[stewart]

i am looking to buy a new 939 processor for gaming nad possibly a little video converting.

i have had a look round and i liked the look of the athlon 64 3800+ (2.4ghz) and the x2 3800(2ghz)

i cant decide between these and i was hoping for some advice

thanks

stewart

 

[dpg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stewart i am looking to buy a new 939 processor for gaming nad possibly a little video converting. i have had a look round and i liked the look of the athlon 64 3800+ (2.4ghz) and the x2 (2ghz) i cant decide between these and i was hoping for some advice thanks stewart

Check here.... CPU benchmarks from tomshardware

 

[vLotN]

Definatly go with the Opteron 148, the X2 might be your other choice if you are going to do ALOT of multitasking. The Opty is cheaper than the 3800(2.4), the opty has more cache, often better overclocking ability. The only thing is the 3800+ runs at 2.4 and thats only a 200 mhz difference but the opty's can usually get to about 2.8 on air, some people get upto 3ghz on air..

 

[tpayne1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vLotN Definatly go with the Opteron 148, the X2 might be your other choice if you are going to do ALOT of multitasking. The Opty is cheaper than the 3800(2.4), the opty has more cache, often better overclocking ability. The only thing is the 3800+ runs at 2.4 and thats only a 200 mhz difference but the opty's can usually get to about 2.8 on air, some people get upto 3ghz on air..

Sometimes i wish i never came to this site....now i regret not buying an opteron.....

 

[Xavier1421]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpayne1 Sometimes i wish i never came to this site....now i regret not buying an opteron.....

Don't feel that way! Overclocking an opteron is currently a fad (and I am on the bandwagon...lol). Soon the dual core performance will start to really show, and the market will shift to the x2's and other dual cores.

Many dual cores overclock well, you just need the hardware to do it. Same goes for opterons!

As for Stewart, I'd get the X2 3800 or a 3700 SD. You don't want the 3800 venice (the extra cache in the SD makes a nice difference). The X2 is a worthy adversary, and with the right ram and motherboard, you should be able to push well over the stock 3700 SD speeds.

By the way, welcome to

verclock.net Stewart!!

 

[Micah442]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpayne1 Sometimes i wish i never came to this site....now i regret not buying an opteron.....

You have a nice processor. I rather trade for yours than mine.

-Micah

 

[Robilar]

This whole Opteron fad is getting a bit old. If you run stock, the San Diego Athlons are a better deal. If you OC, there seems to be a perception that because the opterons have more stringent testing (they are basically the same chip with higher testing standards) there is more potential to overclock. Of course this is subject to steppings which seem to make a signifigant difference as well. I have a 3700+ which is a bloody cheap cpu right now (with 1 mb cache) and a 4000+ which although not as inexpensive is also a really good performer. Dual cores are interesting but I guess it depends on your needs. I run my main rig for gaming and a single core 4000+ is the fastest AMD you can get short of the FX series. My second rig in my kids room is for her use as well as dvd ripping etc. A dual core is not needed by me at this point but for people who feel the need to be doing multiple processor intensive operations on a pc (digital encoding and game playing at the same time?), dual might make sense. In my office, I have a dual core intel based dell but I actually run half a dozen apps simultaneously and its needed (try building a powerpoint presentation and running Adobe distiller at the same time). There are definitely places that the different CPU's shine but decide what you need to do and your budget and go from there. Don't be swayed by the members of the forum raving about how high they OC'd their "opty". They probably spent endless hours getting their systems to that OC point, time I certainly don't have. I'd rather play a game in my spare time.

 

[Oni-San]

I'm going with a 3700+

 

[Pythagoras]

Another alternative, although I'm not sure what the current price difference is, is to go with something like an Opteron 165; dual core, socket 939, overclocks to some degree. Personally, I have an overclocked Opteron 146 that handles my gaming, photo editing, tablet drawings, and every day stuff. You really can't go wrong with any of your choices. Make the purchase and do the best you can with what you have!

 

[stewart]

i just had a look at the 4000, its got some good reviews. i think i might just go for a standard single core after all, but which one is the question - teh 3700 sd or teh 4000 sd (and possible the 3800 venice)

 

[MADMAX22]

well if your not ocing look at the cache and stuff like that, i personally have a opti 170 which is running at 2.8 right now but as mentioned above it took some work to get there

i like the dual core guys because now i can listen to music while playing my online games with teamspeak running and still alt tab out easily and do whatever it is i need to do- somehting that would stress my single core opti a bit

eventually programs will use the dual core more hopefully- right now i like to fold while i play stuff like cod 2

in my opinion i would go with a opti 165 or 170 (if you can afford it) just because they have 2x1mb cache as compared to the 3800 which does have a
higher speed then the 165 but with very little hassle you can oc these guys to 2.4 or so easily (generally)- this is jsut my opinion

 

[stewart]

that benchmarks site in post number 2 rated the athlon 64 3800 venice above the rest, second only to the fx series and the 4000+, but someone else was saying the 3700 san diego was better so i just dont know what to think.

is it worth splashing out a little extra on a 4000 sd with the extra l2 cache, or would the 3700 be a better choice?

 

[tytlyf]

since the opterons increased in price due to their extreme overclocking ability, and that's the only reason they increased in price, the best bet is to get the san diego 3700. The 3700 will overclock to around the same range as the 4000, and its cheaper....the whole point of overclocking is NOT spending alot of money on a processor and making it run the speed of the higher priced chips. Dont waste money if you dont have to.

i bet they believe my price increase bs...

 

[HardwaterH4ck3r]

Meh...future proof and get your dual core...i mean you wont have much performance boost now...but you will be sure you wont be considered slow when vista comes out (if that ever happens)...

Oh, and what's this about people saying the 3800+ runs at 2.4....it simply doesn;t....it runs at 2.0....the 4800+ runs at 2.4...even reputable computing magazines are getting this wrong....stating the 4400+ runs at 2.4 qand that the 4600+ runs at 2.6...i mean what the crap...we of all people should know this stuff!!! [/rant]

 

[stewart]

its actually the single core athlon 64 3800 that runs at 2.4

 

[wowza]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stewart its actually the single core athlon 64 3800 that runs at 2.4

He was saying that the dual core 3800+ can OC to 2.4GHz easily (stock @ 2.0GHz)

I agree tytlyf, get a 3700+ sandy, their dirt cheap and can land you 2.8+ The opty's are getting rare and expensive..