Pentium4 3.4G 512cache,or P4 3.2G 1G cache with upto 2g ram, coupled to X800xt. Or would I be better with the AMD64 FX53,1G ram and X800pro. There are just so many combinations, I need someone like Par Oqvist to put me on the right road. Do I need 2G ram with the P4 ? ( can only afford 1G if I go with the FX53)Any advice greatly appreciated.Russell.

If you have $$ go with FX53 - definitely better spent money than on extra 1GB of ram. But then if you have so much disposable cash - get X800XT.Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200 http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Haha, hey, I'm on a budget like most people. Actually, I went to my usual computer shop and he scared the hell out of me with his prices, so I started to shop around and found I could shave hundreds of pounds off what he was asking. So yes, I can afford the X800xt with a P4. but not if I go with the FX53. That costs me around

Look at my specs (in my signature). I paid for the whole thing $1800. And I don't think I am that many fps behind the FX-53...Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200 http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

"And I don't think I am that many fps behind the FX-53..."And that's the key. The FX-53 is a great CPU, but the standard 939's perform almost as well... and don't cost nearly as much. The FX-53 ofers more options with regard to overclocking, but ultimately it's up to each buyer to decide if that flexibilty is worth the expense.Also, tests have shown that there is no GREAT performance gain in having 1Mb of L2 cache vs. 512Kb. Again, is the extra expense worth it to the buyer?Greg

Thanks for the replys. I'm certainly not into trying to get the most expensive, but I don't upgrade very often (can't afford to )so wanted to get the best I could afford. Trouble is, my local supplier is less than useless and my knowledge of these things is very limited. The point with the P4's was the 3.2 1Gcache was a bit cheaper than the 3.4 512cache. I had'nt a clue which was best. I was then astounded to find that if I dropped from the X800xt to the pro. I could get the FX53 for under

There is no wrong getting a FX 53 if you have the money for it. It

"...that has more then 512 kb of cache. It do much in gaming really just as much as the dual channel if not more do for the 939 A64:s particularly in games."Another one of your "intuitive" conclusions, ey Par?Here are the facts: http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=247&p=1Specifically, at the end of the tests is this:"The Athlon 64 3800+ Socket 939 dances well with the Socket 940 FX-53 and both take a turn at the pole position. Does the larger cache provide a bigger performance benefit or is it the fatter data pipe? It's difficult to say and it depends on the application. Unfortunately software boxes don't come with labels that say "Optimized for a large processor cache" or "Warning! Memory bandwidth intensive!""For reference, the 3800 Socket 939 has 512Kb of L2 cache while the Socket 940 FX-53 has 1Mb. Some games MAY benefit from the extra cache and some may not (depends how they are written).You also wrote: "Socket 754 A64 is definiatly the best bang for the buck you can get really."Indeed they do offer the best bang for the buck. But Russell should also know that the Socket 754's are at their end... they offer extremely limited upgrade options.An additional cost factor for Russel is the fact that the FX-53 requires the more expensive registered memory. I wouldn't be surprised if that idea follows the same lonely road as RDRAM wandered down.Finally, when comparing the top end Intel and AMD CPU's it should be remembered that the former are easily the better in some applications (mulimedia for example) while a clear leader does not exist in the world of gaming. Both Intel and AMD swap leads depending upon the game.Regards,Greg

Well thanks very much for those replies Par and Greg. Some very interesting information. That was a very useful link Greg. Have I made my mind up ? No. Haha, but I now feel in a bit better position to understand the different combinations. Much appreciated.Russell.

"Have I made my mind up ?"LOL You're not alone there! There are plenty of choices, many of them good for us... the folks who buy the stuff.Good luck,Greg

Lol you can make whatsoever to show up can you ;).Yes the 3500+ can dance well with the FX 53 in many games because most games are video card limited ;) that don

http://www.hardware.no/art.php?artikkelid=8863&side=4It

"There is no huge performance difference at all with dual channel or cache seldom more then 5 %."Thanks for finally presenting the facts and evidence to support them.Greg

I only deal with facts :)I don

"Oooh,bloody eck" ( as they say in my adopted town of Worksop) You two guys have given me some very valuable information on how to spend my hard earned cash to best advantage. You are two very knowledgeable guys with,err,well, different views, but I've been on these forums long enough to know that you both know what you are talking about and I have a lot of respect for you. Please allow me to buy you both a virtual drink ( mines a Rum & Black ) and end this on a friendly note.Russell.