Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3200 xp Vs 3800 x2

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 25, 2006 7:24:04 PM

One is 2.2 ghz and the other is 2 ghz. Although one has a high fsb, which one will run games faster and encode dvds 9 to 4.7?

More about : 3200 3800

August 25, 2006 7:31:45 PM

The X2 by a country mile in everything.
a c 471 à CPUs
August 25, 2006 7:36:57 PM

You want the Athlon 64 3800 X2. It will kill the Athlon XP 3200+.

1. The A64 3800 X2 is a newer, better design.
2. The A64 3800 X2 is a dual core processor.
3. The A64 3800 X2 is a 64-bit processor, meaning you can use upgrade to Windows Vista without any limitations.
4. The Athlon XP 3200+ is only a 32-bit processor. Therefore, if you want to get Windows Vista, you will need to by the 32-bit version which has some features that are disabled like support for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD among others that I don't know about.
Related resources
August 25, 2006 7:42:48 PM

3800+ X2 is infinitely better. Comparing those 2 CPU's is like comparing a 10 year old baseball player to a Major Leaguer :lol: 
August 25, 2006 7:45:05 PM

Quote:
You want the Athlon 64 3800 X2. It will kill the Athlon XP 3200+.

1. The A64 3800 X2 is a newer, better design.
2. The A64 3800 X2 is a dual core processor.
3. The A64 3800 X2 is a 64-bit processor, meaning you can use upgrade to Windows Vista without any limitations.
4. The Athlon XP 3200+ is only a 32-bit processor. Therefore, if you want to get Windows Vista, you will need to by the 32-bit version which has some features that are disabled like support for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD among others that I don't know about.


I didn't ask for 64 bit at all, only concerned about games and strait power for encoding dvds. I don't plan on vista for a damn long time. Granted yes it does have more instruction sets. I was hoping to get a answer from someone who has seen the differences first or second hand.
August 25, 2006 8:04:18 PM

you should get about 2.5x power diference. Not to mention being able to run 2 encoding programs at once or playing a game and encoding at the same time without lag.
August 25, 2006 8:13:20 PM

Quote:
you should get about 2.5x power diference. Not to mention being able to run 2 encoding programs at once or playing a game and encoding at the same time without lag.


I just want one processor really. sorry more explanation, x2 doesn't mean times two, it's an am2 processor not the 939 64 version.
August 25, 2006 8:18:28 PM

The x2 is far better even if it is slower and it has 2 cores.

Think of it this way Intel P-4 vs Intel Conroe. Conroe may be slower Mhz wise but Conroe gets the job done faster than the P-4 can.
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2006 8:34:15 PM

Quote:
One is 2.2 ghz and the other is 2 ghz. Although one has a high fsb, which one will run games faster and encode dvds 9 to 4.7?


Do you mean an Athlon XP 3200? AN AMD X2 is not even comparable IMO. The only single core AMD64 chips that even comes close to the 3800X2 are the FX chips. To answer your question, The 3800X2 is the better chip by far.
August 25, 2006 8:35:11 PM

Quote:
you should get about 2.5x power diference. Not to mention being able to run 2 encoding programs at once or playing a game and encoding at the same time without lag.


I just want one processor really. sorry more explanation, x2 doesn't mean times two, it's an am2 processor not the 939 64 version.

...everyone here knows that it doesn't mean times two. X2 is the name AMD gives to its Athlon 64 range of Dual-core CPUs, both S939 and AM2. But it is a dual-core CPU, which means it's one CPU with two cores on it, making it roughly equivalent to two CPUs. Capeesh?
August 25, 2006 9:00:34 PM

Video encoding is one of the places that X2's have the biggest advantage over single cores.
Games are the place they have lest advantage (for now).
Unless money is an issue (like its not, but X2’s are relatively cheap now), X2 is the best path.
August 25, 2006 9:18:28 PM

Quote:
I just want one processor really. sorry more explanation, x2 doesn't mean times two, it's an am2 processor not the 939 64 version.


Well you've got 2 processors if it says x2 on it, it has nothing to do with the socket.

Just because the better chip operates at a lower frequency doesn't mean it's slower. It's not just faster, it's quantum leaps faster. While the XP chip will handle what you want it to do. The x2 will handle what you want it to do and you can still play solitaire, answer email, and catagorize your porn. All at the same time.
August 25, 2006 9:25:46 PM

While I’m sure that will be the case...
I can’t help but be a little hesitant when I’m still running a 32 bit OS on my 64 bit CPU.
Maybe next year.
August 25, 2006 9:59:28 PM

Quote:
One is 2.2 ghz and the other is 2 ghz. Although one has a high fsb, which one will run games faster and encode dvds 9 to 4.7?


I hope you don't think that the X2 will fit on the same board as your XP.
August 25, 2006 10:05:53 PM

Quote:
One is 2.2 ghz and the other is 2 ghz. Although one has a high fsb, which one will run games faster and encode dvds 9 to 4.7?


I hope you don't think that the X2 will fit on the same board as your XP.



Nice to know who the jackasses are!
August 25, 2006 10:33:13 PM

It was a legitimate reply. He's just letting you know that you'll need a different motherboard.

It could've been said nicer, but he wasn't really being a jackass.
a c 79 à CPUs
August 25, 2006 11:23:33 PM

Quote:
One is 2.2 ghz and the other is 2 ghz. Although one has a high fsb, which one will run games faster and encode dvds 9 to 4.7?


I hope you don't think that the X2 will fit on the same board as your XP.



Nice to know who the jackasses are!

I'm running an 3200+ XP, I'd drool over a 3800 X2 (unless it stopped it working of course)

3800 X2 is indeed much much better, and your lack of understanding as to the X2 meaning dual core kind of negates any calls that you have on people being a jackass.

Its a whole generation gap between 3200+ XP and anything that is a 939 socket or the 745 socket, it may even be bested by some semperons.

Go for the 3XXX X2 939 if you have old Ram or 3XXX X2 Am2 if you have DDR2.
a c 471 à CPUs
August 26, 2006 2:27:25 AM

Quote:
You want the Athlon 64 3800 X2. It will kill the Athlon XP 3200+.

1. The A64 3800 X2 is a newer, better design.
2. The A64 3800 X2 is a dual core processor.
3. The A64 3800 X2 is a 64-bit processor, meaning you can use upgrade to Windows Vista without any limitations.
4. The Athlon XP 3200+ is only a 32-bit processor. Therefore, if you want to get Windows Vista, you will need to by the 32-bit version which has some features that are disabled like support for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD among others that I don't know about.


I didn't ask for 64 bit at all, only concerned about games and strait power for encoding dvds. I don't plan on vista for a damn long time. Granted yes it does have more instruction sets. I was hoping to get a answer from someone who has seen the differences first or second hand.

Based on you question you are unfamiliar with CPUs.

I have answered your question:

Quote:

You want the Athlon 64 3800 X2. It will kill the Athlon XP 3200+.


Since you didn't know the difference between the between a current generation CPU and the previous generation CPU. I also offered additional information in case you wanted to use Windows Vista in the near future.

I recommend that you adjust your attitude towards people who are trying to help you out. Otherwise no one will.
a c 471 à CPUs
August 26, 2006 2:30:50 AM

Quote:
One is 2.2 ghz and the other is 2 ghz. Although one has a high fsb, which one will run games faster and encode dvds 9 to 4.7?


I hope you don't think that the X2 will fit on the same board as your XP.



Nice to know who the jackasses are!

As I stated in my previous post. You need to adjust your attitude.

Although it could have been stated better, I believe he was trying to help you.

Remember, you are asking whether a current generation dual core CPU (X2 3800+) is faster than and older single core CPU (XP3200+).
August 26, 2006 3:16:58 AM

ill add, even though its pretty much already been addressed... even in 32bit... an X2 3800+ will completely murder, kill, annihilate, obliterate (any other word) an xp 3200+ if you compare side to side, in single core coded apps... and definetly more of a jump in multi core coded apps... if youre hesitant due to cost, its understandable... but for performance, there really isnt a comparison... they dont even have the s462 xp 3200+ on the current THW cpu charts anymore... no s462 era cpus even
August 26, 2006 10:07:32 AM

Quote:
One is 2.2 ghz and the other is 2 ghz. Although one has a high fsb, which one will run games faster and encode dvds 9 to 4.7?


I hope you don't think that the X2 will fit on the same board as your XP.



Nice to know who the jackasses are!

Yes. you. It was perhaps a slightly less polite way of just making sure you weren't going to buy an incompatible processor for your board. Try to help someone and they just go off at you. Idiot.
August 26, 2006 2:45:04 PM

Quote:
One is 2.2 ghz and the other is 2 ghz. Although one has a high fsb, which one will run games faster and encode dvds 9 to 4.7?


I hope you don't think that the X2 will fit on the same board as your XP.



Nice to know who the jackasses are!
Oh, the irony!
!