Search
Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

X2 3800 OR THE 4000 64 FOR GAMING

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share

Hello i am upgrading from a 3000+xp agp (bought 2 weeks ago) agp 8x 6800gs 2gb of corsiar 200gbmaxtor s-ata 16mbcache audigy2 sound card lightscribe benq in a lanboy2 case with a true blue 480 psu.

Now i am in a crazy delemia I have had a chance to make a good amount of money and i would like to upgrade my mother board and processer. I have picked the motherboard already a8v-uayz asus agp 8x. Now the delemia is to get a 4000 64 san dieago or a x2 3800 manchester or even a 4200 if i can afford it, all i do is game, battlefield,fear,cod2,etc I have been getting crazy mixed messages from the froms not getting the right questions answered, i like the cache size on the 4000 1mb @2.4 and the the 3800 x2 is only 2.0ghz and 512 cache should i wait to make the big leap to dual or buy the 4000 and stay in single core? PLZ HELP AND NO MIXED REVEIWS PLZ :cry:  THNX I HOPE I GET AN ANSWER SOON :lol:  ps i run a antivirus/firewall 24/7 like every online player

More about : 3800 4000 gaming

Register or log in to remove

Quote:
PLZ HELP AND NO MIXED REVEIWS PLZ

If only life were that simple.
If you keep your desktop clean (no added startups running while gaming), and never OC, the 4000 is a clear winner.
If you use IM while gaming online, with norton running in the background, things start to get a little murky.
It's not that important, since the main thing, with a lot of games, will be the gfx card.

But running these background programs people been doing it for years will it really make a diffrence making a cpu fully dedicated for gaming with lowers ghz and lower casche, and with the hotfixs for multi-threading does it increase fps with a multi-threading patches offered by cod2 or quake and future games

A lot depends on how many background apps you use.
Normally, windows is skimpy with the cycles it gives to background apps, so they dont affect gaming much. Norton, doesn't really run as a background app, so it just demands more cpu cycles. Some of the IM progs can also use a lot of cycles, comparatively.(esp if you are using voice over)
Even at that, you are going to see more frames, with the 4000, over a 3800 DC. It just gets to the point where you have to think about how upcoming software will benefit from dual core.
My gaming rig will most likely stay single core for over another year, but I dont game online.
Related ressources
Ask the community

if ur gonna stay agp my recommendation is to get a socket 754 as they are incredably cheap, i got a 3700+ and a mobo for 200 bux... mobo isnt the greatest but its stable, if u dont wish to overclock then i believe this is the best choice for you, considering people who buy 939 are usually buying them with pci express to "future proof" since u have an agp card i suggest u spend 200ish on a socket 754 3700+ with mobo and use the rest of other stuff.. like soundcard if u dont have 1, that can help boost fps.. this is just my opinion, its also what i have done, this is because by the time your looking to upgrade ur cpu ur video card will be outdated more than the cpu, so an entire system overhaul would be needed and then move to pci express and socket 940 or 939..

i dont see the point in buying either of those proc's because the gpu is limiting performance... the 3000+ is a pretty fast proc, and if u want it to be a lil faster overclock it.. or buy an amd64 socket 754, dont buy 939 its a waste, then when u want to upgrade ur card ull have to get another new mobo, just lil things that add up, buy a lower end proc if u must then overhaul ur comp ibn a year or 2

The 754 Will Give You Memory Bottleneck Due To The Fact That It Has A Single Channel Memory Controller...... And The Socket 939s Are Dual-Channel (Double The Bandwidth) And Dual-Core Doess Make A Diffy (If You Use An Nvidia With The Latest Drivers Due To The Dual-Core Enhancments) And The Socket 939 Stuff Is Only A Few $$ More But You Will Get Better Performance... But Thats Your Choice I Was Just Giving My Opinion

if you are going dualcore, did you ever consider the opteron 170? it has 2mb of L2 cache (1mb per core) compared to the 1mb (512kb per core) of the X2 3800. I was set on getting the 3800 but im now questioning myself because I'm not sure how much more performance I would get out of the Opteron....

oh yes i forgot about that single channel part :p  but my guess is that even still the 6800gs will be the bottleneck in his system even on a 754 proc, although i have no facts to base this on...

lol i could be like that if i had my own paypal account :( .. my parents dont let me buy new computer stuff thats over like 200 bux so i have to make due... hence the reason why i have

amd 754 3700+
x700pro 256 mb 128 bit
1gb corsair
thermaltake tsunami
chaintech nforce3
soon to have xfi soundcard

Lol so ya when do i start waiting for real answers plz i just want to know performance wize what would be better bang for my buck 400064 $399 and the starting daul is $379 4200 $469 and so on i just want to know whats the best bang for like $450 for a cpu for a 939pin with my agp card for bassicly just gaming with a anti-vir or avg running never both. plz i'm in desprite need this money is buring a hole in my pocket i'm leaning towards the 4000 cuz of the 1mb cache and 2.4ghz core plz don't make me regreat my dicision i need help, not a genuis here... :wink: thnx again for all ur replys tho

well strictly for gaming you SHOULD go for the higher clock speeds because at the moment dual cores arnt being used in games THAT much granted they are in a few titles. if u know how to overclock and are comfortable with it id suggest an amd x2 and overclock to speeds of a 4000+ and performance will be identical, if not a little better on dual core

I overclock of corse, one question i should have asked along time ago if u overclock the x2 3800 is the cache size going to increase with the clock speed and and ram? and so in a "future proofing" myself a dual 3800 would be more ideal even tho its a starting line? comparied the huge cache size and ghz of the core of the 4000[/quote][/code]

if im not mistaken any 939 mobo will support opteron, no u dont need registered memory the memory u have no (granted its dd400 for best performance) will run... but i believe some boards support all teh way down to pc2100, as long as it isnt ddr2 it should work

amd xp3000 32bit 2.167 @2.24
pc 3200 ddr400 1gb + 1gb dual corsair
a7n8x-e deluxe mobo
agp 8x 6800gs (which is an amazing card for it's price)
sound audigy 2
200gb diamond maxtor 16mb cache s-ata
benq lightscribe
480 trublue antec
superlanboy2 antec

I am now almost fully leaning towards the 400064 with a new motherboard that suports agp (a8v-uayz) oc the 4000 of corse and i will be able to use all my old parts beside my mobo and cpu and my jetmaster 7 :cry:  so every1 agrees with me 400064 for gaming with a single background program such as antivir is still dramaticly faster than a 3800 x2 in gaming agreed?

now now now not dramatically, either way u go u wotn notice the diff, down to whichever is fastest out of the box for pure gaming x2 3800 or 4000+ the 4000 is because it has a higehr clock speed but this isnt a BIG difference were talking 5 fps at most. the problem is your 6800gs will be the major bottleneck in this new system so getting a proc faster than a 3500 is a waste of money, this is of course my opinion.. also if u get a 3500 u can get maybe another gig of memory which will decrease load times in games like bf2... so final opinion is

amd64 3500+
another gig of memory

this will be just as good as having an amd 4000 due to the bottleneck, ur video card... plus the extra gig will improve load times..

I really doubt i need 3 gbs to help load time whats gonna help load time and fps is a new processer now all i'm asking anyone is which is better?! 3800 or a 4000 for onling gaming with a single antivirus background, i don;t want any other advice please just which chip is better.... thnx plz no mix messages just plain fact and pur power thnx

oh didnt notice u said u had 2 gigs and didnt notice ud have antivirus running :p  the amd x23800 will be more powerful if u have a powerful antivirus running, because then u could run that on a diff core than the game making it a little bit faster.. hope that helps

Quote:
The 3800+ X2 Would Be Plenty Fast But If You Want Your PC To Have "Balls" Ta Show Off Go With The 4200 X2


If you are gonna go that far, go a step further and get a 4400+ X2, 1MB cache rather than 512kb. And for gaming, and only gaming, not running norton at the same time, or hell IM don't do much if you are gaming, the 64 4000+ is still better at games than the 4400+ X2.

If you think that you will need to use two apps that need the CPU to run well, get the dual core. If you are only going to play games, and leave norton for other times(I dont have norton, i have Zone Alarm which runs in the backgroud and doesn't chew my resources) then get the 4000+. It is the clear winner.

To Hella-D: why in the world do you capitalize every first letter in your posts? I just want to know...

Quote:
amd xp3000 32bit 2.167 @2.24
pc 3200 ddr400 1gb + 1gb dual corsair
a7n8x-e deluxe mobo
agp 8x 6800gs (which is an amazing card for it's price)
sound audigy 2
200gb diamond maxtor 16mb cache s-ata
benq lightscribe
480 trublue antec
superlanboy2 antec

I am now almost fully leaning towards the 400064 with a new motherboard that suports agp (a8v-uayz) oc the 4000 of corse and i will be able to use all my old parts beside my mobo and cpu and my jetmaster 7 :cry:  so every1 agrees with me 400064 for gaming with a single background program such as antivir is still dramaticly faster than a 3800 x2 in gaming agreed?


If you are running an anti-virus you will need the dual core. I dont know of any anti-virus, including mine that when its checking for viruses doesn't use the cpu for almost everything.

Quote:
Now i am in a crazy delemia...

As long as you're using the 6800 card for gaming, I believe that an X2 proc will be the best answer. Any of the CPUs mentioned will not be over-taxed by the games and the X2's will handle additional threads more smoothly. This is also a more future-proof solution.
Maybe I'm just plain crazy, but I think you're asking the wrong question. If you hardcore game most of the time then sell your AGP 6800 and buy a PCI-E mobo and a 7800GT/GTX. It should not matter whether you bought the 6800 last week or last year. Throwing money away on a new AGP board just doesn't make sense to me.

i agree but if throwing away the card is out of the picture (prob is since he just got it most likely) he should get a cpu that matches the speed of his card, which is about a 3200/3500, buying a 4000 is a waste since ur card wont be able to keepup and its a lot more expensive, but if u wish to throw money at sotmhing that u wont need be my guest... i duno how many/wich hd's u have but if u want more speed then why not try running in raid for more performance, you cant get more out of a card when its the bottleneck

Ok, so he saves $150 by getting a 3500+ instead. Yup you're right.
Then he spends $100+ on an AGP mobo that's obsolete right now, and keeps a perfectly good 6800 video card. I don't suggest throwing the 6800 away, but sell it (granted probably at a loss). Even if money is tight a 7800GT/GTX with a 3500+ is better than a 6800/4000+ or X2.
That's why I think his question is missing the point.

yea, i believe he has no reason to save his money, he just wants the fastest proc with a last gen card... and expects it to perform just as well as this gen of cards... the fact is that with that card you probably still wont be able to max games at 1024 with AA and AF and get fps over 60 constant, this is due to the fact that the card is dated, if you want to be able to run at higher res, or have AA and AF on sell the 6800 on ebay or somthing, buy a 939mobo with pci express get a 3200/3500 and overclock then spend the rest on a 7800gt, this will be far better than anything a 6800gs can produce, the 7800gt may still be the bottleneck if you overclock the 3200/3500...

Quote:
, the 7800gt may still be the bottleneck if you overclock the 3200/3500...
But I'll bet he won't care if it is. I wouldn't (at least for the next year or so). :) 

yea me either im just proving that a 4000 is a total waste of money for gaming due to his graphics card, im trying to match him up with a cpu that matches his card.. instead of having a crazy fast proc and just a fast gpu, it shows no performance diff than a fast proc and a fast gpu..

Quote:
yea me either im just proving that a 4000 is a total waste of money for gaming due to his graphics card, im trying to match him up with a cpu that matches his card.. instead of having a crazy fast proc and just a fast gpu, it shows no performance diff than a fast proc and a fast gpu..


Good point. Since I myself am moving from a 3000+ barton and 9700Pro to a 4000+ 64(maybe) and getting a GTX or X1800 I will be set.

And considering that my processor has a pretty good time runinng HL2 which is more proc based, a 3500+ will do him just fine. I would move to 939 atleast, cause its soon to be obsolete as well. M2 right around the corner.

exactly... even with the x1800 the card will probably be the bottleneck (in gaming) gaming is mostly gpu now, its like 70% 30%... and yea i suggest getting 939 with an agp/pci express mobo if u can find it, that way when ur card cant handle games it just a quick card swap and ur all set... not having to worry abotu finding a good 939 board when all the M2 mobos are out...

nForce 3 and VIA K8T800 boards are socket 939 and have AGP 8x

The model 1xx Opterons are socket 939 and do NOT require registered ECC.

The model 2xx and 8xx Opteronbs DO require registered ECC and are socket 940 not socket 939.

Why not go to a San Diego (1 meg cache s939) 3700. They have the same OC limit as the 4000 anyway.
As to making the gfx card the bottleneck, I kinda dissagree. What you are doing is making sure the chip isn't the bottleneck. When we get another game like Halo, no cpu power is enough.

endyen could be right i really have nothing to back this up other than experience with computers, reviews and such... but he does show a good point... the 3700 is less than a 4000... duno how much and dont feel like looking it up... prob around 150-200 less.. and it does have the 1mb cache (i have 1 :) ) and is clocked at 2.2 (mines 2.4 go socket 754!) its easily overclcoked to 4000 speeds with prob no change in temp.. if there is its very little... ill agree with endyen that u should get a 3700 as it has the 1mb cache, but i still believe that anything higher is overkill

and since his gpu is older then why not get a cpu that was from the same time the gpu was to keep the system at similar speeds, same thing when people want to buy an fx60 with a 6600gt, ur not gonna notice u have an fx60 ur gonna notice crappy fps when u try to max out a game and wondering why when u spent so much on the cpu! also goes for spending 600 bux on a 7800gtx 512 and having an amd 2800, its gonna be to slow for the card. if only the kid with the fat walet could understand that a 4000+ is a waste of money given the time he wants to purchase it, when dual cores are becomming more popular and more used and M2 is comming out, now is a bad time to be buying top of the line single core chips.
CPUs Expert

"for only gaming get the 4000=, dual core won't help you in gaming, it's a waste then."

Two months ago, that statement would have been good advice...

But more and more, Nvidai/ATI drivers are being dual core optimized, and Quake4 dual core patch had about a 35% improvement in dleivered framerates at 1280x1024...

Were I buying today, it'd be a dual-core X2 3800+ OC'd, or a 4200+, also OC'd....

the 35% improvement is in 1 or 2 games... and its an improvement over slower single core processors, the 4000+ is a faster proc than a 3800 dual core... it depends which games he wants to play and at which res, if he wants to play quake 4 at 1280 then get a dual core, if not then theres no need

Even though I could save some cash and OC a 3700+, I do not trust my skills in that department, the loss of warranty, nor keeping it cool enough with a water block and all that jazz. I just don't have that much enthusiasm in me to OC. Never liked the idea, and if I frak it up, I could be out several procs...

I figure since i have the money, a nice proc like the 4000+ and a x1800 or GTX, I can atleast get the most out of games that sit on the GPU more than the CPU. Cause lests face it, the CPU can handle a ton, HL2 and a few others...

Quote:
it depends which games he wants to play and at which res, if he wants to play quake 4 at 1280 then get a dual core, if not then theres no need


I dont know why, but I could necer understand what the deal was with going from 1024 x 768 to uh, 30000 x 22000 or whatever. Sure it looks better, but I play my games for their fun, not how pretty they can be. Why i still run with low ansio and aa at 1024 x 768. Cource, I never had a card that would display in 1680 x whatever...

im the same with you, i run at 1024 with high details, never even tried a higher res, my monitor only goes up to 1280 but i have no reason to try it cause my desktop runs at 1024 and source runs at 120fps... people run at 1600 so they can show off how good there comps/monitors are... ive seen source run at 1024 and 1600 and couldnt tell the diff... it looks the same to me.

Jason,
If strictly for gaming update your graphics card and get the current Athlon 64 4000+. With the 1mb onboard cache. AMD has announced there new CPU lineup and the future A64 4000+ with have a reduced cache size. Now is the time to sieze the moment. At least that is what I did recently well worth and relatively inexpensive.
CPUs Expert

Well newer games are showing a growing trend. This trend is that with a simple patch a Dual Core processor instantly becomes faster then even the Mighty AthlonFX single core processors.

Quake 4 is a prime example of this.

i havnt heard of this, maybe games that are comming out soon will have it but not any other than quake right now... dual core users represent less than 2% of gamers, comapnys wotn take advantage of multi thread for a while...

THX FOR ALL UR INFO I'M RETURING MY 6800GS AGP (GETTING ON IN THE PCI-X) SINCE I BOUGHT IT 2WEEKS AGO AND I AM BUYING A 380064 WITH EITHER 1 7800GT CO SE EVGA OR 2x 6800GSBUT I KNOW BIOS DOWN THE ROAD WILL BE DIFFRENT WITH THE 7800CT AND WILL BE HARDER TO FIND A COMPATICABLE SLI 7800 DOWN THE ROAD WHEN I WANNA SLI THE 7800 SO MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS BETTER 1 7800 OR 2 6800GS?
Register or log in to remove
 
Ask the community
Read discussions in other CPUs categories
!