Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I just bought an AMD64 3700 Did I make a mistake?

Last response: in Systems
Share
April 23, 2006 10:42:25 PM

I was looking through ebay and I got a little too excited and I ended up buying an AMD Athlon64 3700+ for $187.00.
The price wasn't so bad but It wasn't a give away neither.
Should I resell it on ebay and spend the extra $50 to get a Dual Core? or is this going to do the job for me as far as gaming and regular eveyrday use?
I'm thinking of building this system

AMD Athlon64 3700
2GB of ram
300GB Seagate 7200RPM
ATI Radeon X1900XT/1800XT or Geforce 7900GT/GTX (havent decided yet)

Does any1 have the link for the benchmarks for the 7900 series and 1800 and 1900 series ???
April 23, 2006 10:58:41 PM

The 3700 is just an easy 200Mhz away from being a 4000. Here are some of Tom's Benchies.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...

As you can see a small 200Mhz OC will get you a CPU second only to the EXPENSIVE FX series. Bottem line keep you CPU, its good for office use and great for gaming.

Dual Core is more future proof but offers LESS perfromance in games.
April 23, 2006 10:59:53 PM

I don't think so, I got the same for my son's pc (Gigabyte GA-K8U-939 w/ G.SKILL Value Series 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR 400 2-3-2-5 and my old 6800gt and it plays games very well.

My system is an X2 3800 w/ a 7800gt and I am actually thinking of making this my fileserver w/ the gigabyte board since it is currently hammering my 2.4 P4 northwood when I backup dvd's. Not sure how my son will feel when I stick him with the old P4 w/ the 6800gt - since I would like to make the 3700 my rig w/ teh 7800gt - I think he may be upset a little :twisted:
Related resources
April 23, 2006 11:04:49 PM

Those are great both chips, the 3700+ and the X2 3800+. But the Opty's are good, too.

~Ibrahim~
April 23, 2006 11:21:22 PM

Quote:
Dual Core is more future proof but offers LESS perfromance in games.
That's not true.
April 23, 2006 11:29:16 PM

Quote:
Dual Core is more future proof but offers LESS perfromance in games.
That's not true.

agreed clock for clock they are identicle, My 3800+ clocked @ 2.53 will blow the 3700 away ;) 
April 23, 2006 11:38:03 PM

Well as long as you did not get the 754 version then you're good :) 
April 23, 2006 11:49:31 PM

Quote:
Dual Core is more future proof but offers LESS perfromance in games.
That's not true.

Actually, from what I can see of Tom's benches, it is. The dual-core Athlons currently have a much worse price/performance ratio than the CPU mentioned above.

I currently have an Athlon 64 3700+ (San Diego core) and I am very happy with it.
April 24, 2006 12:37:59 AM

you noctice anything about the price to performance ratio? All single core cpus cost alot less, so they have a better ratio. It's not like they perform horribly, but just not as good as a dual core cpu.
April 24, 2006 1:03:59 AM

no mistake...good chip and like said close to a 4000 :D 
April 24, 2006 1:28:31 AM

Great I feel a lot better, I mean I paid pretty cheap for it so my cost/perfomance ratio is pretty high.
a b B Homebuilt system
April 24, 2006 11:52:04 AM

"or is this going to do the job for me as far as gaming and regular eveyrday use?
"

A single core cpu is still quite adequate for gaming and general useage, although drivers and games are being better optimized for SMP quite quickly....(Quake4 SMP patch, for example, gains 40% with 2nd cpu core)

Probably depends on your desire for runing multile applications at the same time, i.e, ripping/encoding CDs/DVDs while crunching SETI, all while playing FEAR at little performance hit, vs. doing one at a time....
a b B Homebuilt system
April 24, 2006 11:54:25 AM

"Games soon will need a dual core to run,"

I honestly doubt this will happen within about 4-5 years....
a b B Homebuilt system
April 24, 2006 11:56:13 AM

And as for video cards, the 7900GT is a great performer at eh $300 price point, with the 1900XT a great performer at the $400 price point...

I'd expect most to be happy with either...
a b B Homebuilt system
April 24, 2006 11:58:57 AM

"Dual Core is more future proof but offers LESS perfromance in games.
"

That might be true for perhaps 1% of games, mainly those with botched SMP patch, and allowing for very small cpu overhead differences, but, for non-smp optimized/threaded games, 99% of the time, performance would be no worse than using a single core at the same clockspeed...
a b B Homebuilt system
April 24, 2006 12:01:47 PM

"The dual-core Athlons currently have a much worse price/performance ratio than the CPU mentioned above.
"

At running a single threaded application, yes....

But compare them when running smp enabled apps, or, running FEAR while encoding a dvd and folding at the same time...or when running Quake 4
April 24, 2006 7:52:51 PM

Let me rephrase that, THE SINGLE CORE 3700+ OUTPERFORMS MOST OF THE DUAL CORE ATHLONS (UNDER 4800+) IN THE GAMING TESTS BY THG.

That was why I mentioned price/performance ratio... when you actually look at the amount they cost they look even worse.

I certainly wouldn't let my decision be swayed by whether a couple of games perform better after patches. I also wouldn't be too bothered about encoding DVD's and gaming at the same time - people seem to be forgetting about the performance strains on other parts of the system whilst doing this, such as the hard disk or RAM (of course, if you have 2GB this wouldn't be an issue). I'm personally more than happy to leave my PC to crunch longer tasks like this overnight.

With new processor technologies due to be released soon from both AMD and Intel, by the time we see widespread use of dual-core CPU's in the majority of games, the current models will most likely be outdated and I might think of purchasing a dual-core one.

If I was using my PC for other tasks (eg Video Editing, or other dual-core optimised apps) then I might be more interested in them. But the author of this thread mentioned gaming, didn't he? Everyday use was also mentioned, but for most tasks a dual-core CPU would not really be noticeable (unless using WinRAR etc).

With the current technological environment, and looking at the limited amount of games optimised for a dual-core CPU, I firmly believe that money spent on a fast dual-core CPU would be better put towards on a faster graphics card for most gamers - maybe even an SLI setup, which is supported by more games and would give better performance difference.

Athlon 64 3700+ $235 (he got it for $187!)
Athlon X2 4800+ $632 <-- the one that can outpace it in the average game
= price difference of $397

Additional 7900GT to create an SLI rig in his system = $299
...and the rest of the money saved could go toward a better SLI motherboard, or maybe buy the X-Fi Xtrememusic soundcard

Prices are from newegg, as of... now.

Go figure.



Thanks.
April 24, 2006 10:44:03 PM

No way did you make a mistake with that CPU. Im running a S939 AMD 64 3700+ San Diego Core CPU and it rocks. But it depends on what you want to use it for and how long. If your using it for gaming, it was definately worth it.
April 24, 2006 10:48:05 PM

Things is though, what is there difference between 100 FPS and 95 FPS...? You would never notice the difference.... in gaming. But you would in just about everything else. I have had 2 dual core systems, and 2 single cores of the K8 flavor. Amongst the Venice 3000, 3500, and the Opteron 165 and X2 3800 I have never noticed a difference in gaming. The only difference I ever noticed was using fraps or an in game benchmark software of the sort. All I am saying is, if all you are ever going to do is, turn the computer on, and then go directly to a game, then turn it off when you done, and never do anything else..... then sure single core is fine. But there are many added benefits of dual core, and you won't notice the performance hit, if there even is one, in games.
!