AMD 64 socket 939 or not?

Since I've read a few tech threads and appreciated the quality of responses from this fine community *pats everyone on back*...I thought I'd give a jab at it with my situation....

I've got about $500 bucks burning a hole in my pocket...Current system looks something like this:

AMD 3200+ Socket A
MSI KT6 Delta Mobo
2xSeagate Barracuda 80gig HDs in raid 0
512mb RAM (generic)
MSI nVidia FX 5600 video adapter (gimme no crap about the card...works great, no problems, does UT2004 on full w/no probs and DOOM3 and HalfLife2 at near full except x4 antiA (does x2 ok))
WinXP Home OS

My current inclination is to get a new mobo, vid card and CPU...I can afford:

AMD 64bit 3000+ CPU socket 939 $169.99
DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 Ultra-D S939 PCIE $169.99
(note the potential for an SLI mod on this board...hmmmm)
nVidia 128MB eVGA 6600GT PCI-Express $179.99

(costs are about average for the area) With tax and all I'm pushing $600, but my wife is understanding about these things (sorta)...

Before I jump in to this...I'm curious about the experience of other folks whose opinions I trust (this means you GW community). I know GW plays sweet on my machine as it is, but the desire to improve on it is nearly overwhelming...Hi, I'm a tech-junkie, and I need your help.

Is it worth it to make this particular upgrade (think beyond GW if you must)?
Should I just add a new stick of RAM and call it good?
Will this stuff be outdated next week?
Am I throwing my money away? (not that I care)
Will I get any real performance advantages?

I don't personally know any 64 users yet, so I'm nervous...hold my hand and tell me what you think...be brutally honest. I might be the first kid on my block with a new toy

Ready? Set...DISCUSS!!! *starts stop watch, slurps jell-o through a straw, sics basset hound on the neighbors cat...again*

That new setup will be good, and you have the option to add more ram and a 2nd video card later.

I would get it, gw would look good.

Good Choice,

That is close to what I am running:

AMD 64 3000+

MSI NEO 4 Plat Nforce 4

MSI TD-6600 GT

1 gig Corsair Ram 2.5-3-3-8

I am very pleased with my system, Guild Wars looks just gorgous and every bell and whistle is maxed with very little frame drop.

Just be sure that you get the Winchester revision of the AMD 64. They fixed some over heating issues that the NewCastle had. The Winchester is the one with the .09 micron process, and the NewCastle has the .13 micron process. That system also has tons of upgrade capabilities for later on when other things come down in price. (drools thinking bout 4000+ or FX-55)

Anyway my opinion is that you can't go wrong with an upgrade that sets you up for a few years of small incremental upgrades when you have the money to do so.

if you have the money to blow go for it

just be sure to get retail on the cpu due to the warranty spread with oem

What do I think about the upgrade? To be honest, the XP is likely to outperform the AMD64 1.8GHz in gaming and most other uses, depending on its model type. I would say you could overclock with the DFI but the low-end models are difficult to overclock due to low multiplier counts (And multipliers being locked).

The CPU is the low-end of the AMD64 market, and with the introduction of the Venice cores (Which is slated to be very soon) the technology should probably go down in price, because the NewCastle isn't going to outperform it in any way. Chances are that is the core you will have, unless it's a Winchester. I don't believe that any real performance boosts are in the works for an upgrade to a 3000+ Socket 939 AMD64, but then again I haven't done the upgrade myself, but even though the AMD64 is more efficient, it's also a 400MHz difference, and the 3200+ is still a good processor for gaming. However, the video card may cancel out any lesser performance you might get by going to the AMD64.

If that VGA is a decent amount better than your current one, then you are likely to see a fair performance boost in gameplay and playable settings. Although this is all just speculation. The upgrade itself should indeed give you higher playable settings, but I would be apprehensive on exactly how big the performance boost will be, except in consideration to the video card.

i notice you are keepng that 512 mb ram

for now i would try getting a gig of namebrand (corsair micron kingston etc) value ram in a matched pair package

the jump in ram might make you happy enough to wait and see if better cheaper comes along

then you can swap your better ram into that

EDIT

i dont think you will notice much improvement except for the video card

EXAMPLE (MINE)

lousey 2100+ xp with 5600 ULTRA which is MB than 5200

3d mark 05 score of 407

swirch to 6600 GT (leadtec with included OC utility and 3 year war)

3d mark 05 score of 2746

run at max quality 4x aa and no noticibly slowdown

Wow Didymus C. Corax, we are in the same boat. I am currently running:

2.6 northwood
nVidia FX 5200
1 gig of ram

As soon as Venice comes out for AMD, I am going to get:

3000+ Venice AMD64
Asus A8N-E mobo
BFG 6600gt
Seagate Barracuda 80gig
another stick of 512mb (total of 1 gig) Corsair xms 2-3-3-6 (going to retire a stick of valueram).

So I have decided it is worth it to spend the money on the upgrade. My upgrade is going to cost about $600 as well. As you can see though, I am running an old, not so great, AGP 5200. So for me, this is going to be a huge improvement, for I am going to PCI-E, which makes it well worth the money. If you are satisfied with your graphics card though, you may just want to buy some new ram, that might be a cheap fix. I have noticed a big improvement when I went from 512 to 1 gig.

-Hope that helps

Personally, I'd save it till dual core comes down in price. Then you will have something to really upgrade for. Plus, there are really no programs that utilize the 64-bits (till Longhorn or if your using certain flavors of Linux). So you won't see any performance boosts due to the processor. If you cut the processor, then you can cut the mobo. Then spend your money on your video card, and another stick of RAM. Then bide your time. Patience is key with getting great deals on computer equipment.

Lansing Kai Don

P.S. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but are there any programs that utilize the 64-bits? I am still under the impression, that 32-bit mode is the norm. A sign extension is performed to make it 64-bits but that will not improve performance.

Here I am again! I just won't go away!!

I second your opinion to just wait on a new mobo and chip. I would definatly spend a few hundred on some good memory 1 gig if you could at least; and if you want- grab a new video card for your future motherboard and chip.

Lansing, without the 64bit OS, any 64 bit applications wont run. So unless you are using a 64 bit OS (and most are not)- You are not running any 64 bit applications. They are backwards compatible (32 bit apps will run on 64 bit OS) but I am pretty sure not upwards.

GuildWars~
Forget what you thought you knew about online gaming.

I believe your right Darkmane, but I wasn't "positive". I use a 64-bit Linux (but not a 64-bit processor lol). Anyways, no it shouldn't be possible for a program to run under a 32-bit OS as 64-bit. The only communication between a program and the processor must first go throught the OS (called system calls). And, I think, if you tried (either the OS will prevent it), or the CPU would send a trap to the OS and you would be having wonderful blue screen to look at (should go away with a restart... it would be in the form IRQL_LESS_EQUAL). I wasn't absolutely positive and didn't want to give false information to someone. Maybe Windoze gives control of the OS to the program? I didn't think so, but you never know?

Lansing Kai Don

Get an addtional 512 RAM (it's a good idea to have 1 GB RAM) and GeForce 6800GT (FX series is awful in a new games with shaders), don't waste money on CPU and motherboard. You'll spend less money and you'll get a more powerful computer for games.
You can spend some money on a good mouse (i recommend MX510) and good mousepad for !optical! mouses (good = $20+ price), a sound card with 5.1 or better - it will really help in First Person Shooter games you mentioned. Actually, they help more than several additional Frames per Second so they well worth their price.

My 3DMark05 score is 3338. You'll get ~20% more than that only with a video card upgrade (to GeForce 6800GT) and newer drivers. So that's ~4000 3DMark05 score instead of ~400.

Yes, I am pretty sure I'm right, but I posted in one of my other techy forums just to be sure, I dont mind posting what I think is right, and then posting that I was horribly wrong later if I am-- LOL.

It might be able to be done with a software level interpreter. And some programs may have 64 AND 32 bit code. But if your using that 64 to 32 bit interpreter, I'd say your defeating the purpose of 64 bit programming to begin with = speed. I have seen some Rendering programs that were compared side by side between a 64 bit program runing on a 64 bit OS and a 32 bit program runing on a 64 bit OS and that same 32 bit program runing on a 32 bit OS. Speed wise, 64 bit will be GREAT for those doing a lot of graphics work and rendering. I am not familiar with any game that will take advantage of the 64 bit 'pipe' so to speak. But I bet its gotta widen the eyes of some developers.

It shouldn't be possible in the first place (theoretically speaking). With a sign extension from a 32-64 being the only means (i.e. 'h8FFFFFFF turns into 'FFFFFFFF8FFFFFFF and 'h7FFFFFFF turns into 'h000000007FFFFFFF ). Since the OS can only 'handle' 32 bit programs the CPU (more likely the ALU) places a sign extension on the data. The only thing I could think of is if the OS literally hands over the system resources to a program (this would cause disaster... talk about security problems) but on some homemade OS's that's exactly what they do... so I didn't want to rule out someone hacking Windows (or Windows even supporting this ability on a "it isn't our fault" basis)... that's why I say someone correct me if I'm wrong (because I don't know everything... in fact I don't KNOW anything, I assume I know).


Lansing Kai Don

Code for games and other applications must be extended in order to compensate for 64 bit programs/processors. Therefore a 32 bit processor does not support 64 bit. A 64 bit processor has Legacy mode (For 32 bit applications in a 32 bit OS), Compatability mode (For 32 bit applications in a 64 bit OS) and of course pure 64 bit for a 64 bit OS. The main reason to upgrade to an AMD64 is not because it is 64 bit, but because it is more efficient than an AMD XP (But less efficient than a Pentium M). Therefore it does more IPC and is very good for gaming, especially due to the high number of floating point calculations (Due to all the instruction sets the processor has) it makes it really good at in-game calculations.

Well, good to know I was right again, where does your source come from? Efficient? Unless they revamped the instruction set, I seriously doubt it. I'm looking at amd.com and not seeing it, can you send me a link? Oh, and Pentium-M is not anymore efficient than the Pentium series (except heat and power wise) I have that from someone working at Intel, I'll look for the source, their just the cream of the crop processors from the line. I found on AMD's website that there is no emulation modes for their processors.

Lansing Kai Don

The Pentium M performs more IPC, and therefore does more work per cycle than an AMD64 processor. This can be found when looking at any benchmark. Also, by efficient for the AMD64 I mean the amount of work the processor does, which would also be IPC. Because it does more work per cycle than an Intel Pentium 4, that means it will perform better on a clock-to-clock basis. Similar to the Pentium M's processor. Also, the Pentium M has an extremely "efficient" L2 cache, which means the architecture is very good at working with the high L2 cache, which is 2MB, and so unlike Pentium 4 6xx processors, it can find what it is looking for a lot faster, with less latency. There is no comparison between a Pentium M and a Pentium 4, the M is simply better. My source comes from a lot of reading and personal research on both of the processor companies and how their processors themselves work. That means the endless inspection of benchmarks and raw information on the two. I don't use any one benchmark because it would be a partially biased opinion. And they have more instruction sets than the Intel, which means they do more floating point calculations. They have (Non-floating point) MMX and MMX+. Then 3DNow!, 3DNow!+, SSE, and SSE2. The Venice cores also have SSE3. In comparison to an Intel Pentium 4 Prescott, which has MMX, SSE, SSE2, and SSE3. (Northwood cores do not have SSE3)

Still does me no good, unless you get it from a reputable source. Also the L2 Cache in any processor SHOULD be operating at the clock cycle of the processor (means little-no latency). That should be an easy one if you researched processors. I don't know the IPC for the processor's I haven't looked it up, I will now, but it would be better if you gave me your sources instead of just saying you did it. Did you just say there is no difference between the Pentium M and the Pentium 4, yet the Pentium M is more efficient? Confused? Please clear this up, nevermind reread the post. I will have to get that source, give me a few.

Lansing Kai Don

P.S. More instruction sets does not equal more floating point calculations. More floating point instruction sets to perform more accurate floating point calculations is a better statement. I could add alot of useless instruction sets to my processor and claim the equivalent. Maybe you remember the RISC vs. CISC wars? Do you know which one came out on top then? Now?

You can easily measure the number of clock cycles it takes a processor to scan the cache using benchmarking programs, and instructions can also be measured in this way. I would suggest searching up some information on benchmarks that will show you that by increasing the cache, you increase the amount of "cache" memory the computer must search, and will naturally create latency. It's not a good idea to assume that the processor will search through the cache without latency. It's like assuming RAM doesn't have latency either, which is false. Some have a CAS Latency of 3, and others have 2.5, and some of the faster DDR400 modules (Or less of course) will have 2. I don't remember the sites. The best way for you to find out is to go looking for information yourself. I wasn't spoon-fed, and I wont give you special treatment because you don't believe me.

On a side note, a Pentium 4 takes longer to search through its cache than a Pentium M because the Pentium M is more efficient. Sure the Pentium 4 is fast and the cache is localized, but it there are still many factors to take into consideration.

If I may, I too am upgrading my PC very soon and had AMD64 in mind. After reading this thread, I started questioning myself...

Can someone please explain the differences between Winchester and the upcoming Venice? How long until it comes out and how expensive are they expected to be? (twice as much the Winchester, etc.)

BTW, noob at hardware here, please be nice when talking about tech stuff. A little explaining would be appreciated. And sorry for the quick takeover on the subject.

The Winchester is better than the Newcastle, but said to be a lot worse than Venice. It's built on the 90nm process, which means it uses less energy and runs slightly cooler, but it is debatable if performance beyond these two things will be noticed. Nevertheless, it's a more viable option than any Newcastle core, because Winchester is better. To be honest, I don't know how expensive the Venice cores are intended to be, so if someone else knows I would be delighted if they could tell me. I know that the Venice cores will feature SSE3 instructions and it also appears that they will run a fair bit cooler than current models. It also has been documented to be more easily overclockable than all previous models of AMD64s. This could mean that if you buy a cheaper model, you may find yourself capable of overclocking the processor an extra 100-500MHz (Depending on how extreme you might go) and save money. I myself (So no scientific or economic document backs this) feel that the Winchester (But especially the Newcastle) will likely go down in price with the introduction of the Venice cores. They wont be as good, but if they go down in price you can't really argue in consideration to value.

It's safe to assume that the Venice cores will cost a fair bit more than current AMD64 models, but I honestly don't know.

Other than the discussion about 32v64 bit processor differences, you folks sound a LOT like the conversation going on in my head (no...I don't hear voices...they type in a forum like the rest of us). The gig of RAM is a given, but I hate to get a new video adapter and then have to buy another when I switch over to a mobo that takes the PCI-Express.

I've read some about the improvements of PCI-E over PCI and it sounded like I'd get a bit more performance...The mobo I mentioned takes a much better CPU than the 3000+, but I figured that in the future (when, say, Longhorn came out) I'd upgrade the CPU. I was thinking the 64 bit 3000+ would not be that great a dip from the XP 3200+ I'm running now (truth be told, I could easily get the 64 bit 3200+ if I waited a month...*digs toe into floor*...hate waiting )...I'm mostly looking at the future here...The mobo is the base (highly upgradable...plans for RAID 0+1), the CPU is more-or-less a lateral move, and the PCI-E card gets me a bit of a boost and I'm ready for the next baby-step...That's what I was thinking...

I know there is no huge immediate jump in performance, but $500 now, $500 later is much more do-able than $1000 or even $800 in one chunk later (I'm a teacher and cash doen't last long around here). I'm hoping to be getting a little boost now with the greatest potential for later...Oh, yeah, there IS the little matter of that mobo being easily tweaked to run SLI (warrenty-voided...I'd never go there)...I can see waiting for the next incarnation (Venice) of the 64 bit, though...It's just hard to wait...seems like every time I get $500 in my pocket, my car dies...law of the realm, I guess.

You've given me some things to think about...I'll let you know which way the wind blows as soon as I figure it out...gonna be a looooooong weekend...

I give way on the Pentium M discussion, I found the source and it is there is no difference between Pentium 4 and Pentium 4-M. I wasn't sure if I was right, and it turns out I wasn't. Ok, wow, how am I going to explain this. L1 cache shouldn't have latency (why do you think they don't us a larger die half of the processors is cache, they could have alot more cheap cache if they just made the die larger, it'd be more EXPENSIVE, but there'd be a market for it?). RAM works completely different than the registers on your cache. First of all you have a completely different addressing scheme. There is no simple this set of transparent latches are 00, 01 etc.. You have an address bus which contains the address of the RAM module and the offset. A multiplexer/decoder deems which RAM module, then the offset for RAS,CAS are used to specify which row/column to start the transfer. Caches is straightforward last I checked, you just have on multiplexer and the cache is selected and taken from 32 bits at a time (if it's 32 or 64 bit if it's 64 bit cache). Now L2 cache may experience some drop in speed, and probably picoseconds of latency, but it shouldn't by no means be large.

Lansing Kai Don

P.S. L1 cache shouldn't have latency (delays yes, latency no), I read my post again and I said L2 sorry. L2 cache shouldn't have really any affectual latency. But comparing RAM to cache in terms of latency, not a good idea.

Of course, using RAM was a bad example but it gets the point across. Because the cache still has latency much in the same way RAM does. The difference will be more than picoseconds on a program that relies heavily on how fast the computer can search through a larger cache. However it isn't a big difference for the majority of other programs. And I know L1 shouldn't have latency, that's why I don't really count it in any consideration, it's different.

And remember Didymus, patience is a virtue.

I can only recommend, the decisions are up to you.
First of all the PCI-E architecture is naturally better than PCI. Where PCI uses a shared bus in a parallel mode. They went to individual serial buses for the PCI-E (at least I hope I got it right). The PCI-E will give you bang for the buck but there is no real improvement over AGP (i.e. except Intel pushing people toward where they want them to go, AGP would probably still be in the market for MANY years to come). But if Intel gets their way (and they usually do), then AGP will be cycled out in the next 3 years. So if your looking for a very long term commitment go with PCI-E, otherwise, it's irrevelant IMO. I don't like RAID 0+1, either go RAID 0, RAID 1, or RAID 5 (if you got 3 drives). RAID 0 if you want performance, RAID 1 if you want safety and reliability, and RAID 5 if you want both. If you have an XP 3200+, I see no reason to move your position till the Venice core comes out (and of COURSE it is going to be better, or ppl will find out right away and AMD will look bad, and AMD can't afford that). It seems your upgrading fast so I'd keep the 3200+, go with a different RAID, and buy whatever video card you want for now. Then next time it comes along, check the price of the Venice core, my personal favorite is the Toledo Dual Core (drools). Most likely over 500 dollars there. It's up to you though

Lansing Kai Don

Not that I am not guilty also, but lets stop cluttering this poor guys' thread with our discussions about 32 and 64 bit. LOL

I still say wait on the cpu and motherboard, .... get yourself more memory- and a good AGP card. You can prolly sell the AGP on eBay when your ready for your new motherboard and PCIx.

Good Luck to you and your decision.

Well cache is set straight, I still disagree with you referencing Pentium M better w/o sources. I don't understand why the latency would be larger than pico seconds, unless your running into a natural deadlock where your writing information you need to read before hand. But that would be a near stop on the processor, maybe preventative measures keeps the latency higher? You'd have to show me sources, I can't find any on cache latency that I'd consider reputable.

Lansing Kai Don

Intel and AMD have both been pushing it of course. Partly because the PCI-E BUS has more room for growth, whereas they figure that AGP could be saturated in the next generation or two of video cards. It makes more sense to get PCI-E out now so by the time AGP is saturated, hopefully at least 80% of the market will already have a PCI-E motherboard. But it's true. He wont find any performance advantages with a PCI-E video card in comparison to an AGP one because there aren't video cards capable of saturating the AGP BUS, but it's always good to think ahead.

The Pentium M: It really depends on what you do with the processor of course.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2342
http://www.behardware.com/articles/546/page1.html
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...ngaming&page=1
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=123&type=expert
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzA5LDE=
http://www.legitreviews.com/article.php?aid=181
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2382&p=1
These are just some reviews/benchmarks on the Pentium M. The first one from anandtech takes a look at its cache as well.

We need to keep this agreeing thing up, it works better on my fingers. The only reason I didn't mention that AGP hasn't reached it's full potential in bandwidth and there is no point in switching "right now" except for compatibility for the future is that I have said it like on 3 different threads I guess I should have linked it.

Lansing Kai Don

Agreement is good. It's pretty easy for us to agree on technology like this, since for us it's merely information. We receive it and that's it. There's no real debate.

I did some researching a while back on hardware websites (basicaly Anantech, but I did take a peek on ExtremeTech and TomsHardware -- are those good/reliable?) and it really looked like there were no significant (if any) boosts in performance with the 90nm.

I agree with you the prices tend to drop with the Venice launch. Thing is, how much and how fast. :/

Could you please give any more details on what the SSE3 is? As in which areas - if not all - will it improve performance? Gaming, graphics, regular PC use, ...

I guess you can never be 100% satisfied or up to date when it comes to hardware, uh?

Thanks again.

They are all reliable to some extent. I would suggest looking up more. As Lansing had brought up, he wants reputable sources, but it's debatable whether or not any "internet" source can be truly reputable. SSE3 is, basically, a media-based instruction set that allows the processor to perform more floating-point calculations. This will make it calculate certain things faster and can be especially useful in games or multimedia. It is likely there will be a fair increase in performance because of this. And those sites were right about the Winchester vs Newcastle, but it's rather nice to have a Winchester as opposed to the Newcastle simply because of the fact that it runs cooler and uses a bit less energy. It isn't much but for the price difference (Which seems to typically be very small) you might as well go for it.

And no, you can almost never be completely satisfied with computer hardware, since it's almost always changing. You could say the people who pushed the original $1300/$1400CDN for the FX-55 have been enjoying "top of the line" performance for quite some time now, but some of us don't have that kind of money.

I have to disagree there though, I think the 939 system you mentioned would be way better for you. Then you could just buy another stick of ram in a month or whenever you can afford it, instead of waiting to have enough for the rest.

That's not exactly true. I work with most of the products in some fashion. The processor's we've been discussing are in my companies controllers (I don't know if I can say which one and don't want to get in trouble). I also get some pretty savory confidential reading material from one of these companies that I can't brag about so it's useless. I might be able to generalize after I've read more. And I agree that internet sources aren't reputable, but if you take let's say 10 of them and see how close their numbers approximate on DIFFERENT testing equipment. Then you can get a general idea.

Lansing Kai Don

P.S. Wish I had a FX-55, better yet a Toledo core.

I'd agree to some extent, but the Venice is on the doorstep. And I'm positive prices will drop when it comes. But then again, it's easy to argue that there is always going to be another processor core that comes along that could do the same and you could wait indefinitely. But if it was me, I'd wait. Then get a processor about 3-weeks to a month after the Venice (give the drop some time, they never drop immediately).

Lansing Kai Don

True. That is why I like to take as many sources as I can, and I don't rely on any one source. I don't take any one sources "word" as law, because that can be dangerously ignorant.

Your NEW video card will be obsolete before your OLD processor will be obsolete. So, if you really want to save money, do it. Don't waste money on a processor you don't need at all. When you'll need to change your current processor, you'll need to change your video card anyway, be it AGP or PCI-E. So save your money now and use it later.

There are some improvements of PCI-E over AGP in theory. Do you need a theories you should pay your money for or you want just to play games on your computer? Choose wisely.
Video cards that can use PCI-E advantage aren't in existence yet. So, there is absolutely no advantage.

And you think the wrong way. You said you don't have a lot of money. So don't waste it. You don't need 64 bit, PCI-E, RAID, future etc. You need to play games so you need enough FPS and no lags. Realizing this will save you a lot of money.

You're wrong again. There will be a huge immediate jump in performance if you'll change your video card. So buy GeForce 6800 GT AGP + 512 Mb RAM or maybe GeForce 6600 GT AGP + 256 Mb RAM if you want to save some money - GeForce 6600 GT AGP and 768 Mb RAM will be good enough anyway.

Sounds like you want to find ways to waste $500 now just because you have it. Fine, you can do it without any advices. Sure, if you want "potential" (i.e. nothing), you can waste $500 on it. You can also buy snow in Alaska or sand in Sahara - it will be as good for you as buying potential. Looks like marketing departments work better than i thought - they can sell a virtual potential for real $$$.

damn you are getting your evga e-force 6600 GT cheap! I had to pay $269 for mine because I'am in Canada, and this was a good price!

Ellestar, you made me shoot milk through my nose!!! (I wasn't even drinking any at the time)...seriously, though, you made me laugh at myself . I thought about it and after reading yours and several other's words of wisdom and checked the price on a new AGP card (the 6600GT) and came up with a fairly good price ( a tad more than the PCI-E card I was looking at, to the sum of $80 over) and the price of another 512mb stick o' RAM (cheap these days)...I end up with a couple hundred bucks left over and a comparitively decent boost in performance over my already servicible machine.

I think I spent so much time drooling over the new technology, I became dehydrated. I just bought a laptop a couple months ago (Intel P4 2.8GHz, ATI Radeon 9000 mobility Vid, 512 RAM, blah, blah, blah) and though I use it at work, I play GW on it when the wife wants to use the primary machine to shop for shoes on ebay. It does the job just fine, so why am I obsessing over bigger, better, fasster, more on my primary PC? I've rebuilt it twice and it has one original part from when I bought it (DVD drive, and a mediocre one at that....hmmmmm...a couple hundred dollars left over....hmmmmm). Truth be told, I'm going with the AGP and Memory...thank you folks for helping me see the light...as for the future....I'll wait till it gets here THEN decide what to do.

Thanks again for the help folks...I ended up getting an MSI 6600GT (my mobo is MSI and I like it just fine thank you very much, so no snide remarks ) and I put in 512 more RAM...I haven't benchmarked it yet, but primary testing has caused me to reach this conclusion:


sweeeeeeeeeet*drools*

I am a firm believer in the old adage;

No software written in 64 bit, waste of money.


By the time the developers catch up (only when Intel releases their 64bit version for public consumption) it will be worthwhile. Intel is like Winblows, when you dominate the market, you call the shots.