• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD 3700+ San Diego vs. 3800+ X2

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
if you really multi-task than get the X2 but don't waste your money on a X2 if you think aim, downloading legal music ( of course) is multi-tasking.
 
Ok, looks like 3700+ is my choice. By the time that dual cores will be taken advantage of, there will be a better dual core out for the same price. Thanks everyone!
 
i took my cpu to 2.7GHZ last night. vcore is 1.6, idle temp is 34-36 degrees celcius, under 100% load (prime95) it sits at 48-50. I have XP-90 hsf.
I tested with PCmark05 and got 5407 score.
on the side note. I ran prime95 overnight, and after 8+ hours no errors and no warnings.
I'll keep it at 2.7GHZ for now, next month will take it further, after additional cpu burning in.
I don't play games, so I am not that concerned about it.
 
3700+ SD if you are planning to game...you can also overclock to FX-55/57 speeds and destroy the the 3800+ X2, besides, by the time dual-core games are actually mainstream, you would want to upgrade your 3800+ X2.
 
Well I mainly game, but it would be nice to run some background apps and be able to instantly switch between the two.
 
Originally posted by: Waylay00
Well I mainly game, but it would be nice to run some background apps and be able to instantly switch between the two.
Click to expand...

.......that is NOT multi-tasking -_-, dual-core is for ppl who wanna burn a DVD, encode a video, run a bunch of chat programs and play UT2004 at the same time on max settings....clearly dual-core is not for you if you just wanna run chat programs and IE.
 
Oh, well this is coming from a user who has been restricted to the confines of a 1.5GHz P4 Willamette, a 9800 Pro at AGP 4x, and 512MB PC133. I think it's safe to say that whatever road I choose, I will be quite amazed.
 
Hey Waylay00 one correction the 3700+ runs at 2.2ghz not 2.4! most of the posters are correct Gaming stick with the single core. And m0ee0m is correct also, if your gonna run a bunch of CPU intensive task then the Dual core is good for u, if your gonna run single threaded appz and just wanna have a bunch of stuff idleing in the back ground. Then more ram would be a better choice.
 
Ok guys, I'm really torn. I was going to get the 3700+ but now that the ratio of people saying X2 over the Sandy is about 2:1, I can't decide.
 
More people will vote for the X2 soley because it's the new "hot" thing without holding any regard for your particular situation.

Save the $100 and just get the 3700+. I've read way too many posts about problems with gaming on an X2. Most of these issues are just annoyances (still a PITA though), but if you want a gaming machine, get a gaming CPU. Simple enough.


 
Yeah, that's what I was kind of thinking too. By the time I "need" a dual core CPU, the X2 3800+ will be too slow anyways.
 
since ur building a comp right now, and not deciding whether to upgrade or not, i would buy the x2 3800+. i was in the same predicament ur in right now, but im not much of a gamer so i went with the x2. basically, if you're a hardcore gamer, go 3700+. and when i say hardcore i mean HARDCORE. honestly, .2 or .4 ghz wont make much of a difference in gaming (more dependent on ur gpu i think) and its nothing u cant overclock to overcome.

i would get the x2, solely because gaming will be about the same (maybe 10fps difference tops? - and at 70 fps, ur not gonna notice a difference) but itll give u a lot better multitasking than the 3700+

btw, if u get single core, id get the 3000 and oc it =)
 
Well I am one of those who like equality and symmetry. Therefore, something just wouldn't seem right by getting a 3000+ paired with a 7800GTX. Catch my drift?
 
Take your 3800+ and clock it to 2.2GHz per core. You'll have TWO 3700+ San Diego's.

You must remember that as your resolution increases, the CPU becomes less and less important. Once you hit 1600x1200 and above your GPU is far more important than a few hundred MHz either way on your CPU.

The X2 is clearly the better choice.
 
Get the X2, it will game very comparably to the 3700+, and overall give you a much smoother experience. Oh, and if you ever have to do anything at all in the background while you game (even a virus scan), then that X2 will really start to distinguish itself. Easy choice, X2.
 
Its really funny to see people making baseless comments about the x2 who have no idea. like ITS SMOOTHER OMFG, or FUTURE PROOF. They dont mean anything. Get the San Diego.

A true gamer who cares about his gaming experience wouldnt run any CPU intensive task in the backgroudn anyway
 
I agree with JME. my machine is purely a gaming machine at the moment, and I never leave anything running in the background while I play. O and pabster having two 3800 clocked at 2.2ghz doesn't equal a 3700+ your still missing half the cache. And cache does matter for games
 
Originally posted by: Waylay00
Well I am one of those who like equality and symmetry. Therefore, something just wouldn't seem right by getting a 3000+ paired with a 7800GTX. Catch my drift?
Click to expand...

what about a 3200+ venice 🙂 i showed you the gaming benchmarks already its less than 10frames. plus you would be able to get your whole pc if you cut back on some stuff.

 
Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Another vote for X2.

1. X2 is more than fast enough for any game out there.

2. X2 eats the 3700+ SD for lunch in multithreaded CPU-intensive apps.

3. Better multitasking.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Another vote for X2.

1. X2 is more than fast enough for any game out there.

2. X2 eats the 3700+ SD for lunch in multithreaded CPU-intensive apps.

3. Better multitasking.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


1. Doesnt make any sense. A 6800 GT is fast enough for anything out there, but why do people buy 7800gtx's?

2. In INTENSE multitasking. Your probably not going to notice a difference otherwise

3. Same as number 2?
 
Originally posted by: JME Fidelity
1. Doesnt make any sense. A 6800 GT is fast enough for anything out there, but why do people buy 7800gtx's?
Click to expand...

Maybe because they like to play high resolutions with lots of AA/AF?

A 6800GT is pretty weak... especially at 16x12 and above.
 
kinda related question, is it worth it to get a 3700 over say a 3200? For gaming purposes. Note that i would have to learn to oc most likely if i get the 3200. so is it worth it for the 3700?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top