See, this is what I’m talking about. I don’t understand Athlon nomenclature. 939 is a higher number than 754. Why is 754 better?! Hell, I’m not even sure what a “socket” is! Are we simply talking about the physical number of pins on the chip? Please explain this to me using really small words.
Also, could someone discuss 32bit vs. 64 bit applications? A friend told me that running 32bit apps (as most currently are) on a 64bit system will result in a loss of speed. True?
The socket number is just a code name for a specific architecture. It doesn’t quantify anything. It’s just a name.
As for 32 bit vs. 64 bit, Windows is a 32 bit operating system. So if you run Windows you won’t be able to take advantage of the 64 bit performance of the CPU. However, the Athlon 64 also has better 32 bit performance than any other processor, so you will only see a loss of speed relative to running 64 bit applications, which currently isn’t an option.
I don’t think that video card is very good. If you want to run games, the video card should be a higher priority than your CPU. Don’t get less than a Geforce 6600 or the ATI equivalent (I run linux as well, so I always buy NVidia and thus don’t know the ATI numbering). A 2 GHz pentium with a very good video card will run games significantly better than a 3 GHz pentium with a mediocre one.
The number refers to the physical number of pins on the bottom of the chip - the 939 motherboards need an Athlon 64 with 939 pins on the bottom. The reason why AMD has two different types is that the 939 pin boards support dual-channel memory, which adds a small bit of performance, though it really isn’t that big of a deal.
$130 is seriously overpriced for a budget card like the 9250 - at Newegg
you can pick up the same card for $50 or so. Even with overnight shipping, you would save quite a bit of money.
I went over to HP and configured one of the a750e Athlon 64 machines with the following:
Total Cost: $749.99
Add in a good video card like the Geforce 6600GT and you will have a very good gaming machine.
The Radeon 9800 Pro is a good card, though I would go with the Geforce 6600GT AGP right now. It should work in any computer that has an AGP slot & a reasonably good power supply. (Note, this is one of the reason I don’t like large OEM computers- they ALL cheap out and us crappy power supplies.)
Anyways, the only way to tell the performance of a video card is by looking a various benchmarks.
The Tech Report is a nice place to start, lots of review, and they do a lot to make sure they get good numbers.
Seems overpriced to me. You could have Monarch Computer assemble a near identical system (Athlon 64 3400, better mobo, same size HD, Geforce 6800GT video card ect) for less than $1600.
The Athlon 64 3400+ actually runs at 2.4ghz. However, Athlon 64 processors are clock for clock much faster than Intel Pentium 4s. Thus, AMD uses an arcane formula to come up with model numbers, that on average match up to a Pentium 4 running at that speed. Usually, the Athlon 64’s (when comparing model number to Intel ghz) win gaming & certain scientific test, and lose in 3d rendering & media encoding. In gaming, that Athlon 64 3400 will outrun Intel’s 3.6ghz processors without much trouble.
While the x800 XT is argueablly the fastest video card around, the performance gain isn’t worth the extra $100. Personally, I would go with the Geforce 6800GT if you have lots of cash to spend; it cost the same as the x800 Pro, and generally edges it out in most benchmarks.
Sounds good, though I would go with the cheap integrated graphics (saving $120) and use that cash to buy this Radeon 9600 Pro 256 MB separtly. The Radeon 9600 Pro will be quite a bit faster than the Geforce 5500.