What CPU & GPU would you pick?

[MG42Maniac]

Hi,
I'm having some trouble finalising the spec for my PC i'm buying in a few weeks.
Current Spec is this:
AMD64 3000+
Foxconn NF4
1GB PC3200
X800XL PCI-E
74GB Raptor
120GB WD SATA
Audigy 2 ZS
Sony DVD-RW

This is being sold to a mate and all i'm keeping is both HDD's so I don't need to buy any.

I'm looking to upgrade it too one of the following rigs. Thing is I can't really decide between them as they all have their pros and cons. For example do I go dual core or not? I'm thinking it might be handy in the next 9 months as thats how long this PC has to last doing high end gaming before its replaced. I play all my games at 1280 x 1024 with atleast 4xaa and 8xaf so I need a fast graphics card that can handle games like F.E.A.R , COD2 and UT2007 maxed out at a decent frame rate.

I'm pretty much set on the DFI lanparty UT NF4 as its a good solid Motherboard. PSU wise i'd like to get the Akasa Paxpower 460w as i've had very good experiences with them in the past. RAM wise i'm thinking 2GB G-Skill Cas 2 PC3200, DVD-RW is a sony one as they are all pretty much the same, soundcard is the X-fi and the case is a Thermaltake Soprano.

But the main reason for this thread is the decision on perhaps the two most important parts the CPU & GPU. I've come up with the following combinations that fit my budget some are much cheaper than others but offer less performance. There are plenty more combinations that can be made but these are the ones that catch my eye. I don't want a 7800GTX as these can be beaten by the cheaper X1800XT and I don't want a 7800GTX 512MB when they can be beaten by the cheaper X1900XT. I much prefer AMD to intel and ATI to NVIDIA.

The combinations:

AMD64 3700+
ATI X1900XTX 512MB

or

AMD64 4000+
ATI X1900XT 512MB

or

AMD64 3700+
ATI X1800XT 512MB

or

AMD64 X2 4400+
ATI X1800XT 512MB

and finally
AMD64 X2 4200+
ATI X1900XT 512MB

So its either a more powerful CPU or GPU. I don't really multi task as such but I hear that Windows is much more responsive with a dual core and this sounds particularly good. I'm currently leaning towards the AMD64 X2 4200+ & X1900XT 512MB as its got a fast CPU and a very fast GPU so its nicely balanced.

What I don't really like to do is pay an extra £80 just to get a few seconds off encoding time or a few more FPS but i'm happy to pay if it will future proof me abit more for the 9 months it will be in service.

If someone could give me some pointers on what to get that would be awesome as I don't want to 'throw' money away on performance I will never use.

Cheers

- MG42Maniac

[Aristotle13]

I'm running the first package you have listed.

3700 w/ 1900xt and it's awesome.

If you have the coin, get the 4000 w/1900xt.

w the 3700 / 1900xt combo I can play COD2, FEAR and FarCry and all the highest settings and get an average of 60+ fps and get a pretty decent 3dMark06 score. As long as you get the 1900 w/ 2 gigs of ram you'll be okay. 3700 w/ 1mb L2 will be just fine.

If anyone tells you you'll "need" the dual core because your going to be doing other things like "multitasking", I beleive is untrue.
I spend 8-12 hours of coding and writing scripts all day on an enterprise level application munipulating GUI's and databases, and my 3700 does just fine. And I'm working on an enterprise application with multiple clients and Oracle databases up doing multiple build back ups a day. So you can say I'm in the upper echelon of multi tasking users and I say my rig is just fine.

So if you want a practical rig that'll get you gaming all the newest games on the highest settings, you can't go wrong with the 3700 w/1900. But if you want braging rights and a cool sig, go with the most expensive rig. Don't beleive because you do some "coding" or "multitasking" once in a while that it'll justify the dual proc. Much more has been done with less from actuall IT professional perspective for the last 7 years I've been with my company.

[MG42Maniac]

Hi,

Thanks for the fast response. Its not the ability to multi task thats got me leaning towards dual core its the fact it is the future and the thought of a more responsive windows sounds great.

[Aristotle13]

Yeah, I see what your saying.

But for the lifecycle you have outlined for it I don't think it'll make that big of a difference. Just run a proc that'll run the most important part of what your setting it up for... gaming, so it'll be a VGU.

I don't know if I'd suggest spending that much on a machine for 9 months, but again, that's your money. I beleive your thought on the lifecycle has to do with all of the new tech around the corner, like AM2, DX10 and Vista. Which is good. Get the cheapest rig you can get to run all the latest games on high settings and save your coin for the new rig in 9 months that WILL be more future proof and hopefully last you longer than 9 months.

Good luck!

[MG42Maniac]

Hi,

You pretty much hit the nail on the head with regards to the PC's life cycle I don't like to keep adding bits of new tech in with old tech I prefer just to do a whole system upgrade hence why its only lasting me till Vista is out and possibly abit longer so Vista can mature. I looked at the previews of the AM2 and I'm not really impressed just yet and I think S939 is totally fine. DX10 only interests me as much as new eye candy and when decent DX10 games come out with noticable improvments in IQ over DX9 cards then I will jump on the Vista bandwagon.

[General Rommel]

If your looking for the future, get a 512 mb card. If you just wanna play todays games with no problem, get a 256. 512 is over doing it.

[Rookie]

If you want the best bang-for-buck, go for the 3700+ with the X1900XTX. There's no sense in getting a dual-core if you're not going to multi-task, and seeing as you need Windows x64 to get the best out of dual-core CPUs, it would actually be more expensive in the long run.

The 3700+ is ideal since it has 1mb cache, as opposed to the 3800+, and boasts great potential for overclocking. The 4000+ is better, there's no doubt about that, but it's also significantly more expensive. The 3700+ might also help lessen the dent that X1900XTX is going to make in your wallet.

[Aristotle13]

Well, there both DX9 cards, wether it's 256 or 512 neither will really be more future proof.

[MG42Maniac]

My wallet will take abit of a beating if I get a X1900XTX but it will still have enough in it to get a AMD64 4000+ or AMD64 X2 4200+. When you say you need X64 to get the most out of a dual core CPU how much will I be loosing by only running XP home?

[Aristotle13]

Originally Posted by MG42Maniac

My wallet will take abit of a beating if I get a X1900XTX but it will still have enough in it to get a AMD64 4000+ or AMD64 X2 4200+. When you say you need X64 to get the most out of a dual core CPU how much will I be loosing by only running XP home?

You don't need the XTX, just get the XT and OC it a little and your already there. Also if you get one with the correct modules you can flash the bios for a xtx.

Trust me, the XT OC'd is more than enough!