While this is my first post its not my first time here on the forums been reading articles and posts by other forums members and just had to join I've been contemplating my next ugrade from my 3 year old P4 2ghz cpu, it served me well but its starting to show its age in more modern day games. So now i am looking at getting the asrock uli mobo since i just got a 6600gt (which is agp) which is doing a good job but is being held back by cpu. Right now i can't decide which cpu to get, a amd 64 3700 san diego, a amd 64 3800 venice or a amd 64 X2 3800. The cpu gonna have to last me a while and will be oc'in it. Which cpu would u recommend i get ?
The San Diegos have 1MB of cache onboard, which in real-world usage makes little difference compared to a Venice's 512K, so if you have to choose between those two, the higher clock of the Venice should give it the edge. You'll find that both overclock extremely well, with many getting 400-600MHz over stock. They also run extremely cool - good if you're a quiet PC enthusiast. Myself? I would buy the X2 - it seems to make Windows so much more responsive, and if you don't plan to upgrade for a while, you'll need the second core when engines start to become multithreaded. Even if that doesn't happen for a while, you'll still enjoy the smoothness of having DC. My 4400+ was worth every penny As for overclocks on the dual-core Athlons, the 3800+ seems to be the best, with a few hitting over 2.7GHz. However, heat is a real issue with these when raising the voltage - good cooling is essential, even if the stock HSF is enormous.
Agreed with all of the above. Venice chips are wonderful, though you don't necessarily need such a big one if you're going to OC...the higher the mhz out of the box, the less it will OC later. So you're just paying for performance you could possibly get through your OC. The X2 3800+ is a GREAT chip, though. When I build a new rig, that's going to be my choice as well. It overclocks like a beast, and it will provide a second core when things get multithreaded. It even provides some benefits now, just being able to run two dedicated processes at full speed. So, that would be my top choice.
thanks for the input put i'v been seing ppll only reaching 2.4ghz oc with the x2 3800 so that had me kinda of worried also should i get a 1gb tccd ram or 2 gb ocz el platinum ram ?
Keep in mind that 2.4GHz is actually the same speed as the X2 4800+ (sans the extra 512k of cache per core), making it a pretty respectable performer. Many go on to do even more than that
Yep...and because of the HTT at that speed, a 2.4ghz 3800+ actually outperforms the over double-priced 4800+. Whatever your ram is, make sure it has tight timings, that's what makes an AMD shine.
The X2 3800+ is Great chip worth every penneh and ocs great even on crappy ram... Also an asrock uli mobo does not seem very practicle try going with a MSI/Asus/DFI mobo as they have better OCing potienial -Fr4nk
The X2 3800 is the current wonder chip. But rightly so, its fantabulously amazing, and I intend on getting one in the next few months, and overclocking the life outta it
you say only hits 2.4GHz, i assume you do know that when considering the speed of AMD cpu's vs pentium 4's you need to look at the PR rating i.e the 3800 instead of the actual clock speeds, as amd's do a lot more work per clock cycle than the pentiums and so dont need to have as fast clock speeds. A 3800+ X2 at 2.4GHz would blitz your current pentium 4 2GHz many times over.
i know it will blitz my P4 there's no argument there, but i am buying it for gamin and i don't think i multitask that often and i don't know that dual core will have a major impact on performance. a oc'd 3700 may beat the oc'd x2 3800 when multithreading games are released and i'm lookin to keep the cpu as long as possible
How the hell did you work that one out? A X2 has TWO cores, not ONE like the 3700 San diego. Therefore, in multithreaded games it will basically PWN the 3700. Or so it is said.
You'll be able to overclock that X2 3800+ to a high speed to surpass the performance of the normal 3800+ and still enjoy the benefits of having two cores. Even if you don't, the extra smoothness in Windows (and indeed in general) is worth the small performance loss. Trust me when I say the X2s are worth it
I can possibly find that out from some people who have access to it, if they'll give away details, although they may be on a NDA, so... But try I will.
Doubt you'll find much, but rest assured that games WILL be multithreaded soon. I'd imagine any engine currently in development that was started after the release of dual-core processors (and some shortly before) are designed to be threaded. x2 3800+ for the win. No question. Blazes at stock, mine clocked to 2.5GHz easy and cut my video reencoding times in less than half from a 3000+ Winchester @ 2.25. Also, remember that even though games aren't currently threaded, a lot of stuff runs in the background. If your regular spyware/AV scan starts mid-game, watch your framerate plummet. Don't even start to think about reencoding a movie in the background. When I game, I'll frequently have a movie being converted to Xvid in the background, often times alongside a scan of some sort (or maybe a defrag, not often though), and not suffer the slightest performance hit in game. Productivity-booster if there ever was one... I don't have to delay my gaming to wait for my movie to do it's thing or vice-versa.
Not that soon I don't think. The Doom3 Engine is still being used, if the UE3 isn't multithreaded, that means another company has to start on one, and I think plenty companies will be happy with UE3 and Doom3. Your probably talking 6-12 months before anything decent and multithreaded comes out, and thats a long time in computing.
