Good Setup Quick Look..

[Slaytus]

**AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0GHz / 1MB Cache / 2000MHz FSB / Socket 939 / Dual-Core (Manchester) / Processor
==================
**ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 SLI X16 ATX AMD Motherboard
==================
**(X2=2GB)-OCZ EL 1024MB PC3200 DDR 400MHz Platinum Memory
or
CORSAIR XMS 2GB (2 x 1GB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM Unbuffered DDR 400 (PC 3200) System Memory
==================
**Logitech Z-5500 505 Watts 5.1 Speaker

liquid cooled..



Good Setup? or any suggestions?

 

[tenaciousleydead]

personally i think x2 cores are not much beter than single but in the future im sure they will be the next build i might go with a 3700+ san diego as it is basically a FX series cpu underclocked. plus theyre cheeaappp 223.00 newegg

 

[TabrisDarkPeace]

**AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0GHz / 1MB Cache / 2000MHz FSB / Socket 939 / Dual-Core (Manchester) / Processor

It really is 2 seperate 512 KB L2 caches, just in case that bothers you. Single thread performance won't be so efficient, and most apps still are.

For AMD CPU specs check out:
http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/Default.aspx
http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/Default.aspx

The AMD Opteron 100 series (Starting at 165, Dual-Core, Socket 939 100 series btw, not the Socket 940 one) are well priced, and have 2 x 1024 KB L2 cache.

The AMD Athlon64 X2 models 3800, 4200 & 4600 have half the cache compared to the 4400 and 4800 models. This may or may not be an purchasing concern for you.

An AMD64 processor, at 2.4 GHz, Single Core, maybe with only 512 KB L2 cache would actually outperform my Quad-Core Opteron in gaming (see specs in my sig), no I am not joking. At least until games are using 4+ isolated threads and extremely well coded.... which could very well be two more upgrades away for you.

For gaming multi-core systems are a waste, maybe in 12-18 months they won't be, but by then you could pickup a Athlon64 X2 for dirt cheap and upgrade... all while saving money today.

To be frank, the extra cost of the AMD64-X2 vs AMD64 would be better invested in a higher grade video card.

If gaming isn't a concern (you never specified, so pretty open ended here) and your are planning to do Video / Imaging Editing, or Software Development (for multi-processor/core systems) or similar work, then yes the above processor is a good choice. (But also look at Intel if that's the case).

 

[apache_lives]

dual core is the way to go, dont listen to any idiots that say otherwise, cause when all games use multithreading yours will raise up ~40%+ above em, and it makes windows xp (and soon vista) run a whole lot smoother, you can do something while encoding video and other heavy tasks.

 

[gomerpile]

Doesn’t really matter because in a short while when the ddr2 and 3 comes the processors will be 940 to 1024 pins and the arc with change. At this time software and games will play just as great with a 64 as the x2 but the baud rate for the x2 will be better. In my opinion I believe that buying an x2 is not any better than the 64, for the reason of programming has only began to use the x2 and quad, by the time gates gets his programming for the x2 cores the quad and ddr2 arc will be in and the x2 will be called the test that the people invested in, and saying all that, the x2 is still the better performance in decoding and conversion but the 64 are better in clockablity which give the power in game speed.