Difference - 3200+ Winchester vs. 3800+ X2?

[jelifah]

I currently have a Socket 939 3200+ Winchester, and overclocked it to 2.4GHz

Watching the prices drop on the X2's I wondered if I should have much interest in upgrading the processor.

Does theL1 cache increase, 2nd processor core, and SSE3 Instruction set make this a processor that would provide a noticable difference from my Winchester?

It's AMD's naming convention that has me confused. 3200+ vs 3800+. Does this mean I could only expect a 600 point, or 20%, improvement? Or should I be looking at this like 2 seperate 3800+'s?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Depends on what your do?

For single threaded apps they will perform about the same.

For multi-threaded apps and multitasking the 3800+ will PWN.

 

[rise]

if you're going to try to skip the am2 socket coming this year then i'd get the 3800x2 or a 165 opty.

 

[Twsmit]

Like you said, the X2 has SSE3, and a second core, but it actually doesnt really have more cache. Its the same 512Kb per core, same as the winchester. SSE3 alone will do pretty much nothing for you outside of photoshop or the handful of SSE3 away apps that can take advantage of the extra instructions.

You should compare clockspeed vs clockspeed and realize that the dual core will perform the same as a single core in most instances. The BIG upside is that windows will be "smoother" and the ability to multitask will be greatly enhanced. Otherwise few games or apps will see a huge jump in performance. If your a rapid multitasker a dual core would be a nice choice, but dont be suckered in with the PR rating, compare the clockspeed and what your overclocking asperations are. If you can bring a 3800+ @ 2.4 ghz it will perform pretty much the same as your current winchester, just ALOT "smoother" and your multitasking will be smooth as butter.

Im sort of in the same boat, I have a 3200+ venice, and I want to go dual core, but right now its too expensive to justify. For myself multitasking usually consists of MS Word, Firefox and iTunes, so at this junction I really dont need a dual core and I will sit happy for now @ 2.4ghz overclocked.

You definately wont see a 20% speed increase clock for clock in most apps, but if you are a poweruser its definately something to consider.

 

[jelifah]

Thank you Twsmit, sounds like we are in the same boat. Considering that I paid $210 for the processor 14 months ago, I don't see me paying ~$400 for 2 cores and similar performance. I just hope the price drops to ~$200 in a year or two, as opposed to AMD just discontinuing them.

Also, as a point of clarification in regards to the cache, I was referring to the L1 cache.

Newegg shows L1 cache
Winchester with 64KB + 64KB
X2 with 128KB + 128KB

Is that information wrong?

 

[Twsmit]

Im pretty sure the 3800+ is 2x 512KB, where as some of the higher dual dual are 2x 1MB for the L2 cache


EDIT: for L1 cache i dont remember off the top of my head, but i know it doesnt really impact performance.

 

[Cook1]

If you check out the FS/T threads going on here the x2 3800+s can be found for a fairly decent price, and like what Twsmit mentioned, depending on what you do it could be a nice lil upgrade.

 

[alimoalem]

if you use mutithreaded apps, go for it. otherwise, keep your 3200

 

[jelifah]

It just got more complicated.

Price Drop reflected at NewEgg today, showing the X2 3800 for $313, from the $380 it was priced at just yesterday.

Ugh, must resist... Don't reach for wallet...

 

[supastar1568]

yea, im in the same boat with my winchester 3200+.

i dont really multi-task that much, so i think i will hold off as well.

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

How would L1 cache not impact performance? L1 cache is the fastest cache of all, so having more would be a good thing right?

 

[Arcanedeath]

The only advantage the X2 3800+ has over a winchester is sse3, a slightly better memory controler and the 2nd core

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: jelifah
It just got more complicated.

Price Drop reflected at NewEgg today, showing the X2 3800 for $313, from the $380 it was priced at just yesterday.

Ugh, must resist... Don't reach for wallet...

$380? It was $322 a week and a half ago.

Anyway, unless you are planning on simultaneously running two programs which can each push a CPU past 50% utilization, you're not going to notice much difference. If you're playing a game, you won't notice any difference.

The 3800+ is 2.0 GHz, so you're going to have to overclock it just to match the performance of your current CPU (although they do overclock very easily to 2.5 GHz).

You're still acting like you want to buy it, even though you know it would not be useful for you... So go ahead if you've got that money burning a hole in your pocket.

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: jelifah
Thank you Twsmit, sounds like we are in the same boat. Considering that I paid $210 for the processor 14 months ago, I don't see me paying ~$400 for 2 cores and similar performance. I just hope the price drops to ~$200 in a year or two, as opposed to AMD just discontinuing them.

Also, as a point of clarification in regards to the cache, I was referring to the L1 cache.

Newegg shows L1 cache
Winchester with 64KB + 64KB
X2 with 128KB + 128KB

Is that information wrong?

Yes, that information is wrong. The Newcastle, Winchester, Venice and Manchester (X2) all have identical cache configurations.

L1 cache = 64K data + 64K instruction cache = 128K total
L2 cache = 512K
L1 + L2 = 640K total cache

That's per core, which is where the confusion comes in for the X2.

 

[w00t]

the 3800+ X2 is dual core the 3200+ is single.