Ordering the Parts

Ok, I am building a new computer, and it will have the following parts:

ATI Radeon 9550 AGP card - FROM MY CURRENT COMPUTER
CD-RW Drive - FROM MY CURRENT COMPUTER
DVD Drive - FROM MY CURRENT COMPUTER
Cool Tower Case - Recently purchased it

Things I DONT have, but I am planning on GETTING:

Motherboard:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128307

RAM:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820145574

Processor:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103529

I will repeat, I am NOT getting a new graphics card.
I have my reasons, and I like my current one, getting a new one is not in the picture, nor is it in my budget. IF I need a new card later on, I will just upgrade to a new motherboard and graphics card.

I thought long and hard about Dual Core and Single Core AMD's.
The disadvantage of Dual Core is that it hinders the frame rate of single core coded games. I figure, there won't be any multi threaded games withing the next year or two, or at least not many, and there are bound to be better AMD dual cores coming out with the new socket type. Besides, the processor I have listed should be able to handle XFire running, perhaps AIM, and a game. I won't be compiling any DVD's while gaming, or anything like that. Even if tMulti Threaded games come out, there will probably be those with the option of not using the multi threaded coding, and they would work with my processor.

Any thoughts on compatability of the items I have listed, Dual Core vs Single Core, and drivers for things like the Disk Drives that I already have are very welcome. I am planning on purchasing these items tomorrow.

I would get a Dual Core....you are not going to see that much of a difference in speed like you are saying about it compared to a single core. I just can't see that much of a hinder to a single core game.

the new catalyst ati driver actually gives up to 20% boost

Catalyst 5.12

Catalyst 5.12 improves a variety of CPU-bound performance cases when an ATI product is installed in conjunction with a dual-core or hyperthreading CPU. Performance gains include:

3DMark05 gains as much as 5.7%
3DMark03 gains as much as 3.3%
3DMark2001 SE gains up to 10%
Aquamark 3 gains up to 16%
Comanche 4 improves as much as 20%
Far Cry gains as much as 25% on some product configurations
Half-Life 2 performance improves as much as 8%
Splinter Cell improves as much as 8% in certain parts of the game
Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness runs as much as 10% faster
Unreal Tournament 2004 frame rates improve as much as 10%

Ouch, so I think I might get it then, but according to a chart where you can compare processors on Tom's Hardware, the 4200X2 doesn't perform as well on most games as the 4000+ single core I have selected.

Also, for dual core would you go with 3800+ or 4200+, price isn't that much of an issue for this, I mean I would like to pocket the extra $80, but if the 4200+ is worth it, I will spend it.

according to maximum pc the present and future of gaming is dual core (AMD for now)

In reality I think get either or. When the time comes sell your old processor or something and upgrade.

I mean if you can get a dual then get one if you think it'll save you money in the long run.

I got the 3200+ and it works perfectly with my games.. and I can upgrade later if need be.

If you want your PC to last longer get Dual core. (P.S. get Athlon 64s, Intel is behind in the Dual core business and is more expensive)

If you are multitasking the multithreading should help...

Hmm. I think I am going to go with a single core and upgrade later. When gaming titles start to frequently coem out multi threaded, I will upgrade. At the moment, the AMD Athlon 64 4000+ is sick for gaming. I just want to know, when I minimize the game or something, will my computer get all glitchy and freeze?

I am just getting a single core based on Toms Hardware.com and I think that dual cores don't really show many signs of running games better.

Dual-Cores are for multi-tasking...like, having a Game up, some intense webpages, winamp/windows media player, msn/aim/yahoo/icq etc.

It shares and spreads the CPU load and usage.

well from what I've seen.. really the overclock that'll give you the boost- get the fsb up to around 240 or higher and you'll see some good returns.. only games you'll really be struggling with on the ultra quality nowdays is quake 4 and fear- as long as you have a ati x800 256mb or better you should be fine.. I know some people like to say cache size matters but even the 64s with 256k cache and 1600 bus speed has no problems with the high end cards.. make sure have least a gig of memory and get your memory timings down as low as they can go- like 2.5-3-3-7 or lower.. if your running the top end stuff like the 7800 with 512mb you can pretty much call it quits for a year or 2 cause it'll run everything with all the eye candy- if your lookin to run like halflife 2 full out all eye candy 1280x960- even a x800 will do it fine with some o/c.. for the money can't really beat the new sempron 64's came out- far as gaming at least.. if you need the raw speed for other apps then I guess spend the money on the higher end cpu's- I think they're not necessary but I'm a avid overclocker.. more on the video card after you've done all this tweaking (even a 1.6 bus won't ever be fully used- the 2ghz bus on the 939 is just sick)

Thats all cool, but I am not getting a different graphics card. I am staying with the ATI Radeon 9550. I want my computer to be able to run Half Life 2, and Battlefield 2, but not necesarily on high settings.
I might have one or two instant messaging programs open in the backgorund, or ventrillow or something. Should I go with the AMD X2 4200+, or the AMD Athlong 64 4000+. I will probably press teh windows button and minimize and stuff, and I dont want that to lag. I will never be burning DVD's, or CD's or compiling things in the background.

Based on my computer specs, what would be better to go with, AMD Athlong 64 4000+ or AMD X2 4200+?

x2 is the way to go.. I was just tryin to point out for gaming even the low end does it on the 64- if your looking to run several things at once with no loading it's really about the amount of memory.. run tweak xp and have windows load it's core so it never has to swap for system files.. there's some other things you can tweak out too but I'd go with the x2- tom's is really biased noticed cause he gets paid.. alot of peeps spend way more money on systems than they need to- you can build a high end pc gaming rig for 500 bucks minus the monitor and harddrives (most of that is just for the video card).. that radeon you have is going to be the bottleneck on your system unless your planning on upgrading it later.. what I noticed it's just better to spend all that money up front on a decent card and go with a lower end cpu and the socket 939 nowdays- can't go wrong

I dunno if I can post links but here's a decent deal out right now.. kill 2 birds with one stone

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...&sku=E145-7810

later I will upgrade graphics card and mobo. At the moment, I really just want lots of ram and a good processor, and of course a new mobo to support it all. I find it sort of hard to believe that I am spending $700 on 2 gigs of ram, a processor, and a mobo.

I think I am going with dual core. Should I get X2 4200+ or X2 3800+? I know I can overclock and stuff, but does that void the warranty? And I have zero experience overclocking, but I think that the 3800 might just be the way to go.

Some sites say that the Dual Core isn't the way to go for gaming, and until multi threaded games come out, I sort of have to agree. I just wonder, how soon will these multithreaded games come out?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04...al-core_games/

Think about it tho....they are fast enough for games now....today...how much more speed do you need? I would rather be ready with a Dual Core then with out...I would have got a Dual core on my Dell 5100 if it was available....the HT 650 chip set was the best I could get...

Well dual core is nice if you what to play GW and rips music or dvds or maybe watch a dvd while you play GW, and down load music and porn all at the same time, just make sure you have more than 1gig of memory!!! I have a Daul core, dual video card setup and i must say that it is the shitnitz!!! Playing GW and ripping audio tracks or burning Netflix Movies at the same time, saves alot of time!!! LOL I would go dual core/ or dual processore ahy day, just becareful you dont buy dual proc, much slower than dual core!!!! oh and Get AMD 4000+ or higher 64bit chips, thats the future and the new Windows operating system thats coming out will take full advantage of dual everything!! Video, core, evereytihng!!!!!

True...Windows Vista will be more Dual Core friendly...I have noticed more and more even with my HT Processor that each "core" (lack of a better term) have different demands on them. One side will be at 80% while the other is at 40%...and so on. Seems more and more programing is taking advantage of this now....

No, it doesn't. The Athlon64 4000+ gets on the average of 5% better framerates in games in CPU-limited situations because games only use one core and the San Diego 4000+ is clocked 200MHz higher than the cores in the X2 4200+. Dual-core doesn't 'hinder' anything -- it's simply a difference in clockspeed.

No offense, but I highly recommend getting your information from somewhere besides Tom's Hardware. I've oftentimes found their information to be flat-out wrong. My current favorite PC tech site is www.AnandTech.com. They're far more reliable and professional than THG.

@ 4runner
4000+? Are you talking about for the dual cores? I heard that the 4200+ X2 is the same as 2 3500+ single cores. Should I get single core 4000+ and wait for the 4800+ X2 to lower to around $300? I think that it will probably take a while to go that much lower.

or

Should I get the 3800+ or 4200+ both dual cores?
I am almost decided on getting the 4200+ X2, but noticed that the 3800+ is the same, just lower clock speed. I have no experience in overclocking, but should I save the $80 and attempt to overclock it? And does overclocking void the wararnty?

Yes, and they can tell that you've done it. CPUs rarely go bad, though. If you're careful about temps and voltages you won't hurt your CPU. Read some guides on overclocking the X2's before you try it. Personally I don't overclock anymore. In my "old age" I'd rather pay more for easy stability than to have to worry about my hardware overheating. That's me though.