3800 vs X2 3800

[TheeZy]

Here's my situation. I use my computer for general use (surfing, IMing, etc) and gaming. Gaming is the only hardware intense thing that I do. No video editing or any of that.

Because of that I had my sights set on a new AMD 3800+ cpu about a month ago. Then suddenly there was lots of talks about price cuts and such and it appeared that 3800+ and X2 3800+ were going to be right about the same price! I was excited about that as I thought dual core could only improve my system.

Now today I'm looking around at cpu benchmarks and the 3800+ absolutely kills the X2 3800+ in almost everything except video editing.

I don't really know what to do. Do I go with the 3800+ or go with dual core and sacrifise some performance. I'm getting 2gb memory and a 7900gt so I'm guessing I could definetly run the older games 60+ frames per second, so I'm not concerned with that. I don't know how these two cpus will compare in newer games where performance will really take a hit.

I don't know if dual core is worth getting. How do the two compare in new games and is there anything I'm missing as to why I should get one over the other.

Please don't bring up Conroe. I'm aware it'll rip a dvd, crack a password, and run oblivion, bf2, and fear all at the same time without even heating up.

Help!

 

[TheeZy]

All I do is gaming and some benchmarks showed a huge difference in performance so I'm still not really sure.

How much do you think dual core will help Vista over a single core processor.

Would it be feasible to overclock the x2 3800 to the same speed as a 3800? How safe would it be? I know nothing of overclocking and I don't want to this chip to break in the next 4-5 years.

 

[theaxemaster]

It only "kills" in old OpenGL games, according to tom's benchmarks, the single core advantage is no more than 5 frames in 200 for DirectX and newer OpenGL games. Dual core is going to help Vista out a LOT, and the price isn't that different, what, $40? Go dual core, you won't be sorry.

 

[ikjadoon]

I believe Vista will take much more advantage of Dual-Core processors.

Very feasible. A regular X2 3800+ should at least hit 2.3Ghz, at least. Most people, with good cooling, etc., have hit 2.6+. Lucky ones hit 2.8Ghz.

Just watch the temps, go slow, be patient, and nothing should go wrong. Just make sure to buy good cooling, good memory, and last but certainly not least an excellent PSU. A overclocking motherboard, but nearly everyone after-market mobo will suit you. You've got to get all the right components to hit high. Overclockable memory, a overclockable motherboard, hefy PSU, and great cooling and you are good to go. Some people have got the X2 3800+ to 2.8Ghz on stock, but mileage may vary.

~Ibrahim~

 

[Vinny]

I asked myself the same exact question last night... weird. 8O

I decided on a X2 3800+ over the A64 3800+. The industry seems to being moving towards multiple cores slowly. Future games and Windows Vista will be able to take advantage of dual cores so it'll perform much better.

 

[The_OGS]

Hi TheeZy,
My single 3800+ runs great and costs less than x2 3800+.
The new (Canadian) prices are:
3800+ @ 2.4GHz - $135.
x2 3800+ @ 2.0GHz - $180.
I installed Vista on the rig in my sig (2GB RAM) and it was bloody slow... but they say the beta is not yet about 'fast'.
Like most gamers, I do only 1 thing at a time and believe those with 2 or 3 things going are office-workers, LoL :^)
I believe Vista will require CPUs like these 2 (very competitive pricing):
A64 x2 4600+ @ 2.4GHz - $290.
Conroe E6400 @ 2.13GHz - $295.
But honestly, the single 3800+ is like yesterday's Celeron - it just doesn't cut it anymore!
Excellent for little MATX shoebox PC though, cool & quiet - but SO much more performance is available for another $100 bucks.
Note: My 3800+ and Asus motherboard (together) cost much less than the memory... that is where the $$ goes, now & in future. Hopefully PC2-6400 comes down in price (or better CAS for same price).
Regards

 

[ikjadoon]

How are the overclocking options on that board? I'm thinking about getting an identical setup. How is the memory?

~Ibrahim~

 

[m25]

It's the most frequent dilemma of the moment :lol: However, still for some time to come, games will remain single threaded and a 3800+. Don't be hypnotized by dual cores; if you don't have strong software support or heavy multitasking, you're just increasing your power consumption and noise.
If you want to OC, it's easier/cooler with single coresand you can take even a 3000+ or 3200+ and push it to 3800+ levels or even higher without much headaches. If you really want to spend that money, do it for more RAM, that is the longest term investment you can make when building a PC.

 

[ikjadoon]

Actually I've already heard development for a few real multi-threaded games already, NeverWinterNights 2 being one of them...

~Ibrahim~

 

[m25]

I know, but one has to think it well because multithreading is moving, but not that fast. For instance; I know I need as many horses to run as I can because it cuts my rendering times, and that's the only thing that counts for me, however, a graphics designer would appreciate much more 8 gigs of RAM than a dual core like the E6800 (unsupported by most 2d SW.)

 

[aj6065]

Go for the X2 3800+. It's future proof, and if you're planning on keeping the CPU for 4-5 years like you said, then you shouldnt even be thinking about single core, (as it seems like you don't plan on upgrading soon). Soon enough even games will take advantage of dual core games.

Besides, you don't want to be stuck with a single core CPU when Quad Core CPU's become the next big thing

 

[pixel]

Please don't bring up Conroe. I'm aware it'll rip a dvd, crack a password, and run oblivion, bf2, and fear all at the same time without even heating up.

Help!

LMAO!!!!!

 

[azrealhk]

Dual core is not a neccessity for gaming, but is future proof. The fact that multithreads can have a bigger performance impact on single cores (becuase of overhead in swapping processes and threads). Many developers will not use multithread to prevent alienating a large number of potential customers.

Dual core have the addvantage of running more than one application, just in case you want to scan for viruses and play a movie at the same time etc.

In general unless you experience problems now, running your system, for example play movie is slow because you are burning disks, or running a virus scan, then single core will not be a problem for you. However if you do run many things at once, then Dual core will be better.

If you have the money go dual core, otherwise save it and invest in more RAM or better GPU.

 

[choirbass]

i know theres already been numerous responses in this thread... but to add to what everyone else suggested, heres a response i posted to a very similar question shortly earlier:

for a CPU investment, you cant go wrong having at least 2 CPU cores, especially if youre OCing (x2 3800+ in that case is an excellent price/performance choice, which can OC from 2.0 to at least 2.4+), and the extra core removes extraneous OS and application threads and such from potentially hampering your gameplay, which can have an impact in gameplay smoothness, since your GPU wont be dealing with them at all, and one of your cores will be completely tied up by the game, (basically leaving your gaming experience wide open to unwanted, and possibly unexpected performance interruptions)... a situation for gaming is typically limited by the GPU though when graphical settings are turned up high enough, seconded by your available system memory, and then your CPU

some current games, and even more future games, are being coded and patched for multiple cores anyhow, so theres a definite boost in cpu performance there anyhow, compared to having a single core (though again, the same drawback i pointed out above, also applies to when a game is coded with multithreading in mind, eg both cores are now tied up, the same as a single core would be, but, you get additional performance from being able to then use both cores in the game simultaneously nonetheless)

aside from gaming (which is what your post was about), with 2 cores, your OS experience will definetly be boosted in regards to smoothness and responsiveness... no stalling, or waiting (no impatiently waiting in my case)... all applications will benefit, even if indirectly, just from having an additional core to remove any randomly occurring, unexpected CPU usage fluctuations, which can also slow down your single threaded application performance and responsiveness (gaming included)

 

[ikjadoon]

some current games, and even more future games, are being coded and patched for multiple cores anyhow, so theres a definite boost in cpu performance there anyhow, compared to having a single core (though again, the same drawback i pointed out above, also applies to when a game is coded with multithreading in mind, eg both cores are now tied up, the same as a single core would be, but, you get additional performance from being able to then use both cores in the game simultaneously nonetheless)

They will do more than just increase performance. It will let the game developers open up a new world in realism without limits. There are three game engines in a game: 1) The regular game engine that does everything except for physics 2) + 3) are both physics engines. With another core, you can add so much more...

~Ibrahim~

 

[krazyIvan]

I asked a similar question on another thread last night, only it was +4000 SanDiego vs +3800 X2. The thought being 1Meg of L2 would be more helpful
(And at $149 the +4000 was cheaper!). Giving it some thought it comes down to OCing. If you are comfortable with OCing (My +3000 is running stable at 2.5) and your hardware supports it, the +3800 X2 is a real good choice (OCed, its like having two +3800’s for the price of one). If OCing is not your thing then a faster single core may be the best way to go.
Here is a very good primer on OCing the +3800 X2 from Anandtech and what you can expect from it.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2650

 

[krazyIvan]

I asked a similar question on another thread last night, only it was +4000 SanDiego vs +3800 X2. The thought being 1Meg of L2 would be more helpful

(And at $149 the +4000 was cheaper!). Giving it some thought it comes down to OCing. If you are comfortable with OCing (My +3000 is running stable at 2.5) and your hardware supports it, the +3800 X2 is a real good choice (OCed, its like having two +3800’s for the price of one). If OCing is not your thing then a faster single core may be the best way to go.

Here is a very good primer on OCing the +3800 X2 from Anandtech and what you can expect from it.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2650