CPU Upgrade vs. CPU Overclocking

[idahosurge]

Hello,

I have an AMD Athlon 64 x2 4200 CPU with a clock of 2.2GHz.  I would like to know would it be worth it (only for the sake of higher frame rates in FSX) to upgrade to a Athlon 64 x2 4800 with a clock of 2.4Ghz.  Would it be worth it to keep what I have and spend the time to overclock what I have.  The Athlon 4800 is $118.00 each.  If I upgrade to the 4800 will I have to download a new bios or anything or do I just remove the old CPU and install the new CPU and then BOOT!  I have XP Home and 4 gig of ram and I do have the switch set so that applications will use 2.65 gig and the XP kernal will use what is left.

Regards,

Rod

[ThatOnePerson]

You would need to reinstall XP.

[idahosurge]

So are you saying that if I upgrade to a new CPU I have to backup everything, reinstall XP from scratch, which will reformat the hard drive, and then reinstall all my other programs and backup files?

Rod

[NickN]

going form a x2 4200 to an x2 4800, you would hardly notice the difference. The only way you would see any difference in AMD upgrade is if you went to a 6000+ or better, and you cant do that on socket 939 so you are better off trashing the entire motherboard and starting over than dumping any money onto it

[NickN]

So are you saying that if I upgrade to a new CPU I have to backup everything, reinstall XP from scratch, which will reformat the hard drive, and then reinstall all my other programs and backup files?

Rod

No, you do not need to reinstall Windows as long as you are not going from a single to dual core x2

x2 to x2 is fine

[ThatOnePerson]

Ahhh, I stand corrected

[Brett_Henderson]

I'm going to stick a theory in here.. 'cause I'm pretty familiar with 939 CPUs..

If I'm not mistaken, the 4200 has the 512k cache.. and the 4800 has the 1mb cache (L2)..

I'm always against throwing money at old cpu/mb combos..  but that cache boost, and a moderate O/C just MIGHT get you 118 dollars worth of performance...

But consider it carefully.. because 120 bucks could make the difference between a so-so FSX v-card, and a decent one.. on your next build..

A 939 based computer isn't going very far in the FSX era..

[idahosurge]

So reading between the lines when I am talking about doing this only to increase my frame rate there does not seem much point in overclocking the one I have when you consider how long it will take to do it right for no more bang I am going to get for my buck (time spent).  Also there does not seem to be much point in putting in an upgraded CPU that is only going to increase my clock by 200 meg.

Regards,

Rod

[GunnerMan]

Overclocking is not that hard  

More cache can help considerable in some applications especially games but like nick said your not going to be likw "WOW what a great investment!" If you do want to upgrade I would buy an Opteron 165/ 180 and overclock the snot out of it. Most opterons can hit 2.8 easy and the better steppings can hit 3 Ghz.

I am on a 939 system right now (Opteron 180 @ 3 ghz) and im not planning on throwing money into it, especially with AMD releasing quad core CPUs for a veery small price. My advice to you is to sell off your current cpu, motherboard, and ram and just buy a new rig be it AMD or Intel.

[Wii]

My CPU runs on a 4800+ but I don't think there would be much difference at all...

[SubZer0]

I run a 4200 as well and I managed to clock it to 2.5Ghz. A 4800, however, may be clockable to 2.7Ghz, and with the boost of cache, it might be worth the upgrade. Although if you really want to get a boost, go with one of Intel's dualies or even a quad, like me

[idahosurge]

I completed all of Nick's XP tweaks on the FSX Autostart & Cacheman thread and I have to say, if that got me 10 more FPS then I was running really slow because right now I am only running at 20 - 30 FPS on average, BUT I WANT MORE!

If I purchase a new CPU and overclock it does anyone have a realistic idea of what kind of improvement in FPS I can expect.  I mean if we are only talking 5 - 10 FPS I really have to wonder if it will all be worth it.  I know that I can overclock a CPU, I downloaded a great step by step article off the internet.  It just seems to me that to do it right could take the better part of a weekend to complete.


If I go with another CPU, especially the Opteron, will I have to download an updated BIOS?

Thanks for all the comments!

Rod

[idahosurge]

To replace my Athlon 64x2 4200 I was thinking about upgrading to a Athlon 64x2 4800, someone suggested a Opteron 180 and I see that AMD also makes a Athlon 64 FX60 in a socket 939 configuration.  The 4800 and 180 have a clock rate of 2.4GHz and the FX60 has a clock rate of 2.6GHZ.

Can I replace my 4200 with the 160 or the FX60?  Would I also have to change my BIOS?  I assume that I can overclock the 160 and the FX60.  What would be the better choice if I decide to do this, 4800, 160 or FX60?

Thanks to all who offer an opinion.

Regards,

Rod

[NickN]

20-30 frames in FSX?

LOL


leave it




You are going the wrong way with this. Its not the AMD processor speed, its the AMD memory controller and L2 cache


The best you are going to get after spending the time and money on parts and overclocking will be minimal with anything in the 939 class


and I want to make something perfectly clear, high FPS is BULL in FSX and FS9. Its NOT ABOUT FPS... its about SMOOTH FRAME RATES


If your system is running right, 24FPS will LOOK NO DIFFERENT than 35


So my tweaks are not designed to make you FPS go up by 10, they are designed to allow your system deliver smooth FPS with higher scenery settings at a reasonable frame lock or rate


[quote]



I have tried to explain to quite a few hard headed people about frame rate and the human eye. There are those who will argue the issue till they are blue in the face and tell you they can see the difference.

I do not doubt they can see the difference because the problem is THEIR MACHINE and because of that, -they are correct- in what they say.. they just dont know why they are correct THEIR system looks (keyword "looks" .. looks can be wrong) better at 38-40 frames than 24-28 in MSFS.

It's not they are right, it's their system is messed up and they dont know or understand it, just hard headed and will argue they know better.


Here is why:

There is a difference between frame rate and

[idahosurge]

Thanks Nick, so I guess I will leave it.  The 20 to 30 fps was nice, but when I open a second window (tower view) the fps would drop to 5 - 10, so I was thinking faster processor, better frame rate.  What I was really wanting was a faster fps when I has two or three views open (cockpit, spot plane, tower / this is the way I like to fly).  Also my frame rate drops in half when using a 3d cockpit vs. a 2d cockpit.

Thanks for the input!

Regards,

Rod