Which would be the best buy?

FireElements · Feb 4, 2006, 10:21 PM

AMD Athlon 64 3500+
AMD Athlon 64 3800+
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+

mike2h · Feb 4, 2006, 10:30 PM

3800x2.

FireElements · Feb 4, 2006, 10:41 PM

I've seen tests where the 3500+ outperformed the X2 3800+ in games and I was wondering if it would be worth it to get it just for the future.

Drakon · Feb 4, 2006, 10:48 PM

If you purely game and don't really multi task, then a single core processor is a good route to go. If you multitask along with gaming, then you could see performance gains with a dual core processor. However, most games out now don't really take advantage of dual core processors, so you might not see much of a performance gain compared to single core processors. This is changing though, as developers are making games to take advantage of the 2nd core.

mike2h · Feb 4, 2006, 11:03 PM

the only reason to get the 3500 is to save $$. your choice should be between single & dual core. & drakon gave you the advice you need to make that choice.

FireElements · Feb 4, 2006, 11:09 PM

But saving money is good if the difference isn't enough for the price difference

.

swimtech · Feb 4, 2006, 11:30 PM

As far as a 'best buy' recommendation we have to consider that the X2 3800 is $112.00 more than the 3500 - and it really matters how you are going to use the computer as Drakon mentions...

I'm not surprised the 3500 surpassed the X2 3800 processor in a gaming benchmark ( by a tiny bit - 200Mhz actual clock speed advantage), but the X2 3800 has double the L1 cache (per processor core) so should run Windows and other applications (aside from games) the same or better.

The 3500 should be fairly easy to overclock to 2.4Ghz (the 3800 single core model spec), so I would think the real choices are between the 3500 and the X2 3800 if your mobo supports overclocking

What are your system specs?

Are you considering just upgrading your existing processor, or more than that?

Edit: Ain't shopping fun, all these questions...

FireElements · Feb 4, 2006, 11:35 PM

Going to be buying a new motherboard and processor.

Right now I have a crappy P4 2.0Ghz

.

FireElements · Feb 4, 2006, 11:54 PM

Also, I don't want to overclock anything. Too scared I'd ruin it.

mike2h · Feb 5, 2006, 12:38 AM

i'd go for the future proof x2. as mentioned above more & more apps & games will be supporting this & eventually it will become the defacto standard. what this means is that while your single core may be a little faster now, that will change as more of rthe resources of that dual core are used.
consider it an investment.

swimtech · Feb 5, 2006, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireElements

Going to be buying a new motherboard and processor.

Right now I have a crappy P4 2.0Ghz

.

New mainboard probably means a new video card too (PCI Express...) - unless you get the one board that accepts both PCI Express and AGP video cards...

FireElements · Feb 5, 2006, 02:40 AM

Recently bought a Radeon X800 XL PCI-e

swimtech · Feb 5, 2006, 04:09 AM

Nice...

You're obviously thinking carefully about value balanced with a view to the future...

I think the X2 is the better value - despite the 30% higher price - if you plan on keeping the computer over a year/year and a half, regardless of how you'll use it. Over the coming year, a lot of newer software - games included - should be taking fuller advantage of the dual core architecture. AMD and Intel can't ramp clock speeds so improved performance from the hardware is going to be dependent upon cooperation from software publishers to a large degree. Dual core optimization doesn't take as much work, generally, as rewriting for 64 bit - so adoption of dual core optimization should come faster than 64 bit adoption is taking...

FireElements · Feb 5, 2006, 04:26 AM

So how about which motherboard? I was thinking about the Asus A8N5X

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131569

What do you think?

swimtech · Feb 5, 2006, 05:09 AM

No Firewire, and a tad weak on the number of USB ports, but hey, what do want for $90.00? It's got the rest of the goodies, and the user reviews are excellent.

Spec-wise and feature wise looks real good - looks like a great feature filled value board - and Asus has a good reputation for reliability and stability. If you want advice based upon real experience with the latest boards though, you should post a question in the Motherboards, Modems, and Misc. forum and look at the sigs of the folks who post, as well as the posts themselves, in the Overclocking forum here (they have to be stable to overclock well...).

soloz2 · Feb 7, 2006, 03:53 AM

Hey I thought I'd add some to the comments about the cpus...

I'm going to assume that you are talking about the venice core A64's when you refer to the 3500+ and 3800+

heres my thoughts:

the 3000+, 3200+, 3500+ and 3800+ venice cores are all essentially the same cpu. The main difference is the multiplier.
3000+ x9 for 1.8Ghz
3200+ x10 for 2.0Ghz and so on.

they all have 512mb L2 cache... and they will all typically OC to about the same speed. 2.6-2.8Ghz on air. So essentially there is no need to spend the extra money to get a 3800+ over a 3500+ or even a 3500+ over a 3200+ the only advantage to getting the higher model is a higher multiplier... which is sometimes easier to work with when overclocking.
with that in mind my two suggestions would be either the 3200+ or the 3500+

however, a much better deal would be the 3700+ San Diego core. It has an 11x multiplier just like the venice 3500+ but it has double the cache... which means it is approximately equivelant to 200mhz faster give or take. If you are looking at a single core cpu the SD core is by far the best way to go... plus current steppings are overclocking to about 2.8-3.1Ghz on air... much faster than the venice cores... and at the same frequency they have better performance.

now on to dual core cpus. If you have the money I would advise you go this route. Some new games (quake 4 and COD2 can already see performance improvements w/ dual core) and both ATI and Nvidia have released new drivers that work better w/ dual core cpus even on older games. Also, many new games that will come out in the fiture will provide dual core support so there will be more support/performance in the future.

The X2 3800+ that you pointed out is essentially 2 3200+'s put together on the same die. each core has 512mb cache... so you're in the same situation you are w/ the venice core cpus. a much better solution (while also more expensive) is to get an x2 that has 1mb cache for each core.

Another solution is to get an Opteron processor. Even the ones that are clocked lower have 1mb cache and the dual core opterons all have 1mb cache per core so you're at an advantage there. Plus the optys tend to oc better than the mainstream A64's.

hope this shed some light on the situation

swimtech · Feb 7, 2006, 02:25 PM

Nice one soloz2...

Looks like the Opteron 165 is a match for the 64X2 3800 by price (within $10.00 of one another) - the processor clock is 200Mhz slower but has 2x1Mb cache versus the 64X2 3800's 2x512Mb cache.

Meanwhile the single core SanDiego 3700 is only $30.00 more than the Venice 3500 - same clocks, and the SanDiego has twice the cache - definitely a better processor.

Feb 4, 2006, 10:21 PM	#1
FireElements DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 189 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Which would be the best buy? AMD Athlon 64 3500+ AMD Athlon 64 3800+ AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+

Feb 4, 2006, 10:30 PM	#2
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 91 System Specs	3800x2. __________________

Feb 4, 2006, 11:03 PM	#5
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 91 System Specs	the only reason to get the 3500 is to save $$. your choice should be between single & dual core. & drakon gave you the advice you need to make that choice. __________________

Feb 4, 2006, 11:30 PM	#7
swimtech HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,040 Rep Power: 124 System Specs	As far as a 'best buy' recommendation we have to consider that the X2 3800 is $112.00 more than the 3500 - and it really matters how you are going to use the computer as Drakon mentions... I'm not surprised the 3500 surpassed the X2 3800 processor in a gaming benchmark ( by a tiny bit - 200Mhz actual clock speed advantage), but the X2 3800 has double the L1 cache (per processor core) so should run Windows and other applications (aside from games) the same or better. The 3500 should be fairly easy to overclock to 2.4Ghz (the 3800 single core model spec), so I would think the real choices are between the 3500 and the X2 3800 if your mobo supports overclocking What are your system specs? Are you considering just upgrading your existing processor, or more than that? Edit: Ain't shopping fun, all these questions... __________________ It's not so much getting your way that matters or not - what matters is how you go about getting it.

Feb 5, 2006, 12:38 AM	#10
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 91 System Specs	i'd go for the future proof x2. as mentioned above more & more apps & games will be supporting this & eventually it will become the defacto standard. what this means is that while your single core may be a little faster now, that will change as more of rthe resources of that dual core are used. consider it an investment. __________________

Feb 4, 2006, 10:41 PM	Thread Starter #3
FireElements DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 189 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	I've seen tests where the 3500+ outperformed the X2 3800+ in games and I was wondering if it would be worth it to get it just for the future.

Feb 4, 2006, 10:48 PM	#4
Drakon DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Floatin'... Posts: 4,957 Rep Power: 0	If you purely game and don't really multi task, then a single core processor is a good route to go. If you multitask along with gaming, then you could see performance gains with a dual core processor. However, most games out now don't really take advantage of dual core processors, so you might not see much of a performance gain compared to single core processors. This is changing though, as developers are making games to take advantage of the 2nd core.

Feb 4, 2006, 11:09 PM	Thread Starter #6
FireElements DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 189 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	But saving money is good if the difference isn't enough for the price difference .

Feb 4, 2006, 11:35 PM	Thread Starter #8
FireElements DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 189 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Going to be buying a new motherboard and processor. Right now I have a crappy P4 2.0Ghz .

Feb 4, 2006, 11:54 PM	Thread Starter #9
FireElements DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 189 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Also, I don't want to overclock anything. Too scared I'd ruin it.

Feb 5, 2006, 02:40 AM	Thread Starter #12
FireElements DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 189 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Recently bought a Radeon X800 XL PCI-e

Feb 5, 2006, 04:09 AM	#13
swimtech HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,040 Rep Power: 124 System Specs	Nice... You're obviously thinking carefully about value balanced with a view to the future... I think the X2 is the better value - despite the 30% higher price - if you plan on keeping the computer over a year/year and a half, regardless of how you'll use it. Over the coming year, a lot of newer software - games included - should be taking fuller advantage of the dual core architecture. AMD and Intel can't ramp clock speeds so improved performance from the hardware is going to be dependent upon cooperation from software publishers to a large degree. Dual core optimization doesn't take as much work, generally, as rewriting for 64 bit - so adoption of dual core optimization should come faster than 64 bit adoption is taking... __________________ It's not so much getting your way that matters or not - what matters is how you go about getting it.

Feb 5, 2006, 04:26 AM	Thread Starter #14
FireElements DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 189 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	So how about which motherboard? I was thinking about the Asus A8N5X http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131569 What do you think?

Feb 5, 2006, 05:09 AM	#15
swimtech HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,040 Rep Power: 124 System Specs	No Firewire, and a tad weak on the number of USB ports, but hey, what do want for $90.00? It's got the rest of the goodies, and the user reviews are excellent. Spec-wise and feature wise looks real good - looks like a great feature filled value board - and Asus has a good reputation for reliability and stability. If you want advice based upon real experience with the latest boards though, you should post a question in the Motherboards, Modems, and Misc. forum and look at the sigs of the folks who post, as well as the posts themselves, in the Overclocking forum here (they have to be stable to overclock well...). __________________ It's not so much getting your way that matters or not - what matters is how you go about getting it.

Feb 7, 2006, 03:53 AM	#16
soloz2 DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 362 Rep Power: 0	Hey I thought I'd add some to the comments about the cpus... I'm going to assume that you are talking about the venice core A64's when you refer to the 3500+ and 3800+ heres my thoughts: the 3000+, 3200+, 3500+ and 3800+ venice cores are all essentially the same cpu. The main difference is the multiplier. 3000+ x9 for 1.8Ghz 3200+ x10 for 2.0Ghz and so on. they all have 512mb L2 cache... and they will all typically OC to about the same speed. 2.6-2.8Ghz on air. So essentially there is no need to spend the extra money to get a 3800+ over a 3500+ or even a 3500+ over a 3200+ the only advantage to getting the higher model is a higher multiplier... which is sometimes easier to work with when overclocking. with that in mind my two suggestions would be either the 3200+ or the 3500+ however, a much better deal would be the 3700+ San Diego core. It has an 11x multiplier just like the venice 3500+ but it has double the cache... which means it is approximately equivelant to 200mhz faster give or take. If you are looking at a single core cpu the SD core is by far the best way to go... plus current steppings are overclocking to about 2.8-3.1Ghz on air... much faster than the venice cores... and at the same frequency they have better performance. now on to dual core cpus. If you have the money I would advise you go this route. Some new games (quake 4 and COD2 can already see performance improvements w/ dual core) and both ATI and Nvidia have released new drivers that work better w/ dual core cpus even on older games. Also, many new games that will come out in the fiture will provide dual core support so there will be more support/performance in the future. The X2 3800+ that you pointed out is essentially 2 3200+'s put together on the same die. each core has 512mb cache... so you're in the same situation you are w/ the venice core cpus. a much better solution (while also more expensive) is to get an x2 that has 1mb cache for each core. Another solution is to get an Opteron processor. Even the ones that are clocked lower have 1mb cache and the dual core opterons all have 1mb cache per core so you're at an advantage there. Plus the optys tend to oc better than the mainstream A64's. hope this shed some light on the situation __________________ [COLOR=gray][COLOR=red]CPU:[/COLOR] AMD Opteron 165 CCBBE @ 2.8Ghz [/COLOR] [COLOR=gray][COLOR=red]Motherboard:[/COLOR] DFI nF4 SLI-DR Expert [COLOR=red]Memory:[/COLOR] 2gb G.Skill F1-4000USU2-2 [COLOR=red]Video:[/COLOR] Asus 7900GT TOP @ 700/1700 [COLOR=red]Sound:[/COLOR] Modded X-Fi Elite Pro [COLOR=red]HD:[/COLOR] 2x Seagate 250Gb RAID 0, 1 Seagate 320Gb [COLOR=red]Optical Drives:[/COLOR] Sony DVD-Rom, Plextor 16x DVD DL RW [COLOR=red]Case:[/COLOR] CM Stacker [COLOR=red]PSU:[/COLOR] PC Power & Cooling Silencer 610 [COLOR=red]Cooling:[/COLOR] Custom Water [COLOR=yellow][COLOR=red]Keyboard/Mouse:[/COLOR] [/COLOR]Saitec Eclipse & Logitech MX518 with a Razer ExactMat mouse pad [COLOR=red]Sound:[/COLOR] Modded X-fi > Soloz Audio Silver IC > Maxed PIMETA > Beyer DT 770 Pro/80 cans [COLOR=red]HTPC:[/COLOR] [/COLOR][COLOR=gray]AMD 3800X2[/COLOR][COLOR=gray], Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe, G.Skill 2GB DDR400, MSI 6600GT, Haupauge PVR150, SB [/COLOR][COLOR=gray]Audigy 2ZS[/COLOR][COLOR=gray], Samsung 16x DVD DL RW, Sunbeam Nuuo PSU, Antec P180 case, AC Freezer64 Pro, Viewsonic N2750w LCD HDTV Heatware eBay [/COLOR]

Feb 7, 2006, 02:25 PM	#17
swimtech HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,040 Rep Power: 124 System Specs	Nice one soloz2... Looks like the Opteron 165 is a match for the 64X2 3800 by price (within $10.00 of one another) - the processor clock is 200Mhz slower but has 2x1Mb cache versus the 64X2 3800's 2x512Mb cache. Meanwhile the single core SanDiego 3700 is only $30.00 more than the Venice 3500 - same clocks, and the SanDiego has twice the cache - definitely a better processor. __________________ It's not so much getting your way that matters or not - what matters is how you go about getting it. Last edited by swimtech; Feb 7, 2006 at 02:32 PM.