Well, last week as none of you know, my PC decided to pack in. So I am now in the process of stitching toghether a new PC from the pieces that survived from that one [RAM, Hard Drive and Optical Drives]. Anyway, CPU wise, I was wondering if it is worth getting an X2 AMD Dual Core as opposed to an AMD 64 3500 Venice. I hear that Dual Cores aren't utilised in games at all, so that may make the purchase pointless. I also have another question, my old Hard Drive had quite a lot of stuff on I'd like to keep, so if I was to fit it into my new PC is there anyway to recover some of the data. Any help is appreciated.
Shizzle my nizzle
28th July 2004
Hehe, original thread name.
The X2 isn't worth it. Yet. I would save the money you would spend on it and use it for something which will make a more significant improvement, such as a better graphics card. You are right: dual cores aren't utilised in most games anyway, and the 3500+ is more than enough for any game today when coupled with a decent graphics chipset.
If you run the same operating system on the new computer, you should be able to plug it in and access it straight away. You should be able to boot the recovery console and recalibrate Windows for the new system. If you're worried, you can pick up a new hard drive with the money you save, install Windows on it then plug in the old hard drive and haul the stuff across - it will use the same file system.
7th December 2003
Not sure about the CPUs, but about the hard drive; there are several programs which can help with restoring data (I use Drive Rescue). They can undelete files and recover them from lost partitions in some cases. Do you know what exactly is wrong with your Hard Drive?
Nothing is actually wrong with it to the best of my knowledge, it'll just be going into a system with a different motherboard and CPU. I'm thinking of getting an X800 for the new set up, would that give me good performance in most games coupled with the AMD 64 3500. And sorry for the corny title, I got a bit bored tbh.
7th December 2003
You usually have to reinstall windows when you change the motherboard, but this doesn't mean that you have to lose all data on your harddrive. Just reinstall windows and put all your files on another parition or burn them on CD. After that you can reformat the HDD (or system partition), which is a good thing to do every once in a while.
I didn't make it!
Well how much do you have to spend?
If you have a big budget, you may as well get a X2 as it is more futureproof (hopefully!)
Ok I would go for the dual core. Honestly it is worth it right now. Yes theres people saying no because a game does not use both cores. But if you go dual core 1 core would be used for the game while the other core will be doing everything else in the background. No lag, no slowness. Geting a dual core would be wise. No more waiting on things. If you go dual core get a 4400+. It uses 2x 3500+ cores. So in gaming you will have speeds of a 3500+.
I've recently reconsidered my take on dual core CPUs in today's market, and have to agree with Agent.
If your budget can support a dual core, then I'd suggest it. Some of AMD's dual cores (Opteron 165, 170, 175) overclock like nothing else and give the added bonus of that second core. I recenltly made the move from my old Intel box to an AMD box, losing HT in the process. Most of the time, I don't notice it. But I used to be able to rip one album while transcoding another, and now I can't (transcoding will use 100% of cycles, and lack of a second core--logical or otherwise--really shows, and will pretty much stall everything else).
But then again, the Opty 175 starts at $475 for an OEM chip...
I was under the impression Opterons weren't really a gaming type CPU and more of a server thing.
GrimmeI was under the impression Opterons weren't really a gaming type CPU and more of a server thing.
For a long time, that was true. Opterons used to have a 940-pin interface and a Registered memory controller, which pretty much took them out of the enthusiast market.
Not too long ago, however, AMD decided to differentiate their server and workstation chips. This meant that while 2xx and 8xx Opterons retained their 940 pins and Registered controllers, 1xx chips (those most likely to be put into a workstation) were blessed with the loss of a pin and their desktop cousin's Unbuffered controller. What all this means is that 1xx Opterons of the latest generations are now compatible with socket 939 motherboads (BIOS willing) and work with standard memories used by the masses (that is to say, Unbuffered non-ECC). Thus, in one fell swoop, the Denmark Opteron became the new darling of the overclocking community, rather uncerimoniously relegating Venice to the back burner.