Dell PC for Gaming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am definately not overclocking - I feel like I do not know enough to do it. Will I see a benefit to this RAM if I get it and do not overclock versus what I listed in my specs? If it will perform better without overclocking then I will get it for the small $ difference.

I was told that the Clawhammer is faster. Is it? I want what ever chip performs better since the pricing is almost the same.

Wow - based on your post below the San Diego is the way to go versus the Clawhammer.
 
i still say go with the san diego core cause the core is newer, stays cooler, and doesnt use as much power. well you might want to go with the other ram, cause you never know when you might want to try OCing, maybe if you read throught some of the stickies and then try it, you might be able to get some nice OCs out of it.

EDIT:
San Diego
Once the silicon problem found within the Winchester was fixed, the 90nm process could support higher clock speeds. AMDs high end cores such as the 4000+ and FX series were stuck on the 130nm Clawhammer core since the 90nm silicon could not support them, however, using the Venice architechture, the San Diego, with a larger 1MB L2 cache, was born.

The San Diego is identical to the Venice, same instruction sets and memory controller, as well as same notorious overclockability. The introduction of the San Diego effectively migrated all Athlon 64 cores to 90nm process technologies. If you are buying a high end core, the San Diego is for you.


Clawhammer
This core is another one that migrated from the socket 754 family, and assumed the role of dealing with the high end processors in the family, such as 4000+ and FX series processors. It is also avalible in 3400+ format however. It's nearly identical to the Newcastle except it pumps out more heat, consumes more power, and has a larger 1MB L2 cache.

Like the Newcastle, this core has bitten the dust recently, and is outshown in both overclockability and overall performance by newer 90nm cores.


in my personal opinion the only two cores worth considering right now are the Venice, and the San Diego. The previous cores are outdated , and price is relatively the same when comparing to their predicessors.

http://techist.com/showthread.php?threadid=59883

written by gaara
 
Jowens Practically posted the ultimate computer. You would definately be ready for future 64bit computing. There is nothing you couldnt run. The truth is, you could spend all that money, but you wouldnt notice much of a difference between a nice, Athlon 64 cpu and 1GB Ram with tight timings!
 
I finished building it and am having problems getting it to run somethly with the 4 GB. I might return 2 GB and just keep 2 in the system.
 
So, how was your first build? Tell us about it! I had a blast the first time I did it. Although it didn't work the first night... First PC build + case of beer = White smoke! LOL. Seriously, how did the build go?
 
It was a challenge. Took me 2 nights to build it! I finally have it running. Just trying to get the 4GB of memory to work properly. I am getting close. I can the 3D Benchmark and the PC scored over 17,600 which I am assuming is good. I purchased a Sound Blaster X-FI however it won't install properly. The PC will not boot with it in it. It seems to be a problem that Creative is aware of and is working on. Hopefully it gets resolved soon or I will return the card! The thing that I find hard about building a PC is all of the settings in the bios. I am working with OCZ and changing these settings to get the 4 GB of memory to work properly. However, I do not understand what all of the settings do so I am just making changes as they tell me!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom