Disappointed with my X2 3800+

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: forumposter32
All the rest of that stuff about having orgasms while they're watching their machines multitask is just crap to me. If I thought getting an X2 would make me horny, I'd get one. But as far as best bang for the buck is concerned, it's not. And I don't recommend them.

Sounds like a bitter user without the $$$ for an X2.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: forumposter32
All the rest of that stuff about having orgasms while they're watching their machines multitask is just crap to me. If I thought getting an X2 would make me horny, I'd get one. But as far as best bang for the buck is concerned, it's not. And I don't recommend them.

Sounds like a bitter user without the $$$ for an X2.

Hmm maybe I should use that but instead say:

Sounds like a bitter user without the $$$ for an X1800XT

 

[gags]

Originally posted by: forumposter32

Originally posted by: kasey01
After seeing all the posts about how smoother my computer would run with an AMD dual core processor, I decided to purchase the X2 3800+ to replace my socket 754 athlon 64 2800+ newcastle. I'm sure the X2 3800+ will encode video faster, but I haven't really noticed that much of a difference overall. I was expecting the difference to be a little more noticeable just from using my computer for everyday tasks. (i.e. surfing web, listening to music, playing CS Source, etc.). I guessed I expected to be a little more wowed. Any comments or suggestions?

My comment about this is I'm enraged at the ignorance some people show when recommending dual core CPUs. The problem first is the availability of multi-threaded software. And, I read we'll only be seeing lots of multi-threaded software in 2 to 3 years. Only someone who doesn't know how to build a system or replace the motherboard and CPU should even consider a dual core right now. And the performance in UT2004 for the X2 3800+ at 136 fps doesn't impress me when a socket 754 3700+ (which you can now get at tigerdirect.com or .ca or newegg in combos that cost much less) gives you 158 fps.
That would give you a real speed boost from a 2800+.

All the rest of that stuff about having orgasms while they're watching their machines multitask is just crap to me. If I thought getting an X2 would make me horny, I'd get one. But as far as best bang for the buck is concerned, it's not. And I don't recommend them.

What's so wrong about saving your money now and getting socket M2 later? Or even waiting for quad cores. Cripes, by the time we see enough multi-threaded software out there, quad cores will be out by then anyway. And we're talking only end of 2007 or beginning of 2008. Seems like far away but it's not. 2 and a half years. I bet you a socket 754 3700+ will give you enough performance for 2 and a half years especially with the Geforce 8 coming out next summer. Add 2 GB of RAM with fast timings and you're all set for smoking performance!

For those who feel like you're insulting their religion for not recommending dual cores, take a pill (or a large one if you need).

what on earth are you talking about?

surfing the web.listening to music is not multi tasking!

your statement about the multi threaded software being 2 years is rubbish.

I got a x2 3800 because i multi task:

I edit in premier (supports mulithreads)
run titles in after fx (supports multi threads)
build dvds in adobe encore and encode them (support multi threads)
and have multiple filters open in adobe audtion.

Now you dont recommend dual cores ....a 3700 would grind to halt under this kind of load.

single core is dead IMO why waste your money.

Bank for buck well my x2 3800 cost not much more than a SD 3700 and i have effectively got two FX 55 under the hood so i really think you need to think before you post .

encoding is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much faster
gaming is on par with an fx 55

so your points are some what misguided my friend

take a truth pill and wake up.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: gags

Originally posted by: forumposter32

Originally posted by: kasey01
After seeing all the posts about how smoother my computer would run with an AMD dual core processor, I decided to purchase the X2 3800+ to replace my socket 754 athlon 64 2800+ newcastle. I'm sure the X2 3800+ will encode video faster, but I haven't really noticed that much of a difference overall. I was expecting the difference to be a little more noticeable just from using my computer for everyday tasks. (i.e. surfing web, listening to music, playing CS Source, etc.). I guessed I expected to be a little more wowed. Any comments or suggestions?

My comment about this is I'm enraged at the ignorance some people show when recommending dual core CPUs. The problem first is the availability of multi-threaded software. And, I read we'll only be seeing lots of multi-threaded software in 2 to 3 years. Only someone who doesn't know how to build a system or replace the motherboard and CPU should even consider a dual core right now. And the performance in UT2004 for the X2 3800+ at 136 fps doesn't impress me when a socket 754 3700+ (which you can now get at tigerdirect.com or .ca or newegg in combos that cost much less) gives you 158 fps.
That would give you a real speed boost from a 2800+.

All the rest of that stuff about having orgasms while they're watching their machines multitask is just crap to me. If I thought getting an X2 would make me horny, I'd get one. But as far as best bang for the buck is concerned, it's not. And I don't recommend them.

What's so wrong about saving your money now and getting socket M2 later? Or even waiting for quad cores. Cripes, by the time we see enough multi-threaded software out there, quad cores will be out by then anyway. And we're talking only end of 2007 or beginning of 2008. Seems like far away but it's not. 2 and a half years. I bet you a socket 754 3700+ will give you enough performance for 2 and a half years especially with the Geforce 8 coming out next summer. Add 2 GB of RAM with fast timings and you're all set for smoking performance!

For those who feel like you're insulting their religion for not recommending dual cores, take a pill (or a large one if you need).

what on earth are you talking about?

surfing the web.listening to music is not multi tasking!

your statement about the multi threaded software being 2 years is rubbish.

I got a x2 3800 because i multi task:

I edit in premier (supports mulithreads)
run titles in after fx (supports multi threads)
build dvds in adobe encore and encode them (support multi threads)
and have multiple filters open in adobe audtion.

Now you dont recommend dual cores ....a 3700 would grind to halt under this kind of load.

single core is dead IMO why waste your money.

Bank for buck well my x2 3800 cost not much more than a SD 3700 and i have effectively got two FX 55 under the hood so i really think you need to think before you post .

encoding is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much faster
gaming is on par with an fx 55

so your points are some what misguided my friend

take a truth pill and wake up.

You will not see improment while surfing the web/listening ot music. Your experience is Atypical with the average gamer here who just wants the best system to game in. If you do use mUltithreaded programs then good for you, the X2 is a good buy. BUt multithreaded SMP aware programs are few compared to the programs that only use one processor. Ow ya, you can get a venice 3000+ for around 110 bucks. HMMMMMMM

 

[gags]

Originally posted by: kasey01
After seeing all the posts about how smoother my computer would run with an AMD dual core processor, I decided to purchase the X2 3800+ to replace my socket 754 athlon 64 2800+ newcastle. I'm sure the X2 3800+ will encode video faster, but I haven't really noticed that much of a difference overall. I was expecting the difference to be a little more noticeable just from using my computer for everyday tasks. (i.e. surfing web, listening to music, playing CS Source, etc.). I guessed I expected to be a little more wowed. Any comments or suggestions?

Try actually multitasking.

doing the things you describe is not utilising the two cores.

Of course you wont see much of a difference there is only 200 mhz in it.What do you expect? 2800 1.8ghz 3800 2x 2ghz

Now start usiing your pc when actually mutiltasking and you will see a massive performance gain and encoding is just so much faster.

i suggest you overclock your x2 3800 to fx 55 speeds and stop moaning.

this then will wipe the floor with any single core offering in a multi tasking environment.

PERIOD.

 

[gags]

[/quote]


You will not see improment while surfing the web/listening ot music. Your experience is Atypical with the average gamer here who just wants the best system to game in. If you do use mUltithreaded programs then good for you, the X2 is a good buy. BUt multithreaded SMP aware programs are few compared to the programs that only use one processor. Ow ya, you can get a venice 3000+ for around 110 bucks. HMMMMMMM
[/quote]


come on my x2 3800 would beat a simarly clocked venice in games.Due to the fact i can assign the other core to cover windows based tasks ,anti virus etc.....

plus i can do more at once.

now if you purely game ,and nothing else stay single core.But for people who use their pc's for other things the dual core is the only route.

 

[cyberfuzz]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Unless you do something that would use a second core, you aren't going to notice much difference between the 2 chips.

Do you think you could have played a game smoothly and burned a disc at the same time with the 2800+?

are you seriously that addicted that you cant wait 8 minutes for the disk to burn?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: gags

You will not see improment while surfing the web/listening ot music. Your experience is Atypical with the average gamer here who just wants the best system to game in. If you do use mUltithreaded programs then good for you, the X2 is a good buy. BUt multithreaded SMP aware programs are few compared to the programs that only use one processor. Ow ya, you can get a venice 3000+ for around 110 bucks. HMMMMMMM
[/quote]


come on my x2 3800 would beat a simarly clocked venice in games.Due to the fact i can assign the other core to cover windows based tasks ,anti virus etc.....

plus i can do more at once.

now if you purely game ,and nothing else stay single core.But for people who use their pc's for other things the dual core is the only route.
[/quote]


Hmm other things like BT/Surfing the web/ Talking on aim/ word processing/ watching dvds??? You can do all these things with single cores, i'm sorry if you didn't notice.


If you run alot of multithreaded SMP aware programs, then YES, go with the dual core. But if your SMP aware library is limited to something like one program that you don't use very often, then the $$$ is wasted.

 

[gags]

[/quote]


Hmm other things like BT/Surfing the web/ Talking on aim/ word processing/ watching dvds??? You can do all these things with single cores, i'm sorry if you didn't notice.


If you run alot of multithreaded SMP aware programs, then YES, go with the dual core. But if your SMP aware library is limited to something like one program that you don't use very often, then the $$$ is wasted.
[/quote]



Of course you can as they are not very cpu intensive so its ram that matters here.

and if you run multi threaded apps then dual core..

whats your point?

you have merely revised what i have already said.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: gags

Hmm other things like BT/Surfing the web/ Talking on aim/ word processing/ watching dvds??? You can do all these things with single cores, i'm sorry if you didn't notice.


If you run alot of multithreaded SMP aware programs, then YES, go with the dual core. But if your SMP aware library is limited to something like one program that you don't use very often, then the $$$ is wasted.
[/quote]

Yes I have revised it because you made it seem like single core was only good for gaming. Well to alot of people gaming is the most CPU-intensive task they do. Personally, besides S&M, my games are the most intensive programs I own and use regularly. You can still do your everyday tasks like Word/etc with a single core very efficiently, and it won't feel slow even compared to a dual core. The only reason to get a dual core is if:

You have a significant amount of SMP aware software that you use reguarly or more than once a week.

If you multitask with CPU intensive tasks. No thats not running Itunes in teh background while playing games, or having 20 tabs of firefox. That is like ENcoding DVDs while at the same time using photoshop.


Of course you can as they are not very cpu intensive so its ram that matters here.

and if you run multi threaded apps then dual core..

whats your point?

you have merely revised what i have already said.[/quote]

 

[gags]

[/quote]

Yes I have revised it because you made it seem like single core was only good for gaming. Well to alot of people gaming is the most CPU-intensive task they do. Personally, besides S&M, my games are the most intensive programs I own and use regularly. You can still do your everyday tasks like Word/etc with a single core very efficiently, and it won't feel slow even compared to a dual core. The only reason to get a dual core is if:

You have a significant amount of SMP aware software that you use reguarly or more than once a week.

If you multitask with CPU intensive tasks. No thats not running Itunes in teh background while playing games, or having 20 tabs of firefox. That is like ENcoding DVDs while at the same time using photoshop.


[/quote]

I never said that single core was only good for gaming at all.I said if you only play games on your pc then single core is fine.

And i know what multi tasking is.

I edit in premier (supports mulithreads)
run titles in after fx (supports multi threads)
build dvds in adobe encore and encode them (support multi threads)
and have multiple filters open in adobe audtion.

thats multi tasking.

You simply could not do this effectively with a single core cpu.Period


so again you have repeated yourself.You agree with me and yet you still argue a point that is the same as mine.

i have centrino laptop for all my office,music and dvd duties on the move and its fine being single core.

i just could not do what i do on my workstation though in the same amount of time... as I can have 4 or 5 cpu intensive apps open at once and it feels like i have one.

the time saved is awsome

 

[fbrdphreak]

Stop freakin' arguing like grade school children :roll:

*unsubscribes*

 

[gags]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Stop freakin' arguing like grade school children :roll:

*unsubscribes*

the guy was making a point about single core cpu and dual cores being a waste of time.I put him correct thats all.