Which new Asus MB and which processor?

Discussion in 'Asus' started by MeNotHome, Apr 19, 2006.

  1. MeNotHome

    MeNotHome Guest

    I am going to upgrade to a newer Asus System. I have had great luck
    with ASUS but haven't kept up with current technology.

    I don't do much gaming but do require memory and cpu horsepower for
    web design and photoshop work. Must have dual monitor capability.

    here is the board I am looking at
    A8N-SLI Premium
    2Gig RAM

    But which processor offers the most bang for the buck. Should I be
    looking at Athlon FX, 64 or X2?

    Should I be purchasing a PCI Express video card? Any recommendations
    (again must support dual monitors)

    Funds are not unlimited though.
    If I should be looking at a different board, please make a

    MeNotHome, Apr 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. MeNotHome

    dino Guest

    why not wait till the new M2 AMD's come out, looks like they will carry on
    the socket 754 Semprons and bring the 939 to an end. I would wait till there
    is better info out there. As for PCI-E..you have to buy that unless you are
    going to use an older chipset like the Via's.The NF4's only support PCI-E
    and the SLi is for 2 of them, so unless you are going to run dual video
    cards, look for a different board.
    dino, Apr 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. MeNotHome

    MeNotHome Guest

    Are we talking a couple weeks wait or a couple months for the newest
    MeNotHome, Apr 19, 2006
  4. MeNotHome

    MeNotHome Guest

    After looking at some processor prices the FX series it out of my

    But now Athlon 64 or Athlon 64 X2?
    If i look at 3800+ athlon 64, is there a reason to get the venice core
    over someting else?

    MeNotHome, Apr 19, 2006
  5. MeNotHome

    DRS Guest

    AMD are scheduling the first release of AM2 for early June. Current testing
    by Anandtech shows a very modest improvement over 939 (1%-3% in the real
    world), which they put down to the fact that the only difference is in the
    memory controller and the Athlon 64 cpu architecture simply isn't starved
    enough of memory bandwidth for the extra bandwidth to make much of a
    difference. AMD are aiming to go start releasing 65um die AM2s early in
    2007, and if they incorporate new architectural features then we can expect
    to see how AMD is responding to Conroe. The big question mark in the near
    future will be cost. If AM2 systems are more expensive than 939 systems
    (even assuming the 1st gen systems are stable) then they won't represent
    good value until 2007, but I've seen no price indications to say what will
    happen. For myself the curent situation says if you need a machine now then
    go 939, otherwise wait until early 2007. It's just a law of the universe
    that whatever you buy is obsolete the day you get it home. Do the best you
    can and move on.

    If you buy the A8N-SLI Premium (which I have and it's a very good board)
    then you will have to go PCIe for your video. To the best of my knowledge
    all GeForce 7xxx cards support dual-monitor (my XFX 7800GT XXX does), and
    many 6xxx cards do.

    If you're doing lots of graphics processing then apps like Photoshop will
    benefit from dual-core. I think the X2 4200 (again, which I have) is the
    best value X2 CPU. The CPU multiplier matters more than the L2 cache size,
    which is why there is sod all performance difference between the 4200
    (Manchester core, 512KB L2 cache) and the more expensive 4400 (Toledo core,
    1024KB L2 cache), since they both run 11x200Mhz by default. The X2 4200 is
    not much more expensive than the X2 3800 but the extra multiplier (11 v 10)
    will give you just that bit extra grunt for the future.

    Plus, if you buy yourself a decent (but not expensive) CPU cooler like the
    Arctic Cooler Freezer 64 Pro you can run your X2 4200 at FX-60 speeds quite
    comfortably. I'm running my 4200 at 2640Mhz and my RAM at DDR398 (memory
    clock at 333 x the CPU frequency of 240Mhz). It's effectively a stock FX-60
    for a third the price.
    DRS, Apr 19, 2006
  6. MeNotHome

    Outback Jon Guest

    Well, the San Diego cores have more L2 cache making them work faster for
    a given (actual) clock speed.

    Also, don't rule out the Opteron processors. They have the extra L2
    cache (1MB) and are based on the FX cores - and are usually GREAT
    overclcockers if you do that sort of thing. This response is being
    typed on an Opteron 146 (2.0 GHz) that is overclocked to FX series
    speeds (2.8 GHz) - on air cooling and completely stable... <vbg> ($810
    worth of speed for $220)

    The X2 series are good - and more future proof - IF you have
    applications that will effectively use two processors. Otherwise, you
    probably will not notice much real-world difference. Looking back at
    the original post, I see you use Photoshop - I think PS takes advantage
    of the multiple cores, so it would probably be worth your investment to
    get a dual-core. If you can't afford one at the moment, the A8N-SLI
    will let you use single core for now and upgrade later.
    Outback Jon, Apr 19, 2006
  7. MeNotHome

    DRS Guest

    Even if you're running single-threaded applications the fact that you can
    effectively run more of them at the same time means you still benefit from
    DRS, Apr 19, 2006
  8. MeNotHome

    Roy Coorne Guest

    MeNotHome asked:
    We are talking about the 23rd May now:
    Roy Coorne, Apr 19, 2006
  9. MeNotHome

    MeNotHome Guest

    Thanks all.

    Special thanks to DRS for the processor tips.
    I will look at getting a 4200+ x2 and the cooler you recommended.

    MeNotHome, Apr 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
