Will this play it?

[urbancamper]

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4113524&sku=M975-FX7020From what i have read, this cpu can be overclocked to 2.8gh. That is, if it is the Black Box edition. Not so sure if it is not. Granted the video card is not the greatest, but this can be upgraded as can the memory(only 800mhz but it will keep me in the game for now.)What I need to know is will it play the game fairly decently as is. i will not have a lot to spend to begin with, but can always rip it apart and rebuild later. Blah blah blah blah blah. Also I was going to get a 22" monitor but will have to settle for this.http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4108000&sku=S197-2018

[SN3AK]

Personally I'd format and install XP but that's just me.

As for playable, it should max out specs on CoD4 easy. I at least don't see any reason it wouldn't.

I don't think overclocking on that one is a good idea, and from what I've read AMD's quad cores, even the Black Editions, still don't overclock as well as Intel's quads. Here's an OC article for that CPU actually and the problems they had. http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom9600_bb/16.htm

As for a monitor, what about this one?

[urbancamper]

3 dead pixels? The other one while being 2 inches smaller has a response time of 2ms and gets almost all 5 stars with no dead pixels. Plus is 20 bucks cheaper I'm kinda broke after i do this. Thanks for response on the cpu though. I wasn't sure with the cpu at 2.3ghz even though it's a quad. I know it used to be amd cpus with lower ghz rates we're faster than intels' of the same rate. Now though i guess it's the other way around. Though i wonder, if therotically, a new amd single core were still made,would it rate higher than a single core amd of the old design.Hmmm. Get it? heehee

[SN3AK]

Pixel problems for one person doesn't mean every monitor is defective and can you honestly tell me you'd notice the difference between 2ms and 5ms? As for cheaper, it's only about $4 cheaper after shipping for me. Plus has built in speakers, (sometimes useful even if built in speakers always suck) and 2 x VGA in / 1 x DVI in. Also has a slightly higher Horizontal Viewing Angle though you might not notice that as much. If you don't like it, cool, just saying I think it's a good deal.

As for AMD vs Intel I believe it was due to architecture design on the chips. AMD had lower clock rates but usually benchmarked higher than similar priced Intel's, but I think this was back in the day of single core 32 bit. I was always an AMD fan because you got more bang for your buck with AMD. These days you can still build an excellent budget machine with AMD but if you want to start pushing the bar and get into overclocking, it seems it's Intel all the way. The last two $1,000 gaming machines I built for customers I used the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 and GeForce 8800GTS's. Unfortunately for them they were a couple months early and missed out on some excellent price drops both CPU and GPU wise.

[urbancamper]

i just want to push the amd chip up to about 2.5 which will bring it in line with the recommended cpu ghz. Though being a quad i guess it wouldn't matter. anyways thanks. I guess i will be playing with youall hee hee soon.

[SN3AK]

Since the recommended is 2.4GHz Dual-Core and this is a 2.3GHz Quad-Core it's essentially equivalent to a 4.6GHz Dual-Core or 9.2GHz Single Core... in theory anyway, there's still the factor of bus speed and whatnot which I really don't know anything about. I know Call of Duty 4 does take advantage of multiprocessing (though I've heard not very well) but whether that automatically means it'll work the same between a dual core and quad core I have no idea.

Anyway... See you on there then, assuming you're on as late as I am haha, seems the only ones I ever see on as late as I am are Angelz and Goofy.

[Dogger]

Nerds