I've been planning on getting an x2 3800+, but I haven't really been following the comp scene lately.
What are the major differences between these sockets?
What are the major differences between these sockets?
Difference between AM2 and 939?
- Thread starter DL402
- Start date
am2 supports ddr2 s939 doesnt. Pretty much the only one, im sure some guru will prove me wrong but im always willing to learn 
AM2's are also a bit more energy efficient, and AM2 also has 45w/35w Energy-Efficient X2s.
Basically, DDR2, Energy-Efficient CPUs, and room to grow (939 is dead).
Basically, DDR2, Energy-Efficient CPUs, and room to grow (939 is dead).
I called it ( though i knew about the power saving models it just didnt come to mind right off the bat and i thought the growing room was a bit obvious)
Umm Intels core 2 duo blows am2 out of the water. If you're going to build a new system definatly find a place that has them available (harder to do than you think) and build a Core 2 Duo system. Search the forums and read all the *Rate my c2d rig* and dont bother posting your own
Makaveli
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2002
- 5,026
- 1,624
- 136
the core2 duo's are faster about 20% clock for clock, but blowing it out of the water is abit much. If your gonna be playing games at a reasonable resolution with eye candy on, u won't see much of a difference. And since conroe is new the Motherboards are generally more expensive. I would look at both options, as it is right now in canada, I don't see many places with Conroe in stock, YMMV where u live.
it doesnt "blow it out of the water" as some people said. Its currently better anywhere from 5% to 20% in some cases. But if you compare price to price i consider AM2 a better deal especially when it comes to upgrading. I tend to look more and company track records then anything else. and as AMD seems to always come back quite quickly and slap intel back down im sticking with them and AM2 due to its upgrade path into AM3
Well IMO a 20% increase in anythign technological these days is damn good. That and the conroes have a much better bang for your buck.
Edit: Correct me if im wrong but isnt that 20% comparison off of the fx-62?
"Once again we find the E6300 around the X2 4600+ in performance. " Take from the empire stikes back article under the oblivion testing page.
"The E6300 isn't nearly as impressive when compared to its more expensive siblings, but when you compare it to AMD's lineup it looks very good, especially considering its proposed cost. " Same article and yes i realize its not that price because of supply and demand but it will fall in time.
Not to mention an fx62 is 839$ on newegg. Now according to anandtech articles and performance charts the 20%increase in performance we have been talking about is over the fx62. You can get a 6600 for less than 500 though im sure somewhere there is one for 500$ but theres where the bang for buck comes into play. A processor that is better than an fx60 for roughly 300$ less (at an exagerated price).
Please let me know if im wrong and im not trying to be an as$ he just asked how am2 compared to intels new stuff and i gave him my opinion. Im not an intel fan boy (currently have an am2 3800+(orleans) and im not that impressed by it) nor am i an AMD fanboy i just appreciate w.e is fastest out at the time.
quote:
[/quote]The top three spots still go to the top three Core 2 CPUs, with the E6300 falling around the level of the X2 4600+. A trend that we've been seeing all throughout this review is that the performance of these CPUs effectively falls into three groups: Core 2 processors at the top, Athlon 64 X2s in the middle and Pentium D at the very bottom of the charts. In a sense that's the easiest way to classify these three groups of processors: if you want the fastest it's Core 2, mid-range goes to the Athlon 64 X2 and if you don't like good performance there's always the Pentium D.[/quote]
Please let me know if im wrong and im not trying to be an as$ he just asked how am2 compared to intels new stuff and i gave him my opinion. Im not an intel fan boy (currently have an am2 3800+(orleans) and im not that impressed by it) nor am i an AMD fanboy i just appreciate w.e is fastest out at the time.
quote:
[/quote]The top three spots still go to the top three Core 2 CPUs, with the E6300 falling around the level of the X2 4600+. A trend that we've been seeing all throughout this review is that the performance of these CPUs effectively falls into three groups: Core 2 processors at the top, Athlon 64 X2s in the middle and Pentium D at the very bottom of the charts. In a sense that's the easiest way to classify these three groups of processors: if you want the fastest it's Core 2, mid-range goes to the Athlon 64 X2 and if you don't like good performance there's always the Pentium D.[/quote]
Conroes = More powerful per clock, lots of OC room
AM2 = Cheap as chips after price cuts.
A)If you're overclocking and you're thinking of $400 for the motherboard + CPU then you want to go Conroe.
B)If you're overclocking and you're thinking of less than $400 then AM2 becomes competitive.
C)If you're not overclocking and you're spending less than $400 then AM2 is the best option.
D)If you're not overclocking and you're thinking of spending more than $400 for the motherboard and CPU then Conroe is the only option.
A) = Gigabyte P965 or other board that overclocks well, with a 6300 or better means you're looking at a 2.6Ghz OC or greater (6700 level of performance, ish)
B) = Under $400 you can't really afford a decent core 2 overclocking board and a 6300, as such your options are limited to AM2 with the 3800X2 as a fantastic choice at a very low price. It was a good performer a few months back, now it's just as good but a lot cheaper.
For non overclocking boards you're looking at around $100 for AM2 and $140 for Conroe (roughly). As such if you're going AM2 then a 5000X2 setup costs a stunning $400ish, which is about the same as a 6400. Under that point your options in the intel camp are pretty crap. Over $400 then you're looking at a 6600 which is going to be faster than a 5000X2 by a good margin.
All of that aside all you need is a $100 AM2 motherboard and a $120 3800+ (single core) for anything short of a X1900XTX or 7950GX2 (even for the games that can use dual core, the vast minority) to avoid being CPU bound.
(Anyone who buys a FX-62 needs thier head looked at. A 6800 is crap price/performance but you accept that for the top end performance, but a FX-62 is even worse as it can't even supply that top tier performance at all)
Corrected due to my own stupidity and the poster below's help.
AM2 = Cheap as chips after price cuts.
A)If you're overclocking and you're thinking of $400 for the motherboard + CPU then you want to go Conroe.
B)If you're overclocking and you're thinking of less than $400 then AM2 becomes competitive.
C)If you're not overclocking and you're spending less than $400 then AM2 is the best option.
D)If you're not overclocking and you're thinking of spending more than $400 for the motherboard and CPU then Conroe is the only option.
A) = Gigabyte P965 or other board that overclocks well, with a 6300 or better means you're looking at a 2.6Ghz OC or greater (6700 level of performance, ish)
B) = Under $400 you can't really afford a decent core 2 overclocking board and a 6300, as such your options are limited to AM2 with the 3800X2 as a fantastic choice at a very low price. It was a good performer a few months back, now it's just as good but a lot cheaper.
For non overclocking boards you're looking at around $100 for AM2 and $140 for Conroe (roughly). As such if you're going AM2 then a 5000X2 setup costs a stunning $400ish, which is about the same as a 6400. Under that point your options in the intel camp are pretty crap. Over $400 then you're looking at a 6600 which is going to be faster than a 5000X2 by a good margin.
All of that aside all you need is a $100 AM2 motherboard and a $120 3800+ (single core) for anything short of a X1900XTX or 7950GX2 (even for the games that can use dual core, the vast minority) to avoid being CPU bound.
(Anyone who buys a FX-62 needs thier head looked at. A 6800 is crap price/performance but you accept that for the top end performance, but a FX-62 is even worse as it can't even supply that top tier performance at all)
Corrected due to my own stupidity and the poster below's help.
What would be a good OC'ing board for Conroe?
I was thinking of going with a budget option of an E6300 + OCing Mobo.
I thought the Gigabyte P965 at $154 was a good overclocker? Combined with a $219 E6300 you come out sub-$400.
I was thinking of going with a budget option of an E6300 + OCing Mobo.
I thought the Gigabyte P965 at $154 was a good overclocker? Combined with a $219 E6300 you come out sub-$400.
Gonna say the same thing
quote:
[/quote]All of that aside all you need is a $100 AM2 motherboard and a $120 3800+ Check your pricing again its 114 on newegg
btw if you are getting the 3800+(which i have) dont get the abit 570 sli edition its having sever BIOS problems that hinder performance terribly.[/quote]TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter