• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

X2 - Talk me into saving 500 clams

A

absinthe

Senior member
Ok, getting ready for a new build. I usually scrimp and save pennies when it comes to building computers, but I've been planning on waiting for dual core for almost a year now and for once I've saved up enough dough to buy everything I want (within reason, of course 🙂).

I've been drooling over the X2 4800 for some time. But now the 3800 has been released at a very attractive price and I'm wondering: Do I really need to spend $900 to $1000 just on a CPU?

My "higher-end" use is mainly video/audio encoding, which I do a LOT of. Basically, I'm sick of my computer being only good for single-window web browsing for hours on end. I am not really much of a game player and doubt that I will be again anytime soon (I quit gameplaying after I whipped Warcraft III ... yeah, it's been a while).

I also do some occasional Photoshopping.

So, multitasking is the biggest sticking point for me. I simply can't stand to wait around while one application vies for dominance with another. Keep in mind here, I'm upgrading from an Athlon XP 1600+ running at 1.4 Ghz.

Another thing that might be important is that I will probably want to occasionally use the machine as an HTPC, so video card outputs will important, and I'll want an audio card with both analog and digital outputs.

I'm going to throw in 1 GB of quality RAM and probably an X800 XL video card (as recommended by Anandtech).

So, even though the awesome 4800 is within my grasp (drool), is it overkill doyathink? I mean, I'm thinking that with the 500 bucks I'll save by buying the 3800, I can get a sweet mobo/CPU/RAM combo to throw in my old box and have two really good machines. Then I can always buy the 4800 next year when it's $200 or $300 and kick the 3800 down to the old box 🙂.

Any thoughts?

-abs
 
Go in-between, and get the 4400+. 200MHz is a guaranteed overclock, and you'll get all the power of the 4800+ for hundreds less.

My vote - X2 4400+
 
Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Go in-between, and get the 4400+. 200MHz is a guaranteed overclock, and you'll get all the power of the 4800+ for hundreds less.

My vote - X2 4400+
Click to expand...


Not guaranteed... It's most likely that you'll get at least 200MHz, but it's not guaranteed..
Nothing is guaranteed in overclocking.
 
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Originally posted by: Hacp
4800+ and leave it stock! Someone has to support AMD guys......
Click to expand...

Investing in their stock would be better support...
Click to expand...


Nah, since their stock goes up and down... Who knows they might go bankrupt tommorow and you lose all that money. At least with the 4800+, you have something physical if something goes wrong with AMD 🙂 .
 
So do you think the 1 MB L2 cache on the 4400 is more crucial performance-wise than than the additional clockspeed of the 4600?

Keep in mind, I'm also asking if you think I'll really notice any major difference in "multitasking responsiveness" between the 3800/4400/4800, also bearing in mind what I'm upgrading from and that I'm not a gamer. I don't really care that the 3800 might take 20 minutes longer, or the 4400 10 minutes longer, to encode a 2-hour movie. I just want to be able to do other things while encoding is going on (i.e. video encode, multi-tabbed browser going, Excel spreadsheet, and e-mail .... )

Also, I've been playing with the new AVC (H264) codecs for video encoding, and they're a lot more CPU-intensive than DivX/XviD or MPEG2. It literally takes my current PC 2 or 3 days to encode a full movie with AVC. So I guess to that extent I am looking for sheer power.

I want to buy something that will last and be upgradeable, but no sense in buying more than I'll actually need.

-abs
 
Originally posted by: absinthe
So do you think the 1 MB L2 cache on the 4400 is more crucial performance-wise than than the additional clockspeed of the 4600?

Keep in mind, I'm also asking if you think I'll really notice any major difference in "multitasking responsiveness" between the 3800/4400/4800, also bearing in mind what I'm upgrading from and that I'm not a gamer. I don't really care that the 3800 might take 20 minutes longer, or the 4400 10 minutes longer, to encode a 2-hour movie. I just want to be able to do other things while encoding is going on (i.e. video encode, multi-tabbed browser going, Excel spreadsheet, and e-mail .... )

Also, I've been playing with the new AVC (H264) codecs for video encoding, and they're a lot more CPU-intensive than DivX/XviD or MPEG2. It literally takes my current PC 2 or 3 days to encode a full movie with AVC. So I guess to that extent I am looking for sheer power.

I want to buy something that will last and be upgradeable, but no sense in buying more than I'll actually need.

-abs
Click to expand...


A64 X2 4400+ overclocked
2GB (You want 2GB at least, not 1GB) OCZ EL Platinum PC3200
-==================-=====-=====-=====
You could always go with something like:
Asus K8N-DL
1 X AMD Opteron 265-270-275 (whatever fits in your budget)
2GB ECC Reg PC3200

That'll leave you to add another dual core later on for even more CPU power.
 
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Originally posted by: Hacp
4800+ and leave it stock! Someone has to support AMD guys......
Click to expand...

Investing in their stock would be better support...
Click to expand...

huh? AMD made all the money they are going to make off their stock when they issued their IPO....any value gained after that is due to trading. Unless AMD issues a secondary offering they wont make any money off people buying their stocks.

I dunno
 
I m looking currently for an X2 as well. My decision is basicly made, I want the 1mb L2 cache so its gotta be the 4400+ and i have read enough overclocking tests that I can say almost for sure 2.6ghz with Air will not cause you any problems. That on the otherhand is like an X2 5000+ or 5200+ if we would go with P-Rating.
 
Originally posted by: absinthe
So do you think the 1 MB L2 cache on the 4400 is more crucial performance-wise than than the additional clockspeed of the 4600?
Click to expand...

There had been a lot of benchmarks of 1 MB cache AMD64s and 512 MB cache AMD64s on anandtech and elsewhere. It is clear that the 200 MHz extra clockspeed are worth more than the extra cache for the overwhelming majority of applications.

The bigger cache also potentionally limits overclocking if that is your thing.
 
Originally posted by: ChooChoo
I m looking currently for an X2 as well. My decision is basicly made, I want the 1mb L2 cache so its gotta be the 4400+ and i have read enough overclocking tests that I can say almost for sure 2.6ghz with Air will not cause you any problems. That on the otherhand is like an X2 5000+ or 5200+ if we would go with P-Rating.
Click to expand...

Both Duvie and I have problem getting past 2560 unless we really crank the volts, which I won;t do. 2400-2500 is pretty easy with hardly any volts on a 4400+.
 
Personally in your case I'd go 3800+ and overclock. I would be REALLY surprised if a 3800+ wouldn't get to 2.2 GHz, and pretty surprised if it couldn't get 2.4. More than 2.4 starts to be pushing it, but 2.4 shouldn't be terribly difficultt from what I've seen of people overclocking x2s.

If you are not overclocking and looking long term, a 4400+ is probably a better bet. The 4800+ is too much of an incremental upgrade over a 4400+ to really justify nearly double the cost though.

If you are buying something for long time usage, do not worry about upgradability. Think about your previous machine, is there anything on there that even makes SENSE to upgrade? Well that's the way it will be 2-3 years from now when you're ready to upgrade again. Technologies change and you always need a new that or new the other thing to get the most performance out of a single component switch.

The other option for you is to buy two computers. If you buy a 3800+ for your main machine, you can pretty much get a whole 'nother computer for the $600 difference between the 3800+ and the 4800+ if you're not doing much gaming. Add a KVM switch, and when you need one machine to crunch/encode/whatever, you can hit the KVM switch and let it crunch while you have the THIRD processor all to yourself.

 
yeah I have decided to go with the 4400 since im not an overclocker.
granted when i do begin, its great im starting at 4400 to get the feel of a 4800/5000

but your not doing heavy application to use a 4800.
nor your gaming.
4400 might be still overkill for encoding, you will want MORE RAM, 2 gigs, dual channel.

so I suggest 3800 + 2 gigs of Rams. Invest on a HSF so if you must feel the need to go a tad faster, you can overclock it securely.
 
I'd definately go with 2 GB of RAM. That's not a question at this point. Games are already starting to make use of it, and it'll really help multi-tasking when you're encoding DVD's and editing pictures with an email client open and a bunch of web pages open. 2 GB of quality RAM can be had for $200 now... I just ordered 2 GB of PC3200 (2.5-4-4) made by Gigaram from newegg for $200... it's running at 212 MHz at 2.5-4-4 on 2.85 volts. It actually gave me less trouble than the OCZ Gold I just bought before this stuff. The OCZ is going to eBay.
 
I would get the 4400+ w/ 1mb of cache per core...There are certain apps that do better with the L2 cache though I can say from testing it usually isnt audio and video encoding.

If you dont wnat to OC then the 4400+ is the perfect balance of price and power...The 200 more mhz for 450-500 more bucks is outrageous...
 
Most test i have read show that the 3800+ doesn't even reach the 2.4ghz without really pushing it.


For the 4400+ for me the 1mb L2 cache is important since this should not be a gamer rig, but of course it should handle games just as well. For multimedia like encoding, decoding, video editing ect... it should be from advantage. Further I think even 2.5ghz will be alright. But most of the people easy reached 2.6ghz while i think it depends on what motherboard you use and evtl. make sure that NVidia's SATA Controller does not break you out.
 
Most test i have read show that the 3800+ doesn't even reach the 2.4ghz without really pushing it.
Click to expand...
Not from what I have read. Normally 2.4-2.5. But ask me again in a month. I should have my 3800+ by then. My new boat kind of killed the play money situation (I paid cash for it, don't like to charge). $4000 puts a dent in the cash flow, even for me.
 
I personally wouldn't give up the cache.... But if I had it to do all over again, I'd save $400.00 to $500.00 and get the 4400+.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top