Upgrading, Need input on last decision.

[ncasebee]

Ok, I just got done ordering my 7800GTX with the EVGA free mobo. From the review on anandtech, I jumped at the free Jetway mobo offered with the EVGA 7800GTX. Now, I have one more decision, and it's really really hard. I have to decide on a CPU. I can either get the 3800+ X2 or a 4000+ A64. I don't know which one. However, I know I would be unhappy with the stock 3800+ X2 performance, I would be required to overclock. I would want to overclock to 2.4 Ghz plus some to compensate for the lost L cache. I also would want to try on the stock heatsink. What do I plan to do with this system you ask? Well, I want to play games, and that's about it. The only reason I would think about the Dual Core, is the supposed games that might come out that would utilize it. That's the only reason. I could care less about running 5 instances at once, or encoding while game, or zipping a file faster, or running adobe faster. I don't care.

What do you guys think? Could I hit 2.5 Ghz on stock heatsink? Would I be damaging my components if I did? I am running 1024 MB of DDR400 Crucial Value Ram. The thought of the overclock hurting my system concerns me. I would want to use a memory divider, and I wouldn't want my PCI/PCI-E buses to be overclocked. I think I just answered my own question. I don't like overclocking, thus I should just get the 4000+ ?

 

[GTaudiophile]

You might want to read this read before deciding on the X2.

 

[ncasebee]

Holy! Thx GT. I am waiting on the X2's. That's the last thing I want. Limited gaming. People are having some serious problems.

 

[fstime]

X2 is a hype imo.

Unless you do things that take advantage of two cores, a simple 3200+ would be a better choice.

 

[imported_Kensai]

It's an easy fix.. X2 3800+!

 

[dclapps]

If your only judging the X2 on its ability to play games, then go for the san deigo, or even a much cheaper venice. The performance of an equivalently clocked x2 vs san diego/venice in current games are almost identical, save for the amount of processes running in the background that the second core can take away from the first [which would add some more power, however small]. Go for a cheaper one-core solution and wait to see how much advantage future games take of the multi-core solution.

Personally, I would enjoy an X2 because, on my current XP 2000, ripping, encoding, par'ing, downloading, surfing, and stability do not exist at the same time at anything remotely considered sane speeds.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Kensai
It's an easy fix.. X2 3800+!

I think it's a problem with all X2 cores.

 

[Bona Fide]

Wow...you people are so...weird?

Not sure of the word, but come on. X2 is the ONLY way to go for a new computer. Multithreaded applications have been out for a while now, and multithreaded games are not far behind. Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Unreal 3 will both be multi-core applications, so go X2.

And for the love of God, don't listen to BouZouki.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Wow...you people are so...weird?

Not sure of the word, but come on. X2 is the ONLY way to go for a new computer. Multithreaded applications have been out for a while now, and multithreaded games are not far behind. Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Unreal 3 will both be multi-core applications, so go X2.

And for the love of God, don't listen to BouZouki.

I agreed. But why am I reading about all these people having gaming issues with the X2?

 

[imported_Kensai]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Wow...you people are so...weird?

Not sure of the word, but come on. X2 is the ONLY way to go for a new computer. Multithreaded applications have been out for a while now, and multithreaded games are not far behind. Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Unreal 3 will both be multi-core applications, so go X2.

And for the love of God, don't listen to BouZouki.

I agreed. But why am I reading about all these people having gaming issues with the X2?

Driver issues.

 

[ncasebee]

Thx, but no thx. I ordered a 4000+ San Diego. First I want really fast single core gaming. Second I don't want to have anything to do with those problems with the X2's. Third, dual core gaming is still quite a ways off. When developers start making real use of the second core, I'll get one. However, I doubt there will be any significant gains in Elder Scrolls. Hearing ID and Valve complain about dual core tech, doesn't help very much either. Developers have a long ways to finding the ultimate use of threads. I'll get a dual core when that 4.0 Ghz is all used by games. Until then, I'll just play with my single core.

 

[imported_Kensai]

It's all personal choice.

 

[Bona Fide]

Your loss mate...can't say we didn't warn you.

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

Especially a 4000+... 3700+ would have saved you quite a bit of money, and you could have been able to overclock it quite a bit.

 

[ncasebee]

Thx guys for the input. I appreciate it. Didn't really want to overclock, because it kinda makes me nervous. I'm still not sure if the mobo I bought has PCI-E locks, and the last thing I want is a FSB increase smoking my new 500$ baby 7800GTX.

 

[xTYBALTx]

If it were me, I'd go 3800+ without thinking twice.

 

[ncasebee]

I must be talking to adobe aficiandos, or people who like to encode dvd's while surfing the internet, while deathmatching in Doom 3. If Elder Scrolls yields a 200%(2x) increase in performance, then sure.....I'll buy a dual core, but I highly doubt that's going to happen.

I feel that the single core fits my needs the best, gaming.

 

[i1o0i]

AMD64 X2 is wayyyy better than AMD64 by performance while gaming.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: i1o0i
AMD64 X2 is wayyyy better than AMD64 by performance while gaming.

Only if you're doing something else CPU-intensive at the same time.

So if you need to rip DVDs and DL GBs of pr0n while playing WoW (and just can't wait until afterwards) then yes, you need X2.

Otherwise single-core is a much better value. It will be at least a year or two before dual-core offers any benefit to just playing a game. Even then it probably won't double performance it is more likely to offer 25%-50% than a 100% gain.

It's a no-cost-barred option like SLI: if you want to spend the cash for 4600+ X2 and SLI 7800GTX then go for it, but 6600GT in SLI is a sad waste.

 

[xTYBALTx]

I guess there's no harm in hijacking a thread after the OP's issue is settled, so lets carry on.

All I am saying is that I haven't heard anyone who switched to an X2, even from a much higher mhz processor, say anything but "I LUV IT OMG!!!!!!@31231%$!5ten"

 

[ncasebee]

I read the post about the X2 gaming problems, and read about two people who said they were disppointed.

 

[thepingofdeath]

Oh my god. This isn't rocket science here. If you have game problems, just set the processor affinity to a single core. Problem solved, games run fine, and you still are prepared for multi-threaded applications. If it still doesn't work, just install the correct driver. How can you judge a processor if you're using a bad driver? That's like not getting a new video card because there was an issue with an older outdated driver package. Makes no sense.

 

[ixelion]

If you have the money then you should go for the 4800+ X2, anything less would be pointless since you can get a better single core part for the same price. Actually even a 4800+ wouldnt be any good since you can get an FX-57 for better gaming performance.

If you have a limited budget, then if you go dual core you will miss out on the extra gaming performance if you had went with the similarly priced single core part.

This assuming of course that you do gaming most of the time, if you do use multthreaded applications and multitasking frequently then the above does not apply.

IMHO there is absoulutly no reason to go dual core if your computer is a gaming machine, and having to adjust my processors affinity to single core everytime I want to play a game is a pain in the bum.

 

[Twistah]

Well, I too am considering to either buy a 4000+ or a 4400+, and to be quite honest I was rather smitten with the dual core opportunities. But now that I'm reading more and more negative experiences on the dual core part I will probably reconsider and buy a 4000+. I know there are ways in making the dual core proc work well with games, but what is the point in buying a new part and then having to adjust your settings every time you fire up a game? I think I'll make the jump to dual core in two years, when some more programs effectively utilise the dual core capabilities.

 

[Kyanzes]

Well, actually the ONLY reason I didn't move to AMD platform earlier was the multi-thread advantage of the Intel CPUs. HT served me well in the past years and just couldn't convince myself to give it up for the (obviously) more gaming power AMD has to offer. Of course I don't do as much gaming as I did a few years back but I'm still willing to spend a whole day sitting next to the comp when some cool stuff hits the shelves (Doom3, HL2 and the like) but for general use the multithreading capability is something you have to experience first and judge later. I suggest you gather some real life experience using a DC system and decide after that. The lag and unresponsiveness simply vanishes when it is available in your system. Try it. The gaming power you give up is not THAT siginificant. The more important part for gaming is the video card and not that your CPU can rocket at 2600MHz or it 'crawls' at 2200MHz. Sure it has some impact but it's not THAT significant. The video card has a much larger impact there. IMHO.