X2 - Talk me into saving 500 clams

[ofiraltarasy]

Well i have to 4200+ But since everyone els says the 4400+ i would say go with the 4600+ an OC it

 

[ElTorrente]

If you can afford one, than just get an x2 4800 and overclock it.

 

[McGeyser]

4400 and OC it, definitely. 1M more cache adds up for enocding and workstation applications, it translates to less latency in the long run.

Save $400 and buy better cooling and an airy case or watercooling, or more Ram or... Seriously 200 MHz OC is easy with the right components.

 

[stockriderman]

cash does absolutely nothing except in games.Even there you only get 1-3fps. that's it!!!!!
not worth it. All of benchmarks say the same.

 

[Hacp]

more like 3-5% if you look at anands articles comparing the 3800+ to the 4000+. Still not worth the extra money between the 3800+X2 and the 4200+ if you can clock to the same speeds.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: stockriderman
cash does absolutely nothing except in games.Even there you only get 1-3fps. that's it!!!!!
not worth it. All of benchmarks say the same.

I would say cash could make a lot of difference in games.(I could buy a lot more)

On the other hand cache doesn't make much difference in game play speed.

 

[mdubrow]

Originally posted by: Hacp
more like 3-5% if you look at anands articles comparing the 3800+ to the 4000+. Still not worth the extra money between the 3800+X2 and the 4200+ if you can clock to the same speeds.

You mean the article comparing the 4200+ X2 to the 4000+. At any rate, the best comparison I saw of the performance difference between 512KB and 1MB caches came from AMD's own website. (Unfortunately, they don't have the 3800+ X2 on these charts.)

Overall Performance

Office Productivity

Digital Media

From AMD's own comparisons, it sure looks like the larger cache doesn't do much for you...at least, today.

 

[Avalon]

If you're going from an AXP 1600+, then whether you get an X2 3800+ or 4800+ won't matter. It will be such a step up from your old AXP that you wouldn't notice the difference between the two models, unless you have encoding projects that take many many hours alone. You could always overclock the 3800+ a couple hundred mhz to make up most of the difference. The extra cache from the 4800+ won't do much for you.

 

[McGeyser]

You guys say cache does not matter for Workstation applications, such as 3D Studio Max, CAD and the Adobe lineup? Encoding does not benefit from cache? Where did you get that info?

I will agree games don't feel the effects of cache that much, but then for games if you OC your HTT you can have an FX series out of the X2.

An FX-55 is $811 running at 1M cache 2.6Ghz

X2 4400 2M cache OC's to 2.6G rather easily on air, it costs below $600. What is the smarter choice?

 

[IeraseU]

I read a recent review of the Pentium 840XE where they said the processor was not so impressive in terms of how it ran benchmarks, but in 'real world' performance when they tried multi-tasking it was a very fluid and smooth experience having 2 cores with HT on each.

I wonder if perhaps the 1mb cache on the X2 is not similar. Not spectacular in benchmarks in comparison to a 512k cache chip, but instead offering a more fluid and smoother experience during 'intense' multi-tasking of processor heavy applications.

Just floating that idea out there. I do agree that in benchmarks the extra cache does not appear to make a significant difference, but then again benchmarks are definitely not the same as real world. For example a 3dmark score isnt that 'end all be all' when it comes to seeing the real world performance of a gpu when it comes to games. Likewise I think real world performance in the cpu world is different then synthetic benchmarks. The problem is there is no 'tangible' way to really measure 'real world' feel, other then just using both and describing any differences one 'feels'.....which is hardly a scientific approach.

 

[McGeyser]

Game performance with X2 and XP x64 :

3DMark03 : 17,336

3DMark05 : 8315

Aquamark3D doesn't work with x64 unfortunately.

These scores are not bad, for no OC on one 7800 GTX.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Kensai
The 4400+ should easily hit 2.6GHz, though sometimes it may not.

LOL, I wouldn't say easily, on high end air I'm still squeaking my way up to 2.6

2.4 is extremely likely, 2.5 probable, 2.6 fairly possible, anything above, super!

 

[Shimmishim]

let's get this clarified now...

cash = money you use to buy things
cache = where frequently accessed memory is stored on cpu

 

[stockriderman]

Originally posted by: McGeyser
You guys say cache does not matter for Workstation applications, such as 3D Studio Max, CAD and the Adobe lineup? Encoding does not benefit from cache? Where did you get that info?

Yes, cache does not matter for enoding or applications. at least not in x2 line up. None of the reviews showed ANY gain.My own test showed the same thing.For X2s,cache is only good for games and even there the diefference is extremely small

 

[McGeyser]

The tests shown were not 3DStudio Max, nor Adobe Premiere nor Photoshop nor Maya. Have you tested these? How about Encoding times, you have seen Auto GK and Xvid? Don't worry 1M cache is fine but 2M makes a difference. However slight, in theory, more cache is less time spent fetching from Ram which is considerably slower than cache.

 

[imported_fishy]

Originally posted by: McGeyser
The tests shown were not 3DStudio Max, nor Adobe Premiere nor Photoshop nor Maya. Have you tested these? How about Encoding times, you have seen Auto GK and Xvid? Don't worry 1M cache is fine but 2M makes a difference. However slight, in theory, more cache is less time spent fetching from Ram which is considerably slower than cache.

Practically, no, a larger cache won't help.
See these tests:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content...17283CF079B2A087CE000DB450CFC9CD35749F
Read this thread at cgtalk:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread....9a3263ebeba324d983aec28be1b9a&t=265594

If you absolutely insist in spending more for it, that's fine.
But truth is, only clock speed really matters.

 

[McGeyser]

So by overclocking, the effects of cache are not accelerated as well? Where's that benchmark?

 

[absinthe]

Well, I've fallen behind on this thread. I thought it had died out. I've been away from the computer for 2 or 3 days putting down a new hardwood floor (ugh ... I've got pains in places where I didn't think it was possible to hurt)! Anyway ...

Originally posted by: Avalon
If you're going from an AXP 1600+, then whether you get an X2 3800+ or 4800+ won't matter. It will be such a step up from your old AXP that you wouldn't notice the difference between the two models, unless you have encoding projects that take many many hours alone. You could always overclock the 3800+ a couple hundred mhz to make up most of the difference. The extra cache from the 4800+ won't do much for you.

Actually yes, I do have encoding projects that take many hours, but what you say about the dramatic leap of an upgrade is what I'm thinking. What I'm thinking of doing now is at first just spending about 300 or 400 bucks to upgrade my current box, I'm thinking just to a 3000+ (Venice). Of course this will have to include a new mobo, gig of ram, and a lower-end PCIe vid card. I plan to pass on this "refurbishing" of my current box to be the "family PC" downstairs. The wife and kids are still using some store-bought Compaq desktop with about a 950 mHz Pentium. They seem happy with it, but every time I walk by and see how slow it is I just feel an inner pain .

I'll then have plenty left over to build an X2 3800+ system, even now. But my birthday is in October and I wasn't planning on building myself a whole new box until about that time (actually I'll probably just order it made from Monarch). But between now and, say, first week of October, I'll just keep the refurb with the 3000+ for myself where it is. By October, I will either:

a) have a little more money
b) prices will be lower
c) maybe AMD will introduce an X2 4000+
d) any combination of the above

So in October I'll build (buy) the X2 system. This way I can have a fairly major upgrade right now, build the system I really want for my birthday, and have a new "family" PC downstairs as well that'll blow 'em away .

-abs

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: absinthe

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?

Unless the increased computation speed will lead you to generate more money (or save more money), then no. Buying the newest and fastest processors are for the enthusiasts and perhaps businesses. For me, paying that much for a processor on the steepest end of the price curve is like giving my money away.