Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD - General › AMD3800+_939 VS Prescott478 3.2E
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD3800+_939 VS Prescott478 3.2E - Page 7

post #61 of 63
Thread Starter 
anyway now my choice is a conroe so thkx for the advice
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Conroe E6300 P35-DS3L E-vga 8600GT 3G ddr2 OCZ (gold&silver) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250 sata2 +30 ide 1 DVD-writer Win XP PRO sp2 17" CRT 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Antec 480 TruPower2.0 Thermaltake G5 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Conroe E6300 P35-DS3L E-vga 8600GT 3G ddr2 OCZ (gold&silver) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250 sata2 +30 ide 1 DVD-writer Win XP PRO sp2 17" CRT 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Antec 480 TruPower2.0 Thermaltake G5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #62 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evere@dy
HAHAHA! the 3700 isnt as good. first, the 3800 has a higher multiplyer and was awarded best single core OC chip for 939by Maximum PC . plus 512l2 cache means less transistors. less transistors means less heat. pluss cant realy tell the difference between 1mb, and 512kb
3.1 Ghz. Sub 27-second Super Pi 1M. Crazy multitasking for a single core. Show me a air-cooled 3800+ that can do that. Hell, show me ANY 3800+ that can do that.
post #63 of 63
having 'upgraded' from an Athlon 64 3500+ (single core )

to a new Pentium D Presler dual-core 3.4ghz, I was expecting the system to fly

however, it is SLOWER on any single application, I expected that to be about the same speed , as Athlon was rated at 3500, and Intel is 3400mhz.

the system loads in data noticably slower, there is definately a lag to doing everything, that wasnt there with the Amd

the Intel IS better, at multi tasking, as I expected, BUT remember, that all this talk of multi tasking, no one seems to mention, that data being read of the hard disk, can only be read so fast

IE hard drives dont read any faster, so thats the bottle neck

most of the time when I multi task, I open up a browser, copy and paste some text, or photos, open up word, or psp, etc etc I open up what I need at the time

THIS IS NO FASTER with the dual core system

sure, once the apps are loaded, than the system does run smoother in multi tasking, but its smoother and slower per individual app......

the one area where I notice an improvement, is on video encoding, seems about 50% faster than the AMD, so a big plus in this area.........

my point is really, if you have an existing AMD 64 system, and fancy more power, get a x2 64 chip...............thats what I wish I had done now.............

went through a lot of hassle changing board etc, for a system that boots slower, runs slower, but multi tasks faster ( once apps are loaded in )

I went for the Intel, due to great spec of the chip and price was good

the x2 amd was more expensive, but I think it would have been the better choice by far

just thought anyone with AMD 64 should know !!

BOOGS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD - General
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD - General › AMD3800+_939 VS Prescott478 3.2E