Differences between AMD 64 procesors

[diab10]

Can somebody explain me what are the differences between preformances of 3800 and 4000 processor, when they work on same clock, or let say 3500, and 3700? Models with 1MB Cahce are more expencive, does this show up in games? Which is the "best buy", is it smar to give 100+$ from 4000 to 4200, or from 3500 to 3800? What are the real differences in preformaces, lets say games? I wouldnt like to pay additional 100$ for "unnecessary" 200MHZ. If I'm paying around 400-500$ for processor is it better to add additional 100-150 for AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ which cost around 630$, and not to worry about any upcoming applications and games for the next few years?

64 FX-57 / 2.80GHz Socket 939 2000MHz $1099.99
64 FX-55 / 2.60GHz Socket 939 2000MHz $879.99
64 FX-53 / 2.40GHz Socket 939 2000MHz $629.99
64 4800+ / 2.40GHz Socket 939 2000MHz $999.99
64 4600+ / 2.40GHz Socket 939 2000MHz $749.99
64 4400+ / 2.20GHz Socket 939 2000MHz $629.99
64 4200+ / 2.20GHz Socket 939 2000MHz $519.99
64 4000+ / 2.40GHz Socket 939 2000MHz $399.99
64 3800+ / 2.40GHz Socket 939 2000MHz $349.99
64 3700+ / 2.20GHz Socket 939 2000MHz $289.99
64 3500+ / 2.20GHz Socket 939 2000MHz $239.99
64 3200+ / 2.00GHz Socket 939 2000MHz $199.99
64 3000+ / 1.80GHz Socket 939 2000MHz $159.99
*prices are from "tigerdirect.com"

 

[IeraseU]

At this point personally I am a dual core evangelist. I would not recomend building any new system from scratch without including a dual core processor. Single core processors *may* be better at one thing, gaming....and that is only if you are running at a low enough resolution for that advantage to even be reflected (probably lower then 1280x1024) and it is only an advantage if you have nothing at all going on in the background. For anything else, for general use, for encoding for multitasking, for anything at all other then that one specific instance, a dual core is better.

So my recomendation is get a X2, any X2, they are all good processors, just get the one that fits in your budget.

 

[Cheezeit]

Okay, the best buy is to buy a 3000+ or 3200+ and overclock it to 3800+ speeds ore more once you have some more expierince and are more confident.

The difference when the processors have the same clock speed is that the lesser model has less cache 512kb versus 1mb. Cache usually does not effect performance in normal tasks, so I would not spend an extra 150 for extra cache.

The x2's are worth it if you do really heave multitasking. Lets say you want to shrink a dvd, listen to music, and play games at the same time.

I think an overclocked 3000+ will last you good enough for the next few years. Unless you have ultra high end stuff for the other components, you're gonna need a major upgrade or new system anyways.

For a gaming example, my stock speed 3000+ with a vanilla 6800 can play bf2 with no system lag whatsoever.

And last, dont buy from tigerdirect. get stuff from www.newegg.com, www.monarchcomputers.com, or www.zipzoomfly .com. They are much more reputable.

Hope that helps,
cheezeit

 

[mdubrow]

You might want to re-check your prices. You can get a 4400+ X2 from ZZF for $549 or a 4200+ X2 for $481. In your price range, I think those will be your best bet. I can't say how much benefit you'll see from the larger cache of the 4400+, but for only $70 more (or $30 vs. your prices ) it may be worth it. On the downside, the 4400 is rated at a higher power draw than the 4200, if heat is a concern for you.

 

[CreativeTom]

For the amount you are looking to spend I would go with a X2 4200+, that said if you are mostly gaming and just doing some light apps, I wouldn't go with a dual core. Take a look at the San Diego Core 3700+ if you are gaming, then take the extra money you have an put towards a video card.

If you want the processor that has the best bang for the buck it's the 3000+ Venice core, you can get some great Overclocks from this chip.

 

[CreativeTom]

Originally posted by: mdubrow
You might want to re-check your prices. You can get a 4400+ X2 from ZZF for $549 or a 4200+ X2 for $481. In your price range, I think those will be your best bet. I can't say how much benefit you'll see from the larger cache of the 4400+, but for only $70 more (or $30 vs. your prices ) it may be worth it. On the downside, the 4400 is rated at a higher power draw than the 4200, if heat is a concern for you.

HUH, I haven't seen that much of diference brought on by the extra cash in the 4400+, maybe you could give me a link where I could take a look at what you have seen there.

 

[mdubrow]

Originally posted by: CreativeTom

Originally posted by: mdubrow
You might want to re-check your prices. You can get a 4400+ X2 from ZZF for $549 or a 4200+ X2 for $481. In your price range, I think those will be your best bet. I can't say how much benefit you'll see from the larger cache of the 4400+, but for only $70 more (or $30 vs. your prices ) it may be worth it. On the downside, the 4400 is rated at a higher power draw than the 4200, if heat is a concern for you.

HUH, I haven't seen that much of diference brought on by the extra cash in the 4400+, maybe you could give me a link where I could take a look at what you have seen there.

From AMD's website: Desktop Processor Quick Reference Guide

Sorry, I can't link directly to the comparison table, but if you select "AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core" in the "Processor" drop-down box, it shows a comparison table for all dual-core CPUs, including the rated (maximum) wattage for each processor. 89W for 3800+ X2 and 4200+ X2; 110 W for the 4400+ X2 and higher. Don't know about real-world usage.

 

[CreativeTom]

From AMD's website: Desktop Processor Quick Reference Guide

Sorry, I can't link directly to the comparison table, but if you select "AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core" in the "Processor" drop-down box, it shows a comparison table for all dual-core CPUs, including the rated (maximum) wattage for each processor. 89W for 3800+ X2 and 4200+ X2; 110 W for the 4400+ X2 and higher. Don't know about real-world usage.
[/quote]

Well that's not really what I wanted to see, I wanted you to link me to some benchmarks that actually showed a signifigant diference in the performance from the 4200 to the 4400 that would warrant the price diference. The link you gave me doesn't show me much of anything except that there is a diference in specs from the two chips, which I was already aware of.

 

[linkinpark342]

Originally posted by: mdubrow

Originally posted by: CreativeTom

Originally posted by: mdubrow
You might want to re-check your prices. You can get a 4400+ X2 from ZZF for $549 or a 4200+ X2 for $481. In your price range, I think those will be your best bet. I can't say how much benefit you'll see from the larger cache of the 4400+, but for only $70 more (or $30 vs. your prices ) it may be worth it. On the downside, the 4400 is rated at a higher power draw than the 4200, if heat is a concern for you.

HUH, I haven't seen that much of diference brought on by the extra cash in the 4400+, maybe you could give me a link where I could take a look at what you have seen there.

From AMD's website: Desktop Processor Quick Reference Guide

Sorry, I can't link directly to the comparison table, but if you select "AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core" in the "Processor" drop-down box, it shows a comparison table for all dual-core CPUs, including the rated (maximum) wattage for each processor. 89W for 3800+ X2 and 4200+ X2; 110 W for the 4400+ X2 and higher. Don't know about real-world usage.

I too am curious on whether the extra 512k cache per cpu is worth dishing out an extra 100 bucks. I'm currently debating on which one to get so if anyone has a good benchmark or some proof on which is the better value

 

[imported_rod]

There are three different types of CPU's at the moment:-

Athlon64's (3000+,3200+,3500+,3700+,3800+,4000+)
Athlon64 X2's (3800+,4200+,4400+,4600+,4800+)
Athlon64 FX's (FX-53, FX-55, FX-57)

Note that the "Athlon64 3800+" and "Athlon64 X2 3800+" are NOT the same chip.

The X2 (dual core) series are basically like two standard athlon64 chips in a single chip. This is VERY good if you like to multitask (run lots of programs at the same time - like ripping a DVD and playing games at the same time). It isn't so great if all you do is gaming, but it is still generally better than a single processor, but ti costs more.

X2's:
X2 3800+ = Dual 3200+
X2 4200+ = Dual 3500+
X2 4400+ = Dual 3700+
X2 4600+ = Dual 3800+
X2 4800+ = Dual 4000+

Anyway, I would reccomend an X2 if you are building a new computer and if your budget can accomodate it. Otherwise, just get a standard athlon64.

I hope that helped...
Any more Qu's?

RoD

 

[CreativeTom]

I too am curious on whether the extra 512k cache per cpu is worth dishing out an extra 100 bucks. I'm currently debating on which one to get so if anyone has a good benchmark or some proof on which is the better value

[/quote]

I don't really think it's worth the extra money for it, that said I did just opt for the 3700+ San Diego. I have seen plenty showing the diferences with the extra 512 L2 cache, it really isn't worth the extra cash in my opinion but it does make a diference. I was just trying to see what the other guy in here was basing his opinion on that it's way worth the extra money for the extra cash.

 

[imported_Kensai]

AMD X2 3800+

 

[mdubrow]

Originally posted by: CreativeTom
From AMD's website: Desktop Processor Quick Reference Guide

Sorry, I can't link directly to the comparison table, but if you select "AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core" in the "Processor" drop-down box, it shows a comparison table for all dual-core CPUs, including the rated (maximum) wattage for each processor. 89W for 3800+ X2 and 4200+ X2; 110 W for the 4400+ X2 and higher. Don't know about real-world usage.

Well that's not really what I wanted to see, I wanted you to link me to some benchmarks that actually showed a signifigant diference in the performance from the 4200 to the 4400 that would warrant the price diference. The link you gave me doesn't show me much of anything except that there is a diference in specs from the two chips, which I was already aware of.[/quote]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the power draw.

Here's the link to AMD's benchmarks (take them with a grain of salt): http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Pro...ion/0,,30_118_9485_13041^13077,00.html

 

[Bona Fide]

Originally posted by: Kensai
AMD X2 3800+

Edit : w00t 900th post!

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide

Originally posted by: Kensai
AMD X2 3800+

Edit : w00t 900th post!

WooT!

 

[furballi]

Best deal is 3000 and push it up to at least 250MHz FSB. With a decent CPU, you can exceed 270MHz FSB.