- Sep 18, 2004
- 1,401
- 0
- 0
I've seen enough x2 3800 oc results to conclude that sd/venice overclocks on an average about 200 mhz higher than x2 3800.  Would you rather spend the money on a x2 or stick with sd?
			
			Originally posted by: Avalon
Well, it obviously depends on what you're going to use your system for. If I only game and never run more than two CPU-intensive apps at a time, I won't need an X2.
Originally posted by: infestedgh0st
Originally posted by: Avalon
Well, it obviously depends on what you're going to use your system for. If I only game and never run more than two CPU-intensive apps at a time, I won't need an X2.
the thing is, x2 is more future-proofed. I mean applications in the 64bit environment will start taking advantage of the dual core setup.
Originally posted by: bersl2
3800+ X2 cache is unshared. I wouldn't call that having the same amount.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Even if you do game a lot...
Giving up a few hundred MHz isn't a big deal. Are you really going to notice the difference between 90fps and 98fps?
Originally posted by: JD50
Same thing I was thinking. I just bought the X2 3800 today from www.tankguys.biz.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Even if you do game a lot...
Giving up a few hundred MHz isn't a big deal. Are you really going to notice the difference between 90fps and 98fps?
Originally posted by: infestedgh0st
Originally posted by: bersl2
3800+ X2 cache is unshared. I wouldn't call that having the same amount.
that's another factor that i was thinking...
Originally posted by: KoolDrew
3800 X2
/thread
Originally posted by: bjc112
Originally posted by: KoolDrew
3800 X2
/thread
Yep..
Overclock the X2 SLIGHTLY and hit 2.4ghz and then it's not even close.
AMD should be selling nothing but 3000+ and X2's


 
				
		