January 25, 200620 yr Can somone give me an opinion if the $300 difference between a P4 3.6 and a 3.8 is worth it. I guess I am really just looking for whether or not the I would gain that much performance (and not just in regards to MSFS) but in general computer use. I am wondering if I get the 3.6 will I be missing out on performance but then again if I get the 3.8 will I have spent more money for a negligible difference in computer performance.Thanks for an advice Andrew
January 25, 200620 yr If the only difference between the two is the 200Mhz speed differential you won't see a difference in performance. But, if the cache sizes are different or there are other internal differences it could be another matter.Doug Intel 10700K @ 5.1Ghz, Asus Hero Maximus motherboard, Noctua NH-U12A cooler, Corsair Vengeance Pro 32GB 3200 MHz RAM, RTX 2060 Super GPU, Cooler Master HAF 932 Tower, Thermaltake 1000W Toughpower PSU, Windows 10 Professional 64-Bit, 100TB of disk storage. Klaatu barada nickto.
January 25, 200620 yr Author Looks like they are virtually the same as I compare them on the Alienware web site. You have the ability to compare all the features side by side on the website and it all appears the same except the 200mhz. Not alot for 300 bucks. I am pretty new to this so you pointing that information out helped me compare them side by side.Thanks, if any one else has an opinion I would love to hear them. Andrew
January 25, 200620 yr I upgraded from a Pentium 2.0 to 3.8 and couldn't be any happier.I do lots of video work. The difference in speed and time is unbelievable. The Fps in FS9 is fantastic.Abe
January 26, 200620 yr What Doug said, if they're that similar. Spend the $ on RAM or RAM or...a really fast extra drive'd be good too. Or RAM ;-)jb
January 26, 200620 yr I would just say AMD 64 is definiatly faster for 95 % of the games out there including FS 2004. just for your info :). They run cooler as well so easier to build a silent computer around them and of course god forbid they are easier to overclock :).
January 28, 200620 yr Not trying to sway you, but you might want to take a look at this article from extremetech.http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1876715,00.aspLooks like the Athlon chips do a pretty good job of keeping up and perhaps exceeding Intel performance for FS2004.Good luck!Airbus Al Kaupa Digital Storm purchased 8/17/2011; Win7x64: Asus P8P67 Deluxe; Intel i7 2600K@3,9 GHZ; nVidia GTX 560Ti; 8GB DDR3 1600 Corsair Dominator; Power Corsair HX 750W; Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD; 300GB WD VelociRaptor; 1TB Seagate.
January 29, 200620 yr How come the Athlon 64 3800+ is showing faster than the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ in FS2004?Gary 9800X3D | 4090 | 64GB | 2+1TB NVME | 2TB SSD | 2TB HDD | 85/50/43” TVs | Quest 3 | DOF H3 Motion Rig | Buttkicker | T.16000M Flight Kit MSFS @ 4K Ultra DLSS Performance FG 80 FPS | VR VDXR Godlike 80Hz SSW | MSFS VR DLSS Quality, Ultra Preset - Windows 11 Acer Nitro 5 | i5-11400H | RTX 3060 6 GB | 32GB DDR4 | 15.6" FHD IPS 144Hz | 2 x 512 GB SSD | Windows 11
January 29, 200620 yr i love my FX-55. just one problem, it runs HOT. I bought a zalman heatsink but am probably going to get something else, it hovers around 50 degrees C
Create an account or sign in to comment