Upgrade Question 2.4 -> 3.4 Performance?

It looks like I will be upgrading from an AMD 2.4 to an AMD 3.4 64. That seems to be about my pricepoint at the moment. Of course I have some questions regarding performance.

- My previous upgrade was from an AMD 1.7 to a 2.4. I was pleased. Will the increase in performance be more noticable from the 2.4 to the 3.4?
- I was looking to play some Lock On Air Combat. Will that be enough rig to run it?
- Another I have been playing in Free Falcon. It runs anywhere from 14 - 60 fps depending on the situation. A constant 30 fps would be nice.
- Any reccomendations as far as mb manufacturers or vendors? I frequently use Pricewatch and I have had good experiences so far.

So, anyone have any experience with a similar upgrade or with the games I have mentioned with a like processor?

Thanks for any input.

 

Iv just upgraded from an overclocked amd 1900+ to a a64 3500 Is a totally different world.you will see a drastic performance increase as long as your graphics card is up to it.
Check out these two articles the vga chart will show you what happens when you put an old card in a new system
The cpu chart will show you what happens when you put a new card in an old system
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index.html
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/index.html
check out the directx bechmarks at the bottom of the page to see both vga and cpu charts.These will give you a good idea what to expect in games.

 

OK, Just to check I assume you mean you have a 2400+ and you're going to a 3400+? Please remember, those numbers are not mhz, so the chips themselves arn't actually 3.4ghz. For example the AMD 64 4000+ chip runs at 2.4Ghz. The 3400+ runs at 2.2ghz.

As for diffrences in games from a 2400+ to a 3400+, to be perfectly honest, unless you're doing something weird to your system you should see basicly no diffrence at all. Games depend mostly on the video card, if you fix a pc up nicely you can run pretty much any game nicely on a 1Ghz-1.5Ghz computer if you got a nice video card in it.

Having the faster processor can help you boot faster, speed up video encoding and graphical design, or even let you run more applications at once without slowing them down.

So I mean a faster processor is nice, and it helps speed up more then just that, but if you're looking to speed up games you should be upgrading the video card and not the processor.

 

i agree with Coco. Even though I am an advocate of Athlon 64's and love mine to death, your money would be better spent on an upgrade from your 9600 pro.

you might consider an Nvidia GeForce 6600GT for $180-$200 as it is the best priced card for a nice performance jump. the next step up is a 6800, for around $280, or if you like ATi, the X800.

 

How did you guys know he had a 9600 pro?
Before i upgraded my whole system i plugged my 6800gt into my 1900+ system hoping i could play half life 2 i knew it wouldn't look great but i thought it would be resonably playable,I was wrong the the cpu just didnt have the bandwidth to feed the the card"this wasnt the stutter bug"
I think the best thing to do now is find a match between graphics card and cpu,the easiest way I have found is to match them price for price
The best performance increase will be seen by deviding your money equally
between the two in my opinion,BUT you will lose upgrade potential in the long by choosing a cheaper mobo+cpu.

 

I've persoanlly played HL2 on an AMD 1900+ with a geforce 4 TI. It ran fine, the CPU can handle it just fine, granted not on the highest settings, but that's more because of the video card, not the processor. Perhaps you were just running a bunch of crap in the background, it was quite playable though, and at a nice frame rate.

Also, he posted his specs in his first post, that's how we knew his vid card. Perhaps you overlooked it without thinking since it's part of his sig, I know I overlook sigs all the time without putting any thought into it.

 

The thing about the ti4000 s which I found out last night is they only support directx 8.0 so there is less detail to manage,when they introduced the fx series it supported directx 9.0 alot more sharp textures but games seemed alot more sluggish compared to the ti4000s.I think thats why people thought they sucked.
As in halflife2 the game would have underclocked itself to directx 8.0
On the half life website I have heard there is a guide to show you how to do
this artificially for people to get a significant performance increase but with a loss in quality.Since I just spent the best part of £300 on the card I wasnt gonna turn the detail down so I decided to wait till I upgraded the rest of my system before playing it again maybe thats why I remember it being so bad on my old system,also I think my half gig of mem was another problem
"You dont realize how bad you had it till you'v got it good"

It seemed no matter what I did to the detail the fps would the same with cpu limitation it seemed like the cpu just couldnt power the 6800 and handle the hl2 pysics engine
"DEEP BREATH Huuuu"
I'v also heard that when you marry a high end card with a slow system the card sucks the life from the cpu leaving no power left for anything else and causing stuttering this was especially evident when playing call of duty online with all the detail turned down the game would jump constantly every half a second my 5700 never did this no matter how many people i played against and my ping was always around 40.

Quote:"I hope Im wrong,everytime I'm wrong I learn something"Me 2mins ago