Athlon 64 X2 or Athlon 64?

[DasFox]

Well for quite sometime I have been thinking about what 64x CPU I wanted and it never dawned on me to consider a X2 over the regular 64x till now.

So these are my two choices:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Manchester) Socket 939
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ (San Diego) Socket 939


What say thee?


THANKS

 

[biostud]

X2 + overclock FTW

 

[Bobthelost]

Will you ever use the second core?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Will you ever use the second core?

And how long you plan to keep computer?

Two or more years? i'd get a dual core because you'll find more and more gets written to take advantage.

Less than or don't use a second core? Single core is way to go since it puts out half the heat, draws half the power, run quieter, and will OC higher.

 

[mdchesne]

use this question to answer your first:

Do you plan to use large programs in the background while gaming in the foreground?

<<probally the only reason you'd need it>>

 

[DasFox]

I do alot of multitasking, working online through my browser working on my companies website, built by CMS, run ftp clients, graphics editing, playing music, movies, DVD editing ripping, chatting, and even more all at the sametime.

I typically run 3-5 apps at once.

I make my living in computing and do alot of multi tasking all the time practically every day 24/7 and I LOVE to game as well, so hoping the dual core will come into effect for gaming later.

Plan to keep this CPU for 1-2 yrs. depending on the changes made in the scene, but maybe only a year if there have been BIG changes.

I'm not going to OC, and X2 chips put out twice the heat, juice, draws more power, runs louder, etc?. DAMM I don't like the sound of that.

Hell I multi task pretty good right now in my XP 3000+, LOL maybe the X2 is a waste, hmm.

THANKS

 

[anandtechrocks]

I've got the 3700+ SD and I definately wish I had been patient and waited the extra few months for the X2s. At this point I feel it's a waste to spend that kind of money on any single core chip priced higher than ~$250 since the 3800+ X2 is near there. My vote is for the X2 without a doubt.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DasFox
I do alot of multitasking, working online through my browser working on my companies website, built by CMS, run ftp clients, graphics editing, playing music, movies, DVD editing ripping, chatting, and even more all at the sametime.

I typically run 3-5 apps at once.

I make my living in computing and do alot of multi tasking all the time practically every day 24/7 and I LOVE to game as well, so hoping the dual core will come into effect for gaming later.

Plan to keep this CPU for 1-2 yrs. depending on the changes made in the scene, but maybe only a year if there have been BIG changes.

I'm not going to OC, and X2 chips put out twice the heat, juice, draws more power, runs louder, etc?. DAMM I don't like the sound of that.

Hell I multi task pretty good right now in my XP 3000+, LOL maybe the X2 is a waste, hmm.

THANKS

Definity Dual core..

Well AMD's dual core put out less heat than intels single cores if thats any consolation? Also less than an overclocked athlon XP.. Don't worry about it, Get the 3800, less cache less heat, higher OC too and really indescerable performance from the large 2MB cache models. Even at 2400Mhz you're talking about 96W on default VCore.. but only when both cores are loaded since a 3800+ single core (which is 2400Mhz) uses 50w loaded and about 30 idle. You put a Thermalright XP 120 on there with a low RPM 120mm nexus and it will be silent. Even the stock HSF will be silent most of the time if you buy aboard setup with thermal monitoring..

 

[DasFox]

Today just on the fun side, I was running Grabit for Usenet getting Star Trek flicks, browsing on FF, running the AllOfMP3.com client to download purchased mp3s, listening to Winamp, running the Gaim IM client in the background, when needed to chat and popping up Winrar on occassion to open the downloads off Usenet and possibly some other things I can't think of like the occasional email check on Thunderbird and a running a couple of Windows Explorer windows.

Sounds like Multitasking to me, I MEAN aren't we all doing it?

THANKS

P.S. Forgot one, Oh and running QuickPar also to verify those usenet downloads, LOL

 

[Bobthelost]

You are the poster boy of the dual core generation.

I'd go with the 3800 X2. It doesn't draw twice the power of the single core chips:

Bottom line is that the dual core Manchester die with the smaller cache is an extremely energy-efficient CPU that dispells the myth that dual cores by definition have to have high power consumption and thermal dissipation.

http://www.amdboard.com/athlon_64_3800_review_5.html

Get the 3800, you'll love it to bits.

Edit: There's multitasking, which computers are good at in general, and then there's multi tasking when both processes (or just one of them) are very CPU hungry, that's when the Dual core kicks in,

 

[DasFox]

Hey Zebo you better LOOK at that URL Bobthelost posted, don't sound so power robbing heat inducing to me.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
You are the poster boy of the dual core generation.

I'd go with the 3800 X2. It doesn't draw twice the power of the single core chips:

Bottom line is that the dual core Manchester die with the smaller cache is an extremely energy-efficient CPU that dispells the myth that dual cores by definition have to have high power consumption and thermal dissipation.

http://www.amdboard.com/athlon_64_3800_review_5.html

Get the 3800, you'll love it to bits.

Edit: There's multitasking, which computers are good at in general, and then there's multi tasking when both processes (or just one of them) are very CPU hungry, that's when the Dual core kicks in,

Please I'd calll 86W vs 30.8W more than double would'nt you? look at two chips which are running 2400Mhz.

 

[Bobthelost]

Bah!

*wanders off to check numbers*

Yes, i'm wrong. Yes, now i look rather silly. Having said that 80W is not all that much power draw in absolute terms, and it's worth it for the extra performance you can get from it.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Bah!

*wanders off to check numbers*

Still not all that much really...

If they had a 2000 Mhz venice in that test it would be a good comparison to the 3800 stock, since they are both same speed.. but they don't. They only have a 2400Mhz venice chip in there. So all we got to compare to is a 2400Mhz dually unfortunatly it's the 2MB version which is'nt apples to apples either but it's close. Xbit has a better comparison show almost exactly double..off to find it.

Either way it's less power than his A-XP and about 4x times as fast at certain things.. go dual core you won't regret it,

 

[DasFox]

Yeah I do a lot of things at once all the time, I mean hey I thought that was the point of a computer, LOL.

I must be the Dual Core Poster Boy then.

WoOt

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Will you ever use the second core?

And how long you plan to keep computer?

Two or more years? i'd get a dual core because you'll find more and more gets written to take advantage.

Less than or don't use a second core? Single core is way to go since it puts out half the heat, draws half the power, run quieter, and will OC higher.

Agreed, except with "half the heat" and "half the power".

Definitely not the case!

 

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: Zebo
.... don't use a second core? Single core is way to go since it puts out half the heat, draws half the power, run quieter, and will OC higher.

If you dont use the second core, it will not draw much more power, will not put out much more heat and will run just as silent as a single core. In fact, even if you use both cores, noise wont be a problem really...

 

[pulsedrive]

Yeah, check my sig for the rig specs. My 4600+ runs MUCH quiter than my 3500+ winnie ever did. The stock heat piped HSF is very nice for these chips. Total copper core and pipes, with aluminium fins.

It runs cooler than my 3500+ winnie did to, not of course that isn't while loading both cores to 100% with P95, but when doing the SAME things I used to do, it runs much cooler, which of course makes sense since it is spreading the work out between two cores. I have been very pleased with how well WinXP has been spreading the work load between cores, even when playing WoW it is using both, which I wasn't expecting since WoW is not supposed to be multi threaded.

 

[slatr]

I wanted an X2 pretty bad, but got caught up in the Opteron frenzy.

I am going to get the Opteron now. Probably in 6-8 months I will get an X2 and start a second system with the Opty or just outright sell it.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Will you ever use the second core?

And how long you plan to keep computer?

Two or more years? i'd get a dual core because you'll find more and more gets written to take advantage.

Less than or don't use a second core? Single core is way to go since it puts out half the heat, draws half the power, run quieter, and will OC higher.

Agreed, except with "half the heat" and "half the power".

Definitely not the case!

Well wether you believe it or not there's a link above showing it.

Here are two more
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x2-3800_3.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-venice_5.html

 

[DasFox]

Well one last thing, I like gaming alot, but I also run alot of applications simultaneously. I'm not into overclocking, so no worries here, but I'm just trying to figure if there will be a noticeable difference over the 3700. Afterall there are still alot of apps not deisgned for dual core 64x, so even those these are not, will running many different apps that might still be 32x at once, run faster then with a single core, running them simultaneously?

And putting a bigger load on the CPU will this also cause the dual cores to kick in and run apps faster and more efficient?


THANKS

 

[Bobthelost]

Righty ho.

AMD dual core CPUs are slow. The 3800X2 runs at 1.8Ghz while the 3700 runs at 2.2Ghz. This means that for one application running on one CPU the 3700 will probably be faster, this is true for gaming especialy. However some programs are designed to be able to run on two cores at once, these are faster on two cores because you can divide the work load. Unfortunatly most programs aren't able to do this, so they don't take advantage of this power.

In other words you'll be slightly slower for most processes (like games) but you can get much more done at once because you can stick the DVD compression program on one core and then play BF2 on the other or just let the DVD compression program play with both cores which will be like greased lightning.

64 bit processing is a red herring. It's irrelevant, when Vista turns up then it'll be an advantage (maybe) but untill then ignore the 64/32 bits.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Righty ho.

AMD dual core CPUs are slow. The 3800X2 runs at 1.8Ghz while the 3700 runs at 2.2Ghz. This means that for one application running on one CPU the 3700 will probably be faster, this is true for gaming especialy. However some programs are designed to be able to run on two cores at once, these are faster on two cores because you can divide the work load. Unfortunatly most programs aren't able to do this, so they don't take advantage of this power.

In other words you'll be slightly slower for most processes (like games) but you can get much more done at once because you can stick the DVD compression program on one core and then play BF2 on the other or just let the DVD compression program play with both cores which will be like greased lightning.

64 bit processing is a red herring. It's irrelevant, when Vista turns up then it'll be an advantage (maybe) but untill then ignore the 64/32 bits.

.. embarresing yourself again.

3800+ is 2Ghz

Dual core are not "slow" AMD anything 64 is much faster than A-XP and dual core is just as fast as single cores in single threads, but much faster sometimes double as fast than single cores when multi tasking or multithreaded.


But good info in second half of your post.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Righty ho.

AMD dual core CPUs are slow. The 3800X2 runs at 1.8Ghz while the 3700 runs at 2.2Ghz. This means that for one application running on one CPU the 3700 will probably be faster, this is true for gaming especialy. However some programs are designed to be able to run on two cores at once, these are faster on two cores because you can divide the work load. Unfortunatly most programs aren't able to do this, so they don't take advantage of this power.

In other words you'll be slightly slower for most processes (like games) but you can get much more done at once because you can stick the DVD compression program on one core and then play BF2 on the other or just let the DVD compression program play with both cores which will be like greased lightning.

64 bit processing is a red herring. It's irrelevant, when Vista turns up then it'll be an advantage (maybe) but untill then ignore the 64/32 bits.

.. embarresing yourself again.

3800+ is 2Ghz

Dual core are not "slow" AMD anything 64 is much faster than A-XP and dual core is just as fast as single cores in single threads, but much faster sometimes double as fast than single cores when multi tasking or multithreaded.


But good info in second half of your post.

:disgust:

I was thinking about the Opteron 165. Balls. But a 3800 will be slower than a 3700 for most games, just because it's got a slower clock speed.

 

[DasFox]

LOL, you guys confusing me, so what are we saying here? Plus the BIG question for me is the $100 difference between the two, trying to figure if it's worth it at this point, hmm