4000+ or FX55, and Mobo

[Blitzkommando]

Yeah, I figured this would get moved here from OT, so I'll just save the mods the move. http://pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Anyway, I'm lookin' to get a mobo and processor for a couple reasons. First, my mobo is a processing hog, too much onboard crap that drains up power that could otherwise be used running my games. Second, if I do this my current computer will be given to my mom for her sewing machine. Her sewing machine requires a pc to make all sorts of neat stuff, we have the monitor, speakers, mouse and keyboard sitting around, and pretty much a pc, so I might as well give her this one. Thirdly, I want an OC beast. I did that with my other PC and am rather happy with the results.

I also am thinking of the future. My current mobo does not support SLI, and I want one that does. My plans are to wait for the next nVidia card to come out then get another identical card of what I have to go SLI. I realize this means I would likely need yet another PSU, but, I think I could just squeeze by with my current 480W. If not, well, hopefully Antec will have another 500+W PSU out similar to what I have. Case is not an issue here as I still have my original case from my previous computer.

Anyway, onto my questions. I've done more research into SLI, and because of previous experience, have decided on ASUS again. I am looking at the new (not even released at this time) A8N32 Deluxe. The prospect of having 2x 16x SLI is definitely the primary factor, though, I also really like the dual gigabit built in as well. Really, I have pretty much finalized that this is the board I want. My question is this: is there any better deal for it other than this site? http://www.actbuy.com/details.asp?item=AS04A8N32SLID Every other site I went to varied from $209-250 for the same board. Unless I am missing something, I think that is the place to purchase from.

Next, and most importantly, my processor. I am really debating about this one. I hear some people claim that the difference between the FX55 and the 4000+ San Diego is big enough to warrant the extra $400+ in price. Others have said the 4000+ is essentially an FX 53 with a different name. I am a bit inclined to believe the second. I've been running a 3200+ which has the lower FSB, and half the L2 cache. And, as I said, this current machine would go to my mother so I really would need the new processor anyway. My question is, as stated earlier, is it worth it to shell out for that fancy FX 55, or would it be well worth it to be 'tight' and get the 4000+. The X2 processors, while interresting, have such limited usage today, that by the time that Dual Core processing really becomes big, it will already be time to replace my machine so I don't see that as reasonable right now. And, while I would love to have that FX57, I just don't see the gains between that and even the 4000+ that would make me think it would be worth spending $500+ more on it.

So, all in all, I suppose this is just more of a 'confirmation' of my research than anything. Also, for a better idea about what I am talking about, I have my computer's stats here: http://blitzkommando.com/cpus.htm

Again, thank you for your time.

[BrokenHope]

PCIe cards are barely able to use all that an 8x bus can supply, dual 16x PCIe is nothing more but marketing at the moment and you won't see any advantage at all.

As for the CPU, if you will gaming at high res with AA and AF switched on, which you likely would be on a high end system then the difference between a 4000+ and a FX-55 would be barely anything, because more than likely you'll be GPU limited and not CPU limited.

Though if you think a few frames per second is worth $400 then go ahead and get the FX.

I personally have a 4400+, nvidia already have dual core supporting drivers and get a performance boost on dual core/dual cpu systems, you can also do more at once without your system slowing down or becoming unresponsive.

How much RAM are you currently running? I'd really recommend 2GB if you aren't already running that much, the latest games at max settings with AA and AF can easily use more than 1GB.

[Blitzkommando]

Interresting. I'm currently running 1.5GB of DDR 400. I figure I can update that as well as DDR 400 seems to be pretty darn cheap, even for the 'good stuff'.

So, you are saying I should go dual-core then? Rather than the 4000+ single core? If so, I would guess the 4400+ X2 would be the best bang for the buck as they say. I'm just worried about running games under single core code that it would potentially be more damage than harm, FPS wise.

Also, based on the benchmarks I have read and reviews using benchmarks, the opinion seems to be the opposite, that it is more CPU oriented for the bottlenecking. I'm not saying you, or the reviewers, are wrong, just that I would like to hear the other side of the story. I should mention that, as is seen on my computer info page cited above, I am using the 7800GTX (OCed to 490CPU and 1300VRAM). I did notice that there was an absolutely gigantic difference between the 7800GTX and X700Pro that I had been using, especially when Anti-alias and Anisotropic Filtering are involved, which I expected.

I also looked up more on the dual 16x SLI boards, and it seems to support what you say. Specifically, the drivers seem not to be optomized and it actually performs worse than the dual 8x SLI. If that is the case, is there a comparable SLI board with similar features to the one I listed before? Specifically, the two gigabit ports.

[BrokenHope]

The reviews are right in saying that a lot of high end cards are CPU bottlenecked, but if you look at reviews this only usually happens at low resolutions, once you get up to 1600x1200 or higher than the bottleneck is usually shifted back to the graphics card.

As for boards supporting dual gigabit lan, pretty much any nforce 4 ultra or SLI chipset board will have dual gigabit lan.

Dual core is entirely up to you, it is the future though and almost all future CPU's will be multicore. Games currently don't take advantage of dual core, but that doesn't mean they perform worse than a similar speed single core, just that you could be doing stuff in the background, such as say encoding video and you wouldn't have a performance hit at all, also future games such as UT2007 are programmed to take advantage of dual core and will see a nice performance increase from it.

Look up some reviews on dual core CPU's, they in games they perform identically to a single core of the same clockspeed, though doing much better in multimedia applications and multitasking and like I said nvidia drivers give you about 30% extra performance with a dual core CPU.

[Blitzkommando]

Ah, well, interresting to say indeed. I don't care much for pumping my graphics to 1600x1200 as it comes a bit small, even on my 19" monitor. And, it seems, my monitor doesn't 'hold' its screen configuration at that high of resolution either.

In any event, thank you for the ideas, and I do recall hearing about UT2007, and seeing that I enjoyed the previous UT games so much, that should be a factor I suppose. Even if by the time I will be getting UT2007 it will be just about time for a new computer anyway I imagine. I think though, I'm going with ASUS and the 4400+, and maybe squeek in an extra gig or two of RAM. Though, if anyone else has any recommendations please, I won't be purchasing for a month or so, so any more info would be great.