BF2S Forums AMD Processor

Please can someone give some info???

Yes i know.. but i wan't to know if you could compare them??

3000+ ~ 1800 Mhz
3200+ ~ 2000 Mhz
3500+ and 3700+ ~ 2200 Mhz
4000+ and 3800+ ~ 2400 Mhz

Most of them run + 200 Mhz overclocked

Some of them have different cores and a different production prozess
Example: 4000+ San Diego 0.09 Micron

For gaming they're best, if you want edit videos or music choose Intel

And i also heard you could do 1 ghz extra to compare with a intel but im not shure :rolleeyes:

Clockspeed really doesnt matter. Thats why AMD markets with the number after the chip name instead of the clockspeed. The number is supposed to be comparable to the P4 equivalent in Hz...

example:
Athlon 64 3500+ == ~P4 3.6Ghz

For gaming a slower AMD can outperform a P4, but really the biggest improvement you can have for BF2 is either RAM or a video card.

Did you check out the Tom's Hardware Page URL Rakasan posted?

That comparison tells you just about everything you need to know about Intel vs AMD for gaming. Read the whole thing.

A better chart in that report for BF2 players is this one because Farcry is also a DirectX 9 game:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/ … age29.html

I have always been an Intel fan, and was shocked to see how big a lead AMD has in performance. AMD manages to get better performance at a lower clock speed, and consumes less power so it generates less heat. All of this while using less expensive DDR memory, not DDR2.

Tom's has great Video card reviews too.

Like mpsmith said, CPU is not as critical a resource in BF2 as memory and GPU (video card processor). If you budget is limited, you should favor getting 2GB of RAM and a high-end video card over a faster CPU.

One other thing to keep in mind is that AMD is expected to announce a new processor line with a new socket soon so they can use DDR2 memory and go even faster - if you can wait.

I have:

AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Core VENICE
1,5 GB TWINMOS DDR400 (2x256 + 2x512) that runs a 333mhz (all four slots are full)
GIGABYTE 6600 128MB

And i run bf2 at medium with AA 2x



If u need a cpu for game, amd is the way to go. If u want the top, take an AMD FX, dont take dual core since they are useless in gaming, but they are really useful in multitasking

Moved

|^|DHG|^| Sgt.Skinnister wrote:

I have a AMD athlon xp 3000+ (barton core) in my rig but I cant really say that it is a fantastic cpu, I would rather have AMD 3200+ but apparently if you go for a AMD 2400 you can overclock it to as good as a 3200+ because it has 512mb L2 cache memory at a fraction of the price as long as you have a good cooler.

sry but roflmao..   512mb L2 cache?? damn thats something.. please post a futuremark and pcmark score with that amount of L2 cache


couldnt resist it mate.. again sry i normally dont punk ppl if i understand what they say but that was just too funny..

sapoisk wrote:

Mr.kodak wrote:

I have 2gig of ram ddr400
AMD 3800x2 (superb cpu) cept i have to turn 1 core off when i play bf2:(
and a 7800gtx

I use to have a intel and it was shit compared to this amd!

have to turn of one core?? why?? does it get unstable or what happens if you dont turn it off??
have you made the hotfix for xp cause i had same problem with my X2 4400+ before i made the hotfix(was getting unstable, stalled and rebooted sometimes)..

if not then you can find it on amd's site..

quite simply windows 32bit does not support dual core yet, nor does BF2. *bump

Id swear by AMD..i have a 3500+ atm,but i wanna upgrade soon

mpec82 wrote:

I have:

AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Core VENICE
1,5 GB TWINMOS DDR400 (2x256 + 2x512) that runs a 333mhz (all four slots are full)
GIGABYTE 6600 128MB

And i run bf2 at medium with AA 2x

If u need a cpu for game, amd is the way to go. If u want the top, take an AMD FX, dont take dual core since they are useless in gaming, but they are really useful in multitasking

I've a dual-core AMD processor and I do not find it useless one bit.  The system is more responsive upon exit and I find it easier to kill rogue processes than on single-core.  Multi-core is going to be a big factor in the coming years/months/time when applications take more advantage of multi-threading.  This includes games as well.  3D hardware has advanced to the point where we can no longer keep the chip busy on low resolutions.

iLLmatic wrote:

sapoisk wrote:

Mr.kodak wrote:

I have 2gig of ram ddr400
AMD 3800x2 (superb cpu) cept i have to turn 1 core off when i play bf2:(
and a 7800gtx

I use to have a intel and it was shit compared to this amd!

have to turn of one core?? why?? does it get unstable or what happens if you dont turn it off??
have you made the hotfix for xp cause i had same problem with my X2 4400+ before i made the hotfix(was getting unstable, stalled and rebooted sometimes)..

if not then you can find it on amd's site..

quite simply windows 32bit does not support dual core yet, nor does BF2. *bump

Windows 2000 and beyond has support for multi-cores.  The only drawback is that Windows 2000 doesn't have as good of a support as Windows XP and derivatives do.

Like sapoisk have mentioned, go to AMD's site and download their processor driver.  Initially, there were a few issues that came up when running some games but virtually all of that has been resolved in the patch.  I have been playing BF2 with this driver installed and never had any stability problem.