AMD 64 3700 or AMD 3800 X2?

[bystander]

I'm looking to buy a new CPU, one which would hopefully last me two years before upgrading.

I'm a bit undecided whether it would be better to go the X2 route or stick with a single core CPU for the meanwhile. I'm aware that I might not see that much benefit from an X2 CPU at the moment (I've got a AMD 64 3000 currently), but do you think I would start to see more benefits as time goes on?

The game I'm probably going to play the most when it comes out is UT2007 and I'm wondering if that would take advantage of a dual core CPU...

One final question does anyone know if the 3800 X2 CPU is a good overclocker?

Cheers for your help.

 

[fallguy]

If you overclock the 3700+ SD to 2.6gig (usully easy) then you have yourself a FX-55. Its the same core. And save yourself a bunch of cash. The FX series is still the fastest for games.

I thought about getting an X2 also, but I wouldnt benefit at all right now, from it. Yeah, maybe later, but I dont want to hedge my bets on "maybe" whats going to happen down the road.

 

[Gubbi]

Considering both major GPU players apparently are coming out with drivers that can utilize two (or more) cores, the X2 might be worth considering.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Moloch]

for x2 you will benefit from any app that is SMP aware and you can like encode media and stuff while playing games with little or no fps difference.
Check anandtech's X2 article, they have some multi tasking performance tests.. quite a few actually.
From the game side.. well not until we have SMP drivers, and I doubt we'll see any substantial improvement in fps.

 

[SugarCoat]

I'm looking to buy a new CPU, one which would hopefully last me two years before upgrading.

I'm a bit undecided whether it would be better to go the X2 route or stick with a single core CPU for the meanwhile. I'm aware that I might not see that much benefit from an X2 CPU at the moment (I've got a AMD 64 3000 currently), but do you think I would start to see more benefits as time goes on?

The game I'm probably going to play the most when it comes out is UT2007 and I'm wondering if that would take advantage of a dual core CPU...

One final question does anyone know if the 3800 X2 CPU is a good overclocker?

Cheers for your help.

Look at it from a financial point of view. X2 is essentially like having 2 3200+ Venice cores in your computer. For the most part you really only care about single core performance, which an X2 can provide. You should easily be able to squeeze 400MHz more i should think giving you a perfectly capable core that will be right up there with anything else AMD has to offer. And likewise you will be all set for future titles/drivers that can use your 2 cores.

On the other hand if you want to save money and be adventurous, try one of the new single core 939 Opterons, they're overclocking like beasts and are under $200.

 

[fallguy]

Considering both major GPU players apparently are coming out with drivers that can utilize two (or more) cores, the X2 might be worth considering.

Cheers
Gubbi

Which isnt something I would place any bets on. While better performance may happen, it may not. It could be next month, it could be 6 months down the road. It may not even be a significant increase. Especially at a higher res.

I say buy for now, and for the facts that we know now.

 

[FX5900]

If you overclock the 3700+ SD to 2.6gig (usully easy) then you have yourself a FX-55. Its the same core. And save yourself a bunch of cash. The FX series is still the fastest for games.

I thought about getting an X2 also, but I wouldnt benefit at all right now, from it. Yeah, maybe later, but I dont want to hedge my bets on "maybe" whats going to happen down the road.

it's too bad the FX series are way outta our reach..@ least for most of us... with 600+, i'd rather buy me some rims.. or setup a decent computer..

 

[bystander]

Thanks everyone for your advice. So far there are compelling reasons for me to go either dual or single core.

I guess the real question for me is which would run UT 2007 better a single or dual core CPU? Obviously we don't know that yet since hasn't been relased.

But I imagine the UT2007/UE3 engine is likely to be able utilise dual core CPUs given that Epic now have some experience working with mutli-threaded/cored CPUs (from the X360 and PS3)?

It would be nice to know everyone's thoughts.

 

[wireframe]

But I imagine the UT2007/UE3 engine is likely to be able utilise dual core CPUs given that Epic now have some experience working with mutli-threaded/cored CPUs (from the X360 and PS3)?

It would be nice to know everyone's thoughts.

Even if the UE3 engine utilizes dual-core, you still have to ask "to what extent?" It's not like single core CPUs will suddenly fall off the face of the Earth and become obsolete, so programs have to take both cases into consideration.

I do not think a X2 3800+ is a compelling choice for gamers unless overclocking is taken into account and that is always an unknown. With a 4800+ you at least have a 2.4GHz core with 1MB L2 cache to rely on, but then you are shelling out the same kind of money that could buy you an FX 57. In this case I would probably go for the X2 because I think (or would hope) that 2.4GHz would be enough for some time to come, dual-core would give me other non-gaming benefits, and development of dual-core aware applications and drivers would smooth the depreciation of the core speed.

If you are a hardcore gamer, buy the strongest single core CPU you can afford. If you want computing power for other things, go dual-core. When I say hardcore gamer I mean you do not rip CDs while playing games etc, because no matter how much power you have you always want it all to go to gaming performance.

PS. I never quite understood the argument for dual core that you could rip a DVD while playing a game. Who does this and why? Wouldn't it be better and almost cheaper to just buy a second computer and dedicate it to such tasks?

 

[Mize]

PS. I never quite understood the argument for dual core that you could rip a DVD while playing a game. Who does this and why? Wouldn't it be better and almost cheaper to just buy a second computer and dedicate it to such tasks?

I agree to an extent, but I regularly rip & surf while updating a site in Dreamweaver with CAD on in the background or photoshopping some horrendously huge TIFF...obvisouly my next proc (64-3500+ now) is an X2 and 2 GB+ of RAM.

 

[Moloch]

I agree to an extent, but I regularly rip & surf while updating a site in Dreamweaver with CAD on in the background or photoshopping some horrendously huge TIFF...obvisouly my next proc (64-3500+ now) is an X2 and 2 GB+ of RAM.

Well just doing any task that requires a significant ammont of your cpu, dvd ripping is just an extreme example.
You could always fold while gaming:smile:

 

[KimB]

Well, I got an X2 not long ago, and I absolutely love it. I'd definitely choose the X2 over the single-core because while you probably won't notice the somewhat lower game performance (since you'll be running at high res and won't be able to tell), you will notice the new freedom you get when going dual-core.

Specifically, your ability to play games while applications run in the background is dramatically improved. And some applications, like video encoding, already make excellent use of multicore capabilities.

I fully expect many games released next year to make excellent use of multicore as well, to the tune of 30%-50% performance improvements. When developers start stressing the parts of their code that are easily paralellizable, that will increase to near 100% performance improvement.

 

[fallguy]

I fully expect to live to be 200 years old, it doesnt mean its going to be true.

Without proof that games will be 30%+ faster, its nothing more than gossip.

 

[KimB]

Well, at least we won't have to wait 180 years to find out whether or not my claim is true, will we?

 

[bystander]

I'm grateful for everyone's advice and at the moment I'm leaning towards the 3800 X2. Does anyone know how overclockable they are?

One final thing for thermal paste I have a choice of either Thermaltake T-Grease 2 or Akasa AK-450, does anyone know which is better?

Ordinarily I would buy some Arctic Silver thermal paste, but unfortunately that option is not available to me...

 

[KimB]

I'm grateful for everyone's advice and at the moment I'm leaning towards the 3800 X2. Does anyone know how overclockable they are?

2.4GHz should be well within reach.

 

[Mize]

One final thing for thermal paste I have a choice of either Thermaltake T-Grease 2 or Akasa AK-450, does anyone know which is better?

Ordinarily I would buy some Arctic Silver thermal paste, but unfortunately that option is not available to me...

There really isn't as much difference between thermal greases as some folks would have you believe. That said, I'd probably go with Akasa...either that or re-seat the proc with the latest AS after you get it.

 

[BRiT]

2.4GHz should be well within reach.

Agreed. The X2 3800+ is one hell of an overclocking cpu. Some have hit higher (~2.7GHz range), but that relies on having really exceptional chip.

 

[Randell]

Wouldn't it be better and almost cheaper to just buy a second computer and dedicate it to such tasks?

err nowwhere near cheaper. Spec me a PC for £120 (difference between an AMD64 and a reasonable X2) that is good enough to render video.

Multi-tasking like that appeals to me. Its quite frustrating not being to use my PC whilst home videos are being rendered and then burnt too DVD.

My kids PC doesn't cut it and is an another room and doesn't have the storage space for all the additional games etc.

 

[lopri]

PS. I never quite understood the argument for dual core that you could rip a DVD while playing a game. Who does this and why? Wouldn't it be better and almost cheaper to just buy a second computer and dedicate it to such tasks?

Could you elaborate on this? Like, how it's better and how it's cheaper.