Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which AMD 64 CPU after Conroe Price Drop?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 19, 2006 10:59:45 PM

After the Conroe's out, (apparently on July 23/24), I ' m thinking of getting a new CPU, since the budget cuts are out that day , should I get a 3800+, 3800+X2, or a 4000+? (my former choice was a 3700+, like 3 months ago, SAND DIEGO core)

my future rig: (1500$)

CPU
7900 GT CO 256 MB eVGA (500/1500)
2 GB of 3-3-3-8 Corsair XMS Ram (should i go for 2-3-3-6?)
Asus A8N-E MOBO
Cooler MAster Cavalier 3 case
160 GB SATA 2 NCQ Seagate HD

open to any suggestions ! especially CPU ones:) 
June 19, 2006 11:36:28 PM

Get the fastest one whose clock frequency is divisible by 400 MHz.
June 20, 2006 2:28:29 AM

Quote:
After the Conroe's out

just buy it. there would be no K8 performance/price competetive to Conroe.
Related resources
June 20, 2006 7:48:18 AM

Quote:
Get the fastest one whose clock frequency is divisible by 400 MHz.
If you're referring to the uneven multiplier chips, that only pertains to AM2, because of the new DDR2 compatable IMC. :wink:
June 20, 2006 5:50:33 PM

Maybe it is just a gift to Sharikou...
June 20, 2006 6:25:27 PM

Quote:
After the Conroe's out

just buy it. there would be no K8 performance/price competetive to Conroe.

:)  Seems like a sad waste of money doesn't it :)  .... to each their own.



You mean like every P4 for the last 3 years? :roll:
June 20, 2006 6:32:17 PM

Go dual core, that's the future for both hardware, and hopefully very soon software as well.
June 20, 2006 6:41:40 PM

My Choices:

INTEL: CONROE (E6600?)



AMD: 3800+ Venice

3800+X2 Manchester

4000+ San Diego


WHICH ONE?
June 20, 2006 6:47:56 PM

Quote:
My Choices:

INTEL: CONROE (E6600?)



AMD: 3800+ Venice

3800+X2 Manchester

4000+ San Diego


WHICH ONE?



if you're jsut upgrading I would go for the X2 3800+. The core 2 is faster, but requires new EVERYTHING if comign from 939.
June 20, 2006 6:58:40 PM

Tough call. Will you be looking at AM2 or 939 processors? I realize you've specified a 939 MB but things can change.

If 939, I'd recommend at least a 4200 for gaming and quite possibly the 4600. These since the 4400 and 4800 won't be among the price drops. The extra cache really does help most games if in few other applications.

The X2 3800 is a sweet CPU but at 2GHz, it isn't too quick. But I still recommend dual core exclusively. You will see a nice difference as it's all about smooth computing.

The 4200 should be quick enough for any current game you throw at it, whereas the 4600, at 2.4GHz will be remarkably quicker. Possibly overkill speed-wise but once you have it, you won't be thinking that at all. You'll be thinking "Sweet!!"

If socket AM2, go for the 5000. With the high latencies in DDR2, it can almost keep up with the 939 4800 in most things though memory reads/writes are too inconsistent to really judge. DDR2 needs lots of CPU cycles before it really benefits the user over DDR.
June 20, 2006 7:05:55 PM

Soooooooooo, should I go dual core?

if yes, then conroe and X2s

if not, then 4000+'s in
June 20, 2006 7:07:00 PM

And i dont think i'll actually go for am2, if i want ddr2, then proabably conroe, if not, then 939...
June 20, 2006 7:08:01 PM

Wait, is am2 really better than 939? - it's slower, but ddr2 is the only advantage...
June 20, 2006 7:50:49 PM

Quote:
Tough call. Will you be looking at AM2 or 939 processors? I realize you've specified a 939 MB but things can change.

If 939, I'd recommend at least a 4200 for gaming and quite possibly the 4600. These since the 4400 and 4800 won't be among the price drops. The extra cache really does help most games if in few other applications.
Hey MG, man that sounds interesting....how'd you know that the 4800-4400's wont be among the costcutter's????? How bout the fx60? Hummm. Can't wait to hear from ya. I been waitin on the 4800 to drop, is it in vain?

The X2 3800 is a sweet CPU but at 2GHz, it isn't too quick. But I still recommend dual core exclusively. You will see a nice difference as it's all about smooth computing.

The 4200 should be quick enough for any current game you throw at it, whereas the 4600, at 2.4GHz will be remarkably quicker. Possibly overkill speed-wise but once you have it, you won't be thinking that at all. You'll be thinking "Sweet!!"

If socket AM2, go for the 5000. With the high latencies in DDR2, it can almost keep up with the 939 4800 in most things though memory reads/writes are too inconsistent to really judge. DDR2 needs lots of CPU cycles before it really benefits the user over DDR.
June 20, 2006 8:02:25 PM

[/quote]
Quote:
Quote:
Tough call. Will you be looking at AM2 or 939 processors? I realize you've specified a 939 MB but things can change.

If 939, I'd recommend at least a 4200 for gaming and quite possibly the 4600. These since the 4400 and 4800 won't be among the price drops. The extra cache really does help most games if in few other applications.
Hey MG, man that sounds interesting....how'd you know that the 4800-4400's wont be among the costcutter's????? How bout the fx60? Hummm. Can't wait to hear from ya. I been waitin on the 4800 to drop, is it in vain?

The X2 3800 is a sweet CPU but at 2GHz, it isn't too quick. But I still recommend dual core exclusively. You will see a nice difference as it's all about smooth computing.

The 4200 should be quick enough for any current game you throw at it, whereas the 4600, at 2.4GHz will be remarkably quicker. Possibly overkill speed-wise but once you have it, you won't be thinking that at all. You'll be thinking "Sweet!!"

If socket AM2, go for the 5000. With the high latencies in DDR2, it can almost keep up with the 939 4800 in most things though memory reads/writes are too inconsistent to really judge. DDR2 needs lots of CPU cycles before it really benefits the user over DDR. Ewwh... hay MG, how'd ya know that the 4800 and 4400's wont be among the costcutters? I'd be interested in knowing myself, since I'm holding up my build for the 4800 to drop.....Hmmmmmmmmhow bout the FX60? TY
June 20, 2006 8:03:42 PM

None
June 20, 2006 8:26:14 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Tough call. Will you be looking at AM2 or 939 processors? I realize you've specified a 939 MB but things can change.

If 939, I'd recommend at least a 4200 for gaming and quite possibly the 4600. These since the 4400 and 4800 won't be among the price drops. The extra cache really does help most games if in few other applications.
Hey MG, man that sounds interesting....how'd you know that the 4800-4400's wont be among the costcutter's????? How bout the fx60? Hummm. Can't wait to hear from ya. I been waitin on the 4800 to drop, is it in vain?

The X2 3800 is a sweet CPU but at 2GHz, it isn't too quick. But I still recommend dual core exclusively. You will see a nice difference as it's all about smooth computing.

The 4200 should be quick enough for any current game you throw at it, whereas the 4600, at 2.4GHz will be remarkably quicker. Possibly overkill speed-wise but once you have it, you won't be thinking that at all. You'll be thinking "Sweet!!"

If socket AM2, go for the 5000. With the high latencies in DDR2, it can almost keep up with the 939 4800 in most things though memory reads/writes are too inconsistent to really judge. DDR2 needs lots of CPU cycles before it really benefits the user over DDR. Ewwh... hay MG, how'd ya know that the 4800 and 4400's wont be among the costcutters? I'd be interested in knowing myself, since I'm holding up my build for the 4800 to drop.....Hmmmmmmmmhow bout the FX60? TY


No Toledo Cores were on their price cut list. Toledo's are going to be phased out. There won't be any AM2s with 1MB cache per core either. They're no longer on any sites for purchase either. It's a cost saving plan for AMD. All fabs can concentrate on making chips from the same die and more procs per wafer.

I'm looking very seriously at the FX-60 myself. Prices have recently dropped around $300 though at $800 it's still extremely expensive. But read some reviews and... Oh so tempting!
June 20, 2006 8:47:26 PM

Quote:
After the Conroe's out

just buy it. there would be no K8 performance/price competetive to Conroe.

:)  Seems like a sad waste of money doesn't it :)  .... to each their own.



You mean like every P4 for the last 3 years? :roll:
exactly.
When Core2 comes, K8 will be money waste like P4 and Core2 will be money save like K8.
June 20, 2006 8:49:32 PM

if u get an x2, wait, if u get a single core, go and get them, they have already gotten their price cuts, unless theres another one around the corner, an example is the 3800 venice, it was 300 a month ago, now its 150 on newegg.com
June 20, 2006 8:56:26 PM

Quote:
if u get an x2, wait, if u get a single core, go and get them, they have already gotten their price cuts, unless theres another one around the corner, an example is the 3800 venice, it was 300 a month ago, now its 150 on newegg.com


By all means get what you want. I would recommend dual-core. I also will say that fast enough is just that, fast enough. Conroe will be new, expensive and possibly not able to live up to the hype. Maybe it will. Nobody knows until you can buy one. Until then, Conroe is a non-product.

The 4000+ is a really nice CPU. The 4800 is two 4000s. You do the math :D 
June 20, 2006 9:10:08 PM

I was just thinking about starting a similar thread.

I too was in the same boat and was going to buy new parts to build a new rig, mostly for gaming (70%) and the rest for the wife.

Then I heard about Conroe.
Then I started to think, what if the chips are delayed? I can't wait til September because my current computer is dying and will die soon.

Reading this thread has provided some insight as well as more questions:

Lets say I couldn't get a Conroe chip, for whatever reasons.

Is the concensus that it would be best to get a Dual Core CPU? I am hoping that AMD drops the price through the floor so I can get a really good deal on CPU and MOBO.

If one were to pick a current CPU they would put in a gaming rig, which would it be?

lastly, anyone have a link or idea on what the price cuts will be on AMD chips?

Great stuff.

Sektor
June 20, 2006 9:29:52 PM

Oh, and you guys helping me a lot out there? I'm still pretty young (cough what's High School?, never heard of it.. cough), so thanks for all the help, and keep them coming!!!
June 20, 2006 9:33:55 PM

soooo, Is the 4000+ San Diego faster or slower than the 3800+ X2 manchester?
June 20, 2006 10:19:07 PM

depends what for mate,the 4000 is great for games at the moment,the x2 is brilliant for multitasking and work stuff,the x2 3800 overclocks well and i think it would be a bit silly to get a single core cpu. the difference between single and multi core in games is not a huge amount. ask yourself what your planning to do with this pc of yours i feel like saying dual core is more future proof
June 20, 2006 10:39:22 PM

Quote:
soooo, Is the 4000+ San Diego faster or slower than the 3800+ X2 manchester?


It depends. The 4000 runs at 2.4GHz with a full 1MB of L2 cache. It is an extremely fast processor. It will also feel fast. Until you, in Windows, send something to your printer. Then you can only sit back and wait. The X2 3800 is essentially 2 3200s. That's not to say that it's a 7000 because it isn't. It has two CPUs, both running at 2.0GHz with 512 KB L2 cache each. This is not a quick CPU. But then again, when you send something to print, you still have a complete 3200 available to handle all of your other tasks.

I'm writing this on an X2 3800. This is my "extra" machine. My two boys are gamers and they each have 3500s. My primary machine is an Opteron 175 (essentially an X2 4400). I want from one of those 3500s to the 175. Same 2.2GHz clock though twice the cache and twice the cores with that cache. I didn't see any real speed increase nor did I expect to.

I mostly run Linux and dual core and Linux were made for each other. I also like games and dual boot into XP Pro to play as Linux and games, well Windows has the game thing tied up nicely. Long story short (or maybe not so short) is that I just finished playing F.E.A.R. This is on the Opty mind you, and I never experienced any slow downs whatsoever. Performance was top notch. I can't imaging needing any more power at my fingertips. But naturally such desire is always there. Maybe it's a guy thing and then maybe it's just a personality trait. But I've not played a single game that can bog down my Opty. Not even slightly. I do not overclock.

I've not played the first game on the X2 3800. I've not even purchased any speakers for it. I only use it for this basically... and tweaking Linux. Kernel compiles (I don't actually compile but new packages do require new linking and it is quite slow on this box. Powerful? The X2 3800 is a very powerful CPU. I wouldn't call it fast however.

All this reminds me why I recommended the X2 4200/4600 earlier (see above). The 4600 drops to ~$300 at the end of July. It is essentially 3 3800s (not the X2). Dual core at 2.4GHz with 512MB L2 cache per core. At $300, that's an awesome price for an excellent CPU and yes, it is a fast CPU. So's the X2 4200. and it drops to $240! Note also that the 4000 has already experienced its price cut, to around $350. This looks like a no brainer to me if you can be patient.

For a really good, though older review of these two chips, take a look here. I've pointed this one out several times but I think it sums up the qualities of these two underrated processors the best.

The 4000 will feel faster than an X2 3800 sometimes.
June 20, 2006 11:21:25 PM

USing it for......
listed by importance.

1. Gaming (moderate, not hard-core i.e. Oblivion, FEAR, UT 04, Far Cry, DoD Source, CS sOURCE, Halflife 2.)

2. Basic programming: VB 6, C, Java, Flash

3. running test apps i.e. Aquamark, 3dmark.

4. Web surf, like right now

5. DVDs and entertainment

*4000+ looks pretty fast on the tomshardware CPU chart...
June 21, 2006 2:15:50 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Tough call. Will you be looking at AM2 or 939 processors? I realize you've specified a 939 MB but things can change.

If 939, I'd recommend at least a 4200 for gaming and quite possibly the 4600. These since the 4400 and 4800 won't be among the price drops. The extra cache really does help most games if in few other applications.
Hey MG, man that sounds interesting....how'd you know that the 4800-4400's wont be among the costcutter's????? How bout the fx60? Hummm. Can't wait to hear from ya. I been waitin on the 4800 to drop, is it in vain?

The X2 3800 is a sweet CPU but at 2GHz, it isn't too quick. But I still recommend dual core exclusively. You will see a nice difference as it's all about smooth computing.

The 4200 should be quick enough for any current game you throw at it, whereas the 4600, at 2.4GHz will be remarkably quicker. Possibly overkill speed-wise but once you have it, you won't be thinking that at all. You'll be thinking "Sweet!!"

If socket AM2, go for the 5000. With the high latencies in DDR2, it can almost keep up with the 939 4800 in most things though memory reads/writes are too inconsistent to really judge. DDR2 needs lots of CPU cycles before it really benefits the user over DDR. Ewwh... hay MG, how'd ya know that the 4800 and 4400's wont be among the costcutters? I'd be interested in knowing myself, since I'm holding up my build for the 4800 to drop.....Hmmmmmmmmhow bout the FX60? TY


No Toledo Cores were on their price cut list. Toledo's are going to be phased out. There won't be any AM2s with 1MB cache per core either. They're no longer on any sites for purchase either. It's a cost saving plan for AMD. All fabs can concentrate on making chips from the same die and more procs per wafer.

I'm looking very seriously at the FX-60 myself. Prices have recently dropped around $300 though at $800 it's still extremely expensive. But read some reviews and... Oh so tempting!
Quote:
I hate to keep redirecting the focus to my selfish wants, but I did go to the site-dailytech-checked the chips involved in the price slash, and couldn't find the Toledo 4800, or the fx60 listed. Could this mean I'd be safe to buy either of those now to get that last planet into alighnment? ahehehehe I have the $, but I don't want to be totally un economically sound in the project. I too have learned a wealth of counsel in this thread man! Thank ya'll for yer support!
June 21, 2006 2:35:44 AM

Don't take offense, but please, someone answer MY priorities first?
June 21, 2006 2:36:18 AM

Quote:
USing it for......
listed by importance.

1. Gaming (moderate, not hard-core i.e. Oblivion, FEAR, UT 04, Far Cry, DoD Source, CS sOURCE, Halflife 2.)

2. Basic programming: VB 6, C, Java, Flash

3. running test apps i.e. Aquamark, 3dmark.

4. Web surf, like right now

5. DVDs and entertainment

*4000+ looks pretty fast on the tomshardware CPU chart...


It is fast. It just doesn't multitask very well. Imagine playing a few minutes of Far Cry whilt you wait for a compile? Yes, you can do this with an X2. Also, with an X2 4600 you'll be at the same clock speed and save $50 to boot.

I'm not trying to tell you what to do. Any such decision is yours to make. But since you asked.

It's virtually a buyer's market with these price drops. I managed to buy all of mine before hand. Could have saved a bundle. But what I did get was worth every penny I spent. Now, having experienced dual-core, I'll never go back. I'm getting the hankerin' for that FX-60. Don't need it. Don't wanna spend the money. But does that ever seem like an exciting proicessor! If I get it, I'll have to buy another X2 3800. Why? I'll replace my Opty with the FX. I'll replace this X2 3800 with my Opty and my boys will get the X2 3800s. Wanna couple of 3500s to help me offset the cost?
June 21, 2006 2:42:42 AM

I usually do one thing at a time - will the dual core make a single app go faster than a solo?


and my previous questions, too....
3800X2 vs. 4000+
June 21, 2006 2:59:38 AM

Quote:
I usually do one thing at a time - will the dual core make a single app go faster than a solo?


and my previous questions, too....
3800X2 vs. 4000+


Depends on the app. You will see a difference within Windows alone, between the two processors. Windows itself, is a multitasking environment. So are more and more applications including some present and probably most future games.

Look, only you can decide. Others here, like myself can only share with you what our experiences have been. But it is unfair for you to want someone else to make your decision for you... especially if you disagree with such decision after your purchase.

My suggestion, if you were to ask it, would be to wait until the end of July, watch the prices and then make your decision. The playing field will be far closer to level and the variety of what fits your price range even bigger (more confusing?).

It looks like you are committed to buying immediately, hence your desire to have someone tell you what to do. That wouldn't be right. It will be your PC. You must decide what you want. You must also be hopefully content with what you end up with.

These are all quite excellent computing devices. Some are better suited than others. VERY soon however, single core processors will be a thing of the past. I say very soon. More like already.
June 21, 2006 3:02:44 AM

Thanks for that paragraph - that was quality advice. I've also decided that I can wait to the latest - August 1st., so If I were to get a cpu for the price drop, which one would you get? (something around 150-250ish)?
June 21, 2006 3:09:48 AM

Quote:
Thanks for that paragraph - that was quality advice. I've also decided that I can wait to the latest - August 1st., so If I were to get a cpu for the price drop, which one would you get? (something around 150-250ish)?


Uh oh. Here we go again :D 
June 21, 2006 3:45:54 AM

Quote:
After the Conroe's out

just buy it. there would be no K8 performance/price competetive to Conroe.

:)  Seems like a sad waste of money doesn't it :)  .... to each their own.

The psychology of change is complex and often has nothing to do with objectivity. Some people truly are open to change, others are completely stressed out about it. So you could think about how over the last few years, AMDs have carried the "better gaming CPU" label and that instills comfort because it's a known quantity. Even Oblivion runs pretty well on 939, right? Once Conroes have developed a rep for solid performance for the masses (assuming it happens and I believe it will) then a larger fraction of people will get comfortable with them. Then again, if AMD pulls a rabbit outta their hat, who knows?
June 21, 2006 11:15:19 AM

yes the smartest step is to wait untill july,see how the pricing changes,from what i see the x2 3800 4200 and 4600 all get around a %50 or more price cut.
http://forums.teamphoenixrising.net/showthread.php?t=39...
,i think with the % amd are quoting %44 off 3800 %35 off 4200 %46 off 4600
im trying to do some estimation of the prices from ebuyer
you should be able to get a
3800 from £192 to around £107
4200 from £242 to around £157
4600 from £350 to around £190
for america just check newegg or something
on a side note i am going to buy one of these chips i just dont know which one yet
!