with long pipelines is when the scheduling unit makes a misprediction, the whole pipeline is flushed and must be reloaded from the L2 cache. This slows down the CPU considerably, especially in the case of the Celeron, which had only 128K in the 21 stage core, now 256K in the 31 stage core. While the 1MB of cache in the E model sounds impressive, it NEEDS that much in order to get decent performance because when the pipeline is flushed, more data must be reloaded.

As a comparison, the Athlon64 has a 12 stage pipeline. This is the reason they don't clock as high (it is not any kind of problem with AMD as many newbs think). The Athlon64 also has an integrated memory controller, unlike the P4 which has its controller in the chipset. This cuts latency considerably. Since the memory controller is onboard, the "front side bus" runs at full CPU speed. Also, the Hypertransport bus linking the cpu to the chipset (the front side bus in the P4, at 200Mhz quad pumped) runs at 800Mhz, but can transfer data both ways at once, vs one way in the P4. The first Athlon64s had a 1MB cache, but now most are 512K (they also have 128K of L1 cache which is mutually exlusive UNLIKE THE P4). Surprisingly, since the A64 has a 12stage pipeline and the integrated memory controller, there is hardly a performance difference from having less cache (if you cut the P4Es cache, it would lose TONS of performance).

The first Athlon64s used socket754, which allows a 64bit memory bus. The newer ones use a 128bit memory bus on socket939, allowing double the bandwidth. Surprisingly, with the A64s architectural advantages, there is not much perormance difference between the two. You would do just fine getting a s754 based system, but a s939 system will give you a little more upgradability later on. I recommend the Athlon64 3500+. It'll cost a little more than a s754 3400+ but I think it's a good idea if you can spare the extra money. Both sockets give better performance than the P4, so a 754 based system is fine.

For a budget system, I'd go for a 3200+. There are 2 versions, one at 2.2Ghz with 512K and one at 2.0Ghz with 1024K L2 cache. The 2.2Ghz one is usually faster, and is about $5 cheaper. For a motherboard, I recommend one with the Nforce3 250Gb chipset. It is the newest A64 chipset out there and offers some good performance advantages like Gigabit Ethernet and RAID built into the chipset.

I wholly recommend newegg.com for a store.

 

but if youd like to spend some more money, get a water cooled system because Athlons run hot as hell and the usual heatsinks designed for them are extremely loud and produce just as much heat. If you arent willing to get a water cooled system, Thermaltake heatsinks are the best.

 

good read on building your own pc and what parts to use. it's come in helpful on many occassions for me:

under $2500 system:
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/MHGSBG...cle.php/3373781

under $1000 system:
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/MVGSBG...cle.php/3394901

 

First off, you're looking at 3D performance so a CPU will not net you the gain you're looking for.


Let's look at Doom 3 since it's the most demanding game available at the moment. You're looking to run it at higher resolution. No one runs a 3D game at 800x600 or lower unless their graphics card can't handle it. At 1280x1024, the difference between a 2.4GHZ P4 and a 3.2GHZ is less than 10FPS, or around 13%. ~60 vs ~70 FPS. The place where a CPU will make a bigger difference is at the lower resolutions.

Your Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB is outdated.

At 1600x1200 on high quality, a 9800XT (faster than your 9800 Pro) will do 21.8 FPS which is barely playable. Also, on an Athlon FX-53 overclocked system. It'll run even slower on a P4. Compare that to an identical system equipped with an NVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra, which will do 75 FPS. That's about 400%. An ATI X800 XT will do about 52 FPS.

So.... how about changing your mind about the CPU upgrade for 3D performance.

My sources:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=2
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2146&p=3

 

That's a misconception amongst AMD vs. Intel discussions. Athlon 64s run cooler than highly clocked P4s. The new .09 micron process A64 is rumored to dissipate ~31 watts, while .09 P4s dissipate ~100 watts.

 

But if I upgrade my video card, and with PCI Express around the corner, won't my new video card become outdated as well?

 

Daniel L, oops im more talking about the between the P's and AMD XP's (not 64's).

OKay, about the radeon 9800 card, you ARE ABSOLUTELY FINE TO RUN DOOM 3. My bro has a 9800 pro and runs it fine at 1024 (why even need to run at 1600? thats just stupid cause you cant see a whole big diff) Also, there are problems with the drivers of ATI and Doom3 cause ID Software worked exclusively with Nvidia, which of course the Nvidia cards would run better. THere are custom shaders out there that people have made and gain an increase of 10-15 FPS easy with their ATi cards. No need to upgrade the card, just the CPU.