View Full Version : Replacing my processor

08-13-2006, 12:41 AM
On my computer I have a bad 1.4 ghz Athlon processor from about 3 years ago. I want to upgrade and I dont know what to do. Is it just plug and play or do I have have to get a new motherboard. If so, I'm looking at this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116230. Can anybody tell me if this Is any good and, if needed, reccommend a motherboard. Thanks

08-13-2006, 04:22 AM
Well, I don't think that processor is bleeding-edge technology; I think the new one would be the AMD Athlon 64 or the Intel Five processor. I don't know if you need a new motherboard--you'll have to ask one of the computer wizes on the forums. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

08-13-2006, 06:42 AM
You'll need a new motherboard. Exactly what model CPU do you have in your current system? 1.4 Ghz sounds like it's much older than that, honestly. The 1.4 Ghz Athlon Thunderbird dates back to 2000-2001. Beyond that, they released the Athlon XP processors in mid-late 2001, and the slowest of those was 1.5 Ghz.

As to what to get, well, that depends on how much money you're willing to spend. This would be my suggestion:

but you'll see it's more expensive than your choice. Do not buy that P4 you were looking at. If you're trying to stay under $100 for the processor, the Pentium D 805 is $96 at Newegg, and the Athlon 64 3700+ is $99 at Newegg. Of those two, I'd recommend the 3700+, but the 805 is dual-core so it's not a bad deal either. That Conroe I suggested first would run rings around either one.

08-14-2006, 07:26 AM
I checked and i have a 1.5 ghz. Isn't the conroe only 1.86ghz? And mind you, I'm getting a new processor only so my computer will be able to play modern games like Battlefield 2 and SChttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifA and I dont think 1.86 will cut it in the longrun. Battlefield 2 alone requires 1.7.

08-14-2006, 07:28 AM
Sorry about the lack of information but I'm on vacation in europe.

08-14-2006, 08:09 AM
CS: Its not about just the Ghz really... and its never been. Conroe-processors are taking over now..
BF2 requirements are also made from the old standard of AMD XX00+ etc processors
Also, you should give a serious thought to look over more than just processor-speed. RAM, HDD, Graphic-card and RAID-capabilities are all areas that makes it possible to improve your rig.

RAM-upgrade is usually really underappreicated.

This topic was made also about computer-upgrades too where you can find the inforamtion regarding the Conroe etc.

Also, could you give us a complete-spec list of your comp and we will be able to make complete suggestions of upgrades instead of educated guesses http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

08-14-2006, 08:52 AM
Take a look at this benchmark:
The Conroe I linked to earlier in this thread (which is the weakest and cheapest of the lot) comes in between the Athlon X2 5000+ and the 4600+ in benchmark on FEAR. It beats the 5000+ in BF2. It comes in between the 4200+ and the 3800+ on Quake 4. This is a good processor. It also overclocks quite well, if you're into that. If you're not, there are 3 or 4 Conroe processors that are faster, more powerful, and more expensive than this one.

08-15-2006, 08:44 AM
I'm really sorry about the lack of info but I'm on vacation in europe and I will try to get back to you guys when I get back to the states. Thanks for all the help

08-15-2006, 09:09 PM
The AMD Athlon 64 (Socket 939) used to be the best you could get. Recently Intel launched its new flagship processor the Core 2 Extreme, now this thing packs a pretty hefty punch, but that punch might be deflected at your wallet. If you dont want to break the bank, I'd recommend the Athlon 64 3700+. Somebody else already linked to it so I wont bother, and yes, your going to have to upgrade your motherboard, I'd recommend the Asus A8N SLi (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131524R), this motherboard is PCI-e so if you have a AGP video card you'll have to upgrade that too, the XFX nVidia 7600GT is a pretty good budget card at around $180. Now whether you want to spend this much is up to you, there are a lot of cheaper stuff out there but stick with PCI-e, and the 64.

08-18-2006, 07:19 AM
I've been reading over these posts and I noticed something. Everybody said the Athlon 64 was one of the better Athlon Processors, I thought those were old and the newest and best was the Athlon X2.

08-18-2006, 09:38 AM
They are, but are more expensive. It also depends on what you're doing with it. There aren't a lot of games on the market currently that take advantage of multiple cores on a CPU. For the others, single core works as well as dual core, and you can get a much faster single core for less than the price of the slowest dual core processor. However, multi-core processors is the way of the future. Intel is supposed to be releasing the Kentsfield processors at the end of this year. That's a quad-core Conroe.

My suggestion remains the same. If you're going to be rebuilding your computer completely, and you'd have to in order to do a processor upgrade, then go with whatever Conroe you can afford. If you can't afford that much, then you wouldn't be able to afford an Athlon X2 either, and then I would suggest going with the fastest Athlon 64 in Socket 939 you can afford.

08-18-2006, 09:48 AM
I think im gonna wait till the Atlhon FX61 goes down in price, its a dual core at 2.6ghz wich will be the best you can possibly get for a 939 board.

08-18-2006, 10:01 AM
It's never going to seriously drop in price. Even the older FX-55 and such never got much below $800. That's just not worth the money, IMO. I'd recommend getting what I got, the 4800+, and leave it at that.