Which fits me better, x2 3800 or E6300?

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: eelw

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: eelw
Why go dual core if all you're doing is Internet related stuff? A Celeron will fit the bill perfectly fine.

He said it in his very first sentence. "I want to take advantage of dual core."

And what part of Internet related stuff will take advantage of dual core???????????????? Yes, Zombo.com is a great site, but it hardly pushes a single core CPU let alone a dual core.

So you persist to prove your point discart the person's desire for yours?

To OP-AM2 dual core 3800 x2 65 watts and any motherboard that has nvidia Gforce 6100/6150 integrated graphic on board. not a good time to buy memory now because of shortage and supply/demand. same memory will cost you about 25% less in about couple of weeks or so. The AM2 dual core plarform will cost less than $450 for cpu+motherboard+integrated graphic+ 2x1gig of DDR2 667 and will do you good for next 2-3 years for your need and what you use it for. But an Intel C2D will cost $600 or more that may not make you happy anyways (because of high temp people are finding out and complaining that may need 3rd part cooling HSF). Not knocking down Intel, but that's the way it is and i would buy AMD if it was my money. Others may disagree and have valid point about C2D being about 10-15% faster. But yesterday before C2D AMD's dual core was the top choice as far as performance and speed. Today the same CPU is 60% cheaper. I say 60% cheaper outweighs Intel's C2D 15% faster. Plus you have a smooth path to upgrade to K8L. With AM2 you can upgrade to K8L by just replacing the processor . With Intel no telling.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: gus6464
what about a pentium D805? its dual core and its cheap, all the dual core he needs.

That's true, and if he matched it with a motherboard that's C2D-capable, like an Asrock VSTA, then it would be an easy upgrade to a C2D, also.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: eelw
What's with dredd pushing dual core when a Celeron will surfice???

I don't know. It annoys me also (as I type this on a dual-core processor ), but, you guys must have missed when the OP said:

Originally posted by buildingacomputer
2 weeks ago I built x2 3800 Socket 939 (because I didn't want to throw away 1 GB DDR). My child had a computer problem and I gave it to her. I liked the dual core because I was able to burn DVD and browse internet. Say I got spoiled by dual core.

I'm able to burn DVDs and run Word/Excel or browse the Net at the same time with my Athlon XP-M...

Myth busted.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
I'm able to burn DVDs and run Word/Excel or browse the Net at the same time with my Athlon XP-M...

Myth busted.

You aren't special. Everyone with a CD/DVD burner that has any type of buffer underrun protection can, with their 900 Mhz PIII, or even with their 600 Mhz Athlon.

Orininally posted by myocardia
Hey, I never said that I thought he needed a dual-core, but since he's said he wants one twice, it sounds to me like he's going to buy one. He's just looking for advice on which one to buy...

 

[harpoon84]

Never said I was special. Just saying that dual core is overkill for the OP.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Never said I was special. Just saying that dual core is overkill for the OP.

That's okay, I never said I disagreed with you.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: CKXP

Originally posted by: buildingacomputer
2 weeks ago I built x2 3800 Socket 939 (because I didn't want to throw away 1 GB DDR). My child had a computer problem and I gave it to her. I liked the dual core because I was able to burn DVD and browse internet. Say I got spoiled by dual core. Thanks.

PS: While I was posting this, a few more suggestions were made. Thank you for the recommendations.

the OP has spoken

I burned DVD's while surfing all the time on my p4 3.0ghz northwood. Its now my secondary system but with 2 gigs of ram and hyper threading I really dont see a difference between it and the E6300 I have now. I upgraded for encoding and gaming purposes, but I probbaly could have gotten by with it for another year at least.

 

[buildingacomputer]

Not being computer savvy, I thought burning DVD and surfing internet simultaneously came from dual core. With my XP 1700, while Nero was burning CD, I always left the computer untouched. When I tried to use it, something happened like CD not burning correctly or computer being too slow to be practical. I didn't know there was something wrong with the setup. Thank you.

 

[yuchai]

From what I've seen, the main reason a system chokes while burning a DVD is because the HDD is busy feeding data to the DVD burner. If you get a second HDD to feed that data you will experience no decrease in system responsiveness. If you want good multitasking performance while burning a DVD the best investment you can get is a second HDD.

That said I think the price delta is small enough between single and dual core these days that you might as well go dual core. However, If budget is a concern and it's either getting dual core or a seoncd HDD, I would definitely opt for the latter.

 

[buildingacomputer]

Thank you for the explanation. I thought eveyone had the same issue. duh....

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: eelw
What's with dredd pushing dual core when a Celeron will surfice???

Yeah, he thinks just because he has an E6400, everyone needs one, even if it's for freaking web surfing and online banking. :roll:

Hey, I might as well get a Kentsfield for my folks, they're into web browsing!!! :laugh:

You know, 4 cores, the web pages must load 4 times faster, right? RIGHT?! :roll:

You're full of crap dude...look he said he wants a dual core system. So help him decide which one to get or get out of his topic.

Now back to the topic at hand, you would probably have to look at the expense of upgrading to either platform (AMD or Intel). See what kinds of deals you can find on CPU and Motherboards and go from there. I find good deals at computer shows locally sometimes.

 

[snes tor]

He's just like everyone else here. You play games, and buy 2 video cards... You rip dvds to your harddrive so you have 4 harddrives... we're overkillers here. Noone needs the crap we need. We want it. This man wants two cores for internet browsing going on the logic everyone else uses " it's there, why the hell not"

My choice - C2D ASRock ConRoe It has very little options in over clocking and such it's cheap

 

[Captante]

While a dual-core cpu certainly isn't a requirement for basic computer use, I can still recall when I first upgraded to my Opteron 170 from a single-core 3200+ A64 .... at first (& before I overclocked it!) I was disappointed because performance increases were minimal but then one night I noticed that while I was browsing Google-video, an automatic Virus scan had kicked in & had exactly zero effect on performance, as opposed to the exact same system with a single-core cpu at the same clockspeed which would bog down somwhat under the same conditions... further, burning a DVD while doing other tasks is one heck of a lot faster.

If not having to upgrade for a significant period of time is a priority, then dual-core is the only way to go that makes sense despite the higher cost. If the budget is super-tight then go with the X2, but if theres any way you can squeeze it in get the C2D 6300 instead.

 

[hans007]

you could just get an x2. af riend of mine who is a gamer even went this route.

he picked up a 3800 + x2, with a ecs rs482 board at frys for only $159, which was $20 less than just a core 2 duo usually costs. and he reused his ram. you could probably easily just buy another stick of ram, and forego the hassle.

the e6300 though is faster. porbably x2 4400 to 4600 speed depending on the app.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: buildingacomputer
Thank you for the explanation. I thought eveyone had the same issue. duh....

If you want a dual core system then i'd get an 805 with a core 2 duo compatible board. If you do ever need more power you can swap the CPUs out.

However i doubt you need or would benifit from a dual core machine. I'm on my semperon 3000+ at the moment and it's more than i need.

 

[sanitydc]

I'd go with a celeron D for that myself, higher clock speeds will make it feel faster even though on the benchies it probably isn't. Could just be my opinion but when I'm on a labtop at 2 ghz it feels slower than a cheap celly D at 3ghz big time. which is how I felt about my e6400, it's faster on tests but for web browsing it didn't feel fast.. till I oc'ed it atleast. and by that I mean opening new tabs and new browsers and such not going page to page. and a celeron D prolly sell for 60-80 bucks right?

 

[sanitydc]

Ive got an e6400 and man from the point i log on to the point where i can open stuff is about 2 seconds, even when my start up is loaded with crap... I LOVE IT.

on my old p4 I'd sit there for 2 minutes waiting for stuff to load.. mind you alot of that was spyware related.. thanks family.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Umm, hate to burst those upgrade bubbles, but the OP hasn't responded to this thread in over a month. It was revived because....?

 

[Nil Einne]

IMHO, when someone is trying to buy something they probably don't need, there is no harm offering advise and telling them why you think they don't need something. Of course there's no point beating a dead horse and if you are unable to convince that person give up and move on.

BTW, if you think a CeleronD 3ghz is faster then a E6400....

N.B. When comparing computers, you need to consider that HD speed and amount of RAM make a big different. And also screen res and GPU to some extent. So just because your laptop with maybe less RAM and very likely a slower HD is slower then your desktop with more RAM and a faster HD doesn't mean the CPU is slower...