A64 3800 vs. A64 X2 3800

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

Teclis2323

Senior member
Dec 27, 2002
307
0
0
Hi everyone,

In the next few months, I plan to do a small ($500 or less) overhaul to my current system. This is supposed to hold me over until I build my "dream gaming rig" next year. I'm looking for advice on what to buy, and I have several things already in mind. I'm posting this in the Processor forum because the majority of this has to do with processors, but if I should repost it in General, please let me know :)

First of all, my current system is quite outdated: Athlon XP 2400+, Gigabyte GA-7N400-L, 1.5GB DDR, Geforce FX5900XT, etc.

My hope is that when I build my gaming computer, I can fall back on this current computer for more general tasks. But until then, I will be using this computer for everything from gaming to general tasks. I don't game a *huge* amount, but I am looking to pick up some of the newer games (Ghost Recon, Half Life 2, EverQuest II) I'm hoping that this system will be able to handle them decently. I'm not counting FPS or overclocking, as I simply don't care enough about that.

What I've been finding with my current computer is that it is simply not a great performer. It lags frequently when I try to do menial tasks such as delete files and when Windows boots up, it's a bit slow. Because of this, I'm looking to do some small upgrades. I plan to upgrade the Proc, the Motherboard and possibly the graphics card. I find myself cursing my current box frequently, and I'm simply getting sick of it.

So what I'm asking is, should I go with the A64 3800, or should I spring for the dual-core X2 3800? There's about 30 bucks in difference, but the motherboards would probably be different. Anandtech seems to have rated the A64 3800 over the X2 3800 in this article - at least in the areas that I would be most interested. IF I went with the normal A64, is it worth getting the 3800? what about the 3000, or 3500? I assume that any of these processors will give me a noticeable upgrade over my XP 2400...

Also, I know that the AM2 is probably a better choice than the 939, but will it really matter unless I sink a lot of money into new DDR2 RAM? My RAM right now is OCZ PC3200, I believe (although it might be 2700, I can check). What are your thoughts on this?

Also, as a side question, do you suppose I can stick with my AGP card for the moment, or should I upgrade to a PCIx card? If sticking with the AGP card would be okay, I'd prefer to do that, but I understand that perhaps this isn't the best thing to do. For casual-to-mid gaming, I assume that most of the 7000 series nvidias will outdo my 5900XT. Is this true? Would a 7300 GT be sufficient? A 7600GS?

I do plan to install Vista on this when it comes out, which is something to keep in mind.

Thank you all for your input. I know this is probably a pretty stupid question, but I did do a search, and I appreciate your help.
 
T

Teclis2323

Senior member
Dec 27, 2002
307
0
0
The thing is, I really didn't want to replace the memory :(

I am leaning towards the S939, and while I DO want dual-core, it looks like Anandtech rated the Single Core 3800 higher. What's up with that?
 
Skeeedunt

Skeeedunt

Platinum Member
Oct 7, 2005
2,777
3
76
Between those two @ $30 diff go with the X2. If you're not overclocking, there are decent conroe boards that can use DDR and DDR2 - e6300 w/ ASRock VSTA whatever it is might be a better choice.
 
K

KyaAvalanche

Member
Jul 21, 2006
36
0
0
Originally posted by: Teclis2323
The thing is, I really didn't want to replace the memory :(

I am leaning towards the S939, and while I DO want dual-core, it looks like Anandtech rated the Single Core 3800 higher. What's up with that?
Click to expand...


It would be on a single application, but at multi-tasking I dont think it can touch it... I was amazed on how much of a difference it was...
 
T

Teclis2323

Senior member
Dec 27, 2002
307
0
0
Hey all, here's what I've been looking at. It ends up being about $324, which is just perfect for my budget. Let me know what you all think - this isn't written in stone yet :)

MSI K8N Neo4-F Socket 939 (Link)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Link)
Geforce 7600GS 256MB Silent Pipe (Link)

The only concern I have is the Silent GPU, and I'm wondering whether I should look for a similar one, but with a fan. Again, I'm not a HUGE gamer, but I do enjoy gaming.
 
B

Bobthelost

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,360
0
0
Because in the majority of applications and roles dual core doesn't make a bit of difference. The major exception being encoding.

AM2 vs 939? It depends on you, a 939 system will tide you over for many a happy year if you let it, an AM2 would allow you to upgrade along the way, which is nice. I'd stick with 939, odds are you'd be buying budget RAM now if you went DRR2 which may prove a bottleneck later. You've already got the stuff, so it's a choice between maybe saving money next upgrade or definitly saving it now.
 
T

Teclis2323

Senior member
Dec 27, 2002
307
0
0
Well, you've convinced me on the X2 processor. Because this computer is not going to be upgraded much after this, I'm going to stick with the S939, since I really don't feel like building basically an entirely new computer. If the X2 mobos had AGP on them, I wouldn't even be buying a new GPU, but the only one with AGP was actually XGP, which doesn't fit my card.

Edit for bobthelost, you don't think that X2 would make a significant difference? What about in multitasking?

I am forever a newb :)

 
T

Teclis2323

Senior member
Dec 27, 2002
307
0
0
So the question is - is it worth getting a PCIx motherboard and investing in a better graphics card, or should I keep my 5900XT and save money?
Would the performance benefits be worth the $100 - $150 spent? And would I *need* the 7600GT for games like HL2, GR:AW and more? I know that I can run HL2 and Everquest II fairly well using my current setup, but then again, who knows what the dual-core processor would do for it...

Perhaps I should look into throwing another stick of 512 RAM in there?
 
Skeeedunt

Skeeedunt

Platinum Member
Oct 7, 2005
2,777
3
76
Originally posted by: Teclis2323
That doesn't take X2, I believe
Click to expand...

The ASRock also has no problem with Athlon x2, FX, or other Socket 939 CPUs.
Click to expand...
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2524&p=3

also http://www.asrock.com/SUPPORT/CPU_Support/show.asp?Model=939Dual-SATA2

Unless I'm missing something? Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with the other boards being mentioned.

Edit: I forget exactly where the 5900 falls, but a 7600 would probably be a pretty big upgrade, and put you in a good league for reasonable HL2 etc framerates.
 
T

Teclis2323

Senior member
Dec 27, 2002
307
0
0
Hey Skeedunt - I must have missed that! I will check it out for sure, as well as the 7600GT.

While I would love to save money with the AGP, part of me thinks that, well, if I get a PCIx card, at least I'll be running close to the newest technology.
 
K

KyaAvalanche

Member
Jul 21, 2006
36
0
0
Originally posted by: Teclis2323
So the question is - is it worth getting a PCIx motherboard and investing in a better graphics card, or should I keep my 5900XT and save money?
Would the performance benefits be worth the $100 - $150 spent? And would I *need* the 7600GT for games like HL2, GR:AW and more? I know that I can run HL2 and Everquest II fairly well using my current setup, but then again, who knows what the dual-core processor would do for it...

Perhaps I should look into throwing another stick of 512 RAM in there?
Click to expand...


I would upgrade any Video below a 6800... I beleive there is a big defference... And with a PCIe it would be one less thing to upgrade later... Within the next month or so I am giong to go with a MSI K8N Diamond Plus and twin 7900GT's SLI... I also beleive there is a noticable differenece going from you 5900 to the 6800...
 
B

Bobthelost

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,360
0
0
If it's the asrock board i'm thinking of then it's got both AGP and PCIe slots. Which means you can upgrade the CPU now and then get a better GPU when you've got more money to throw around.

Multitasking? Right now i've got a 3000 semperon running a bit torrent client, a firewall, firefox and probably a good few other random waste of time applications too. Unless you're talking about running something like a movie encoding program at the same times as you play BF2 then i wouldn't worry about it.
 
T

Teclis2323

Senior member
Dec 27, 2002
307
0
0
That ASRock really is my #1 choice, as it does allow me to upgrade video later on, if I'd like to do so.

Hey bobthelost, I would mainly be multitasking your basic applications, but the X2 might come in handy if I want to multitask between games and normal apps. Am I right, or misguided on this one?
 
D

deadseasquirrel

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2001
1,736
0
0
Originally posted by: Teclis2323
I would mainly be multitasking your basic applications, but the X2 might come in handy if I want to multitask between games and normal apps. Am I right, or misguided on this one?
Click to expand...

Dual-core multitasking doesn't necessarily mean switching between applications (like the definition of plain old multitasking that we've been using for years). It mainly refers to the act of running more than 1 *cpu-intensive* task at a time-- i.e. playing a game while encoding a DVD. 2 tasks that take up pretty much 100% cpu usage each. Having an ftp server run in the background, a resident virus protection, firewall, instant messenger, and an email client while gaming does not equate to dual-core multitasking. All of those applications basically do nothing to eat up what is necessary for running a game.

This is something you can test right now with your current computer. Close every running background application and run a game/benchmark. Now, turn on all that junk, open 4 browsers, etc, and rerun the game/benchmark. I tested it myself with the FEAR benchmark. No difference whatsoever.

What is going to affect your ability to switch between a game and an application quickly and effectively will be 2GB of ram, and a game that doesn't freak out on you when you alt-tab. Some do.
 
T

Teclis2323

Senior member
Dec 27, 2002
307
0
0
Hey DeadSeaSquirrel,

So you don't think that an X2 would give me a significant performance boost in my computing unless I'm doing lots of intensive activities? That's good to know, but now I'm so confused!!!
 
C

CupCak3

Golden Member
Nov 11, 2005
1,318
1
81
well you can always get the x2 and donate your empty computer cycles to a distributed computing projects like folding@home or one of the many worthwhile boinc projects :)
 
myocardia

myocardia

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2003
9,291
30
91
If you are sure that you aren't interested in overclocking, you'd probably much happier with the 3800, not the X2 3800. You'd get 400 Mhz more performance, for ~$50 less. Plus, you'd avoid all of the problems that go with owning a dual-core processor, and trying to run older software.
 
D

deadseasquirrel

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2001
1,736
0
0
Originally posted by: Teclis2323
So you don't think that an X2 would give me a significant performance boost in my computing unless I'm doing lots of intensive activities? That's good to know, but now I'm so confused!!!
Click to expand...

Think about it this way-- how much of a boost could you possibly notice from opening a window in Firefox or Word? 1.2 seconds vs. 1.03 seconds? Other than cpu-intensive tasks, what could you possibly need more performance in?

However, if you're shrinking a DVD and you could cut it down from 45 mins to 22 minutes, you'd definitely notice. OR, if you wanted to shrink that DVD at the same time you wanted to use your computer for something else-- gaming, email, surfing-- you'd definitely notice your system not break a sweat. If I want to encode video at the same time I'm playing a game with my single-core chip, I have to tell the program to work only during idle CPU time, which basically means that no work gets done while I play the game. A dual-core would alleviate that problem.

It all comes down to what you want to accomplish with your system. How *you* use it. Everybody is different. At this point, with X2s being cheap (esp the 3800+), it seems crazy not to get it. That being said, for a very low-budget system, where every dollar counts, you could save $80+ by grabbing a 3000+ instead and likely not be missing out on anything.

If you're mainly interested in upgrading that current system to handle some games better, focus on that video card for the time being, and then later, when you have a little bit bigger budget, build a whole new system next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom