Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AM2 X2 3800 best price/performance ratio at the moment

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 3, 2007 12:18:56 AM

for the moment. (see the Dec 29 newer version of graph here at least one post below, but similar conclusions) Posting this because of some confusion re the price/performance ratio in the 5200 thread.

The advice to go X2 3800 in an AM2 and upgrade later is good advice in itself, but the upgrade advantages/disadvantages choosing AMD over Intel are acutally hard to quantify, because....

we don't know how well AMD will improve their 65nm process (how well future chips will overclock, and what the range of base clockings will be, and thus the whole range of offerings, etc.)

we don't know what kind of performance the K8L architecture of AMD in late 2007 will show.

we don't really know, or I don't, just how much performance difference the new hypertransport speed (the one noticible AMD advantage that's made the whole thing interesting for a few years) will be vs the current HT speed, which....affects how an AM2+ type quad core drop-in upgrade will perform in an AM2 motherboard.

we don't know exactly how AMD will change their prices so that their price/performance ratios at various levels are in relation to Intel, BUT...right now they are as good or better than Intel ratios on the low end [shortened] with the 3800 at $140 right now for one example, and the 4200 great too. The generalizations from the price/performance curves according to Tom's Hardware Guide on their last review Dec 22. (see Dec 29 in post below)

(math geometry note: for lowest ratio line, draw line from zero through lowest points) BUT...Edit: the zero for the horizontal line is left of the vertical axis of course. Using Tom's relative performance numbers the e6400 at 1.74 performance vs the X2 3800 at 1.35, you could calculate the correct price for the 6400 to have the same ratio as the 3800

1.74/1.35 * $140 = about $180

if the e6400 is more expensive than $180 (now $223), the $140 x2 3800 has a better price/performance ratio by this metric used by Tom's Hardware in the chart.


It's interesting that the C2Duo 6600 does well on the ratio (so it's not priced at a great premium vs performance like most higher end chips), but it's so powerful that other system components are left behind and those other components need priority if you have limited dollars and don't do mostly just cpu heavy stuff (this describes most of us).


http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/12/29/price_performance_ana...

(page 3 shows the curves, and how both makers offer good deals at the lower end of their curves.)

So AM2 3800 or 4200 are actually good choices price/performance wise compared to Intel at current prices, if you like adventure at a reasonable price.

See the "Am2+.....AM3" thread in this forum for more about the upgrade possibilites.
January 3, 2007 12:37:59 AM

Thanks! I was wondering if there was a more recent graph. Some of the low end AMD prices are cheaper today than on the Dec22 graph. Regarding the high end AMD chips -- no bargain there! But I never recommend the high end chips ever to anyone.

Regarding the low end chips on the Dec 29 graph you see the low line is from the C2d 6400. It's a very good buy for many reasons right now, if the current prices are still down at the graph data point today.

On the low end Dec 29, the AM2 3800, 4200, and 4600 remain good buys, just barely off the tough line set by the 6400, and nice at their price points for the picky.
Related resources
January 3, 2007 12:43:04 AM

Quote:


Anything below 180 dollars is AMD, anything above 180 bucks is Intel price/performance wise.

E4300 will be out in a week, this will take the curve down to the 160 buck price point or so.

Yep, on the ultra low end, AMD is better, out performing the P4's. It is unfortunate Toms does not include the E6300.

You also quoted/linked the mis-represented data. Mark Raby price/curved out using FX-7X series and used single CPU prices but dual CPU performance index. You need to relook at the data before you make this thread viable.

I commented on the 65 nm prognosis in the other thread... it sucks now and will improve but not as much as you will hope.


Yes, er put me onto the newer graph, and the FX chips have never been interesting to me. You won't find me defending those chips!

Very interesting to say that the 65nm process won't improve -- Why not?
January 3, 2007 12:53:09 AM

Quote:
How about using the most recent chart, corrected with CORRECT FX-7x prices.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/12/29/price_performance_ana...


Additionally, he should note that for whatever reason, the chart, along with THG's CPU Benchmark charts does not include the $175(US) E6300. The 6300s performance vs the 3800 makes the $45 a negligable cost while at the same time enhancing the low end of Intels C2D curve. On the other hand, nothing but extinction will help the P4 curve. Combining Intels 2 curves presents a distorted curve.















January 3, 2007 12:56:21 AM

Quote:
Thanks! I was wondering if there was a more recent graph. Some of the low end AMD prices are cheaper today than on the Dec22 graph. Regarding the high end AMD chips -- no bargain there! But I never recommend the high end chips ever to anyone.

Regarding the low end chips on the Dec 29 graph you see the low line is from the C2d 6400. It's a very good buy for many reasons right now, if the current prices are still down at the graph data point today.

On the low end Dec 29, the AM2 3800, 4200, and 4600 remain good buys, just barely off the tough line set by the 6400, and nice at their price points for the picky.


OK, just making sure you weren't trying to link to "misinformation" (ie. the Dec 22 price charts had three major errors!) like some of the more unscrupulous posters on the forum.

Though I would really wish that a trend line *not* be used, since there do not exist a continuum of products from the two companies as suggested by the trend lines. Rather, they should be choosing the points where no products exist to the right and bottom of the product:
January 3, 2007 12:58:38 AM

I'll have to disagree with you halbhh.

I've mentioned it before in other threads as well such as this that AM2 requires DDR2-800 to perform to its potential. With DDR2-533 you suffer a 10 - 20% performance hit, as opposed to a small 2 - 5% hit on the C2D platform.

This is a very important issue because anybody looking to buy a X2 3800+ is obviously trying to maximize value for the dollar. Having to use expensive DDR2-800 to get the platform up to speed is not ideal for someone on a tight budget.

While C2D may be slightly costlier, the fact that cheaper DDR2-533 RAM is sufficient to allow decent performance more than makes up for the $50 or so platform price difference compared to AM2.

For me, C2D is superior to AM2 from low end to high end for a new buyer, especially with the upcoming release of the E4300. This will be the ultimate budget overclockers chip, mark my words.
January 3, 2007 12:59:31 AM

wow, those are great bar charts! Quite a lot of information, and I like being able to see the overclocking results also. Gotta be the most cogent info I've seen today.

We see the better architecture showing up at the similar clock rate. Neat.

I haven't priced C2duo motherboards much, so I couldn't say much about whether the advantage holds as much with the total costs, but just cpu alone, that's certainly confirmation of the conventional wisdom.

But I like just looking at the numbers.
January 3, 2007 1:12:15 AM

good link on the anandtech re memory speed graph results. I like this kind of detail, and it's good to see such well formed graphs.

Regarding an 8% (the super-pi is graphic independent) 533 vs 800 difference, it's more than nothing, but it's less than everything. Even 12% isn't yet quite to the level of I can really feel it.

Of course, anyone stepping up their graphics card is going to see a lot more than 20% or 30% usually.

Even putting up an extra $100 or so for the new 74Gig Raptor (vs the lowest size 7200.10) will have a nice general system effect that typical users will feel more dramatically.

So for the more difficult thing about system as a whole, I couldn't say AMD isn't good for a budget gamer. It's in there, and it's adventuresome upgrade wise, with the possibility of wins or losses in the future upgrade wise.

But just the same, it's a great chart. Thanks.
January 3, 2007 1:31:40 AM

I'll have to say that a truly budget conscious gamer should look at a single core A64 instead of an X2. This is the area where AMD has Intel beat hands down - single core gaming performance.

Most games today still aren't multithreaded (though that is slowly changing), and a cheap A64 3200+ overclocked to 2.5GHz+ will still provide good framerates in the vast majority of games.

IMHO, anybody looking at dual core for gaming is clearly better off with a C2D. Along with video encoding, gaming is the core (mind the pun) strength of Core2.
January 3, 2007 1:47:47 AM

I agree when immediate funds are very limited.

I'm usually thinking that the "gaming" computer is also the general computer, for surfing, etc., and will run modern security software (with the budget WinXP), so I'm thinking in general system terms to say the budget gamer should think X2 3800, and if they overclock, the game performance will be all about the graphic card for a good while. So they get a chip that doesn't need an upgrade so soon as a single core.

But if the person needs to spend very little now, and can upgrade later, it's a decent strategy.
January 3, 2007 2:21:51 AM

that's interesting. Now when I think about maxium frequencies, I personally now-a-days think about 2.6Ghz for example, that is, for myself....

I think more about quad core, because I know that a 2Ghz quad core with upgraded architecture will of course do more of any kind of task that can use multicore than any dual core at 3.5Ghz, etc. Also, I think about power use a little, in that I want my computer quiet, and not too expensive to build.

So while it's interesting because it does have a signficiant aspect to me -- what will be the top chips, and thus price effects down the whole line -- it's not like I'll ever be running something at 3 Ghz anytime in the next few years.

Unless some kind of amazing new software suprises me greatly! :) 

More likely, I'd be happy with just improved architecture and 4 cores at a modest price, which I'll have one way or the other.

But one question your interesting post brought to mind is power dissipation. What are the power dissipation aspects of the chips? Do you see AMD holding an advantage in that part?
January 3, 2007 2:30:20 AM

Quote:

But one question your interesting post brought to mind is power dissipation. What are the power dissipation aspects of the chips? Do you see AMD holding an advantage in that part?


Eh, I'm not Jack (I ain't that smart :lol:  ) but I can answer that question.

65nm K8 chips do run a bit cooler than the 90nm variety. It is very competitive with C2D in terms of power consumption. In idle, it is ~10W lower, at load it is close enough to call a tie - a few watts higher than C2D at most.

Of course, it is still some way off in terms of performance/watt, and the fact that 65nm is actually slower than 90nm compounds this.

Further reading is availble at Anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=288...
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=289...
January 3, 2007 4:11:04 AM

Quote:

There you have it... Jack's take on power.

Jack


Cut! Take two! Not detailed enough Jack... :lol: 

Phew!
January 3, 2007 1:25:51 PM

It's not a gigantic change, but I had to correct the ratio method since the Graph zero point is left of the intersection of axis. This shows the 3800 is actually a distinctly great buy
January 3, 2007 6:43:28 PM

I'm don't routinely read about processes, but I had a vauge impression that there are usually tweaks that occur continually. I wonder if it can be pinned down so well.

But I have some background so that I can read those kinds of articles, and will look some or all over.

thanks
January 4, 2007 9:49:53 AM

In fairness, I revised the headline to be more accurate. The X2 3800 is easily the best buy around for a lot of people when most of us cannot utilize the faster dual cores well in our typical use.

Instead of paying $80 or $150 more for a lot of extra speed we don't use, for most of us the better choice would be a x2 3800 now, and upgrade later again for a modest price in a year, with more money available now for DDR2 800 or a better hard drive, or another step up in the graphics.
January 4, 2007 10:42:53 AM

Quote:
In fairness, I revised the headline to be more accurate. The X2 3800 is easily the best buy around for a lot of people when most of us cannot utilize the faster dual cores well in our typical use.

Instead of paying $80 or $150 more for a lot of extra speed we don't use, for most of us the better choice would be a x2 3800 now, and upgrade later again for a modest price in a year, with more money available now for DDR2 800 or a better hard drive, or another step up in the graphics.
Why are you so bent on preaching your "word" on this? Now you're double & triple posting just to keep your thread alive. :roll:
January 4, 2007 11:04:59 AM

Inaccuracies in numbers and quantitative conclusions bother me, and if they are about trashing one company (either AMD *or* Intel), instead of being objective, then I feel better when the inaccuracy is challenged.

That's just me.

As for your concern about what thread is on top, that's your thing.
January 4, 2007 11:18:27 AM

Quote:
The X2 3800 is easily the best buy around for a lot of people when most of us cannot utilize the faster dual cores well in our typical use.


Actually, the PD-805, being the cheapest dual core CPU, would be the 'best buy' for someone who cannot utlize 'faster' dual core CPUs. (Are you trying to create a new market segment here or something?)

I really think you're clutching at straws here, the X2 3800+ is really not that special. In fact, if you don't run DDR2-800 RAM on it, a 3 year old A64 3000+ will outrun it in single threaded applications.
January 4, 2007 11:24:34 AM

Cheapest isn't always best, but it's certainly a chip to consider! I'd recommend it to someone who is very cash constrained but still wants dual core right now.
January 4, 2007 12:28:29 PM

Hi Jack,

Very informative read. You certainly got me thinking about the die shrink. I have two questions for you.

1) Why did AMD's die shrink not more effectively reduce the chip area, since the transistor count is the same? Did most of the transistors actually grow with respect to the manufacturing tech? I mean are the 65nm tech transistors larger than 65/90*the size of the 90nm tech transistors?

2) Talking about power consumption, I think way back to Intel's first 65nm products, the PD9xx series. These had somewhat reduced power consumption vs. the 8xx series, but it wasn't incredible. Did the extra 2MB of cache consume so much extra power?

Cheers!
January 4, 2007 1:04:09 PM

Even the low end dual cores should be computer powerhouses. Unfortunately, software is just now starting to catch up with hardware. I can hardly wait for the DX10 generation of games that should all be written for multi-core.
January 4, 2007 1:31:20 PM

Quote:
Cheapest isn't always best, but it's certainly a chip to consider! I'd recommend it to someone who is very cash constrained but still wants dual core right now.


The point I'm trying to make is that the X2 3800+ is just one of a wide range of CPUs that could fit the bill for a potential dual core user. It's cheap, but not the cheapest. It has good performance for the price, but so does the C2D E6300 and upcoming E4300.
January 4, 2007 1:40:46 PM

OP was about correcting a misperception about whether the price/performance of low end X2s could keep up with C2Ds.

Yes, it's a good time to build computers. 8)
January 5, 2007 5:26:22 AM

So basically the die will shrink to 70% of the orginal size instead of 50% right? In theory of course. 65nm X 70%= 45nm / 45nm x 70%=32nm. Where do they come up with 50% from. Sorry I'm a little ignant. :wink:
January 5, 2007 6:54:31 AM

Quote:
Cheapest isn't always best, but it's certainly a chip to consider! I'd recommend it to someone who is very cash constrained but still wants dual core right now.


If you really want value, check out quad FX. Its the cheap solution for getting the quad core power i NEED for my hardcor dev work.

Jack will dispute, but hes a child. :roll:
January 5, 2007 12:36:27 PM

Quote:
Jack will dispute, but hes a child. :roll:


I see you're now in the habit of preemptive counter-mudslinging already.
January 5, 2007 12:45:13 PM

Hey Jack,

Thanks for the insight. It's interesting to me because I hadn't realised that some of the physical bounds of size had already been reached in microprocessors. You always hear of what difficulty they will have shrinking past 32 nm, but I didn't know some components (or aspects) of the chips were already as small as they're going to get.

I really hope the teaming of AMD with IBM on manufacturing will improve the methods over time. I think everyone will agree that AMD puts out some great circuit design, but Intel is so far ahead on manufacturing, it's hard to compete. If you can make a chip 20-30% cheaper, that's huge. And what happens when Intel actually comes out with some incredibly smart circuitry of their own? Core! I'd almost say "poor AMD". Sometimes it's funny to think of a multi-billion dollar company being the little guy.
January 5, 2007 1:24:19 PM

The real comparitions in dual core AM2 and C2D es 4200+ against E6300.
The difference is U$2, and 6300 beat the 4200+ so far.

E6400 is in very much cases comparable with FX-62 and 6600 is over FX-62 in very much cases.

The relations in price/performance ratio is not direct between models becase AMD have a larger gamma that Intel(in core 2 duo Vs X2, if we include PD Intel gamma is more varately):

Intel AMD
X2 3800+
E6300 X24200+
X24400+
X2600+
E6400 X24800+
E6600 X25000+
E6700 X25200+
E6800 FX-62

that is a most nearly comparision.

Is my Opinion.
January 5, 2007 2:42:50 PM

Quote:
The real comparitions in dual core AM2 and C2D es 4200+ against E6300.
The difference is U$2, and 6300 beat the 4200+ so far.
quote]

I get $169 for the AM2 x2 4200, and $189 for the C2d e6300 at NewEgg. I like to always use the same site to compare. Newegg is good on price, and big volume.

The $20 price difference is unimportant unless someone is very money constrained, and then the total costs, with motherboard need to be looked at.

btw, again, I don't recommend any of the higher end processors, of any type, except to the rich or the professional video worker, etc. In short I don't recommend processors above around $220 in price to most people. These are for professional or hot dog purposes I think.

I think the e6300 and the x2 3800 are the best choices for most people, because I think it's smart to put money into the other (slower) system components instead of the cpu, and upgrade the cpu in 8 or 12 months at a great price and big boost.

But that depends on someone being willing to do the upgrade later.

If not, I'd use the 3800, say to build a good office Vista box for a small business, not expected to be upgraded, and built cheap to run Vista office stuff great.
January 5, 2007 8:26:43 PM

Quote:
The real comparitions in dual core AM2 and C2D es 4200+ against E6300.
The difference is U$2, and 6300 beat the 4200+ so far.


I get $169 for the AM2 x2 4200, and $189 for the C2d e6300 at NewEgg. I like to always use the same site to compare. Newegg is good on price, and big volume.

The $20 price difference is unimportant unless someone is very money constrained, and then the total costs, with motherboard need to be looked at.

btw, again, I don't recommend any of the higher end processors, of any type, except to the rich or the professional video worker, etc. In short I don't recommend processors above around $220 in price to most people. These are for professional or hot dog purposes I think.

I think the e6300 and the x2 3800 are the best choices for most people, because I think it's smart to put money into the other (slower) system components instead of the cpu, and upgrade the cpu in 8 or 12 months at a great price and big boost.

But that depends on someone being willing to do the upgrade later.

If not, I'd use the 3800, say to build a good office Vista box for a small business, not expected to be upgraded, and built cheap to run Vista office stuff great.People can't get this through their thick skulls. AM2 needs DDR2-800(DDR2-667 at very least) to perform decently. Put DDR2-533 on the 3800+ and compare it to an E6300 w/DDR2-533. The Athlon will get creamed. Everyone loves to jump on Intel mobo prices, but conveniently leaves out the seriously important RAM issue for AM2. Let's do fair comparisons here. :roll:
January 5, 2007 8:40:44 PM

Tanker with the elbow from the top rope 8O
January 5, 2007 10:54:26 PM

Quote:

People can't get this through their thick skulls. AM2 needs DDR2-800(DDR2-667 at very least) to perform decently. Put DDR2-533 on the 3800+ and compare it to an E6300 w/DDR2-533. The Athlon will get creamed. Everyone loves to jump on Intel mobo prices, but conveniently leaves out the seriously important RAM issue for AM2. Let's do fair comparisons here. :roll:


LOL, took the words right out of my mouth. With DDR2-533 RAM, it would take an X2 5000+/5200+ just to match an E6300.

In fact, with RAM prices at current levels, it often costs more than the CPU itself if you are going for 2GB.

In Australia, the difference between DDR2-533 and DDR2-800 is $100 AUD, even with the lower X2 3800+ price and slightly cheaper AM2 mobos, it is not enough to make up for RAM price difference. Besides, an E6300 with DDR2-533 is still a good 10% quicker than an X2 3800+ with DDR2-800.

To be fair to the X2 3800+, most DDR2-667 RAM can overclock to DDR2-800 speeds, so you can save a few bucks there.

Of course, all our discussions has been based on stock speed comparisons. The X2 3800+ has no hope of competing in an overclocked environment against the low end C2D chips. The K8 architecture seems to hit a wall at around 3GHz, whereas C2D chips have been overclocking past 3GHz easily, often up to 3.5GHz on air cooling. C2D is already 20% faster clock for clock as well, so higher IPC + higher clockspeed = you can't lose.
January 6, 2007 12:16:49 AM

I don't get it why my sentences don't register that "most people don't need that much cpu power" (paraphase). How many different ways are there to say that?

I don't have any problem with your cpu being twice the horsepower of mine!

really!

8)

Just as long as my other components are excellent, I'm happy.

Probably this will be irritating somehow, but honestly I'm not trying to be irritating. I just seem to have a system approach, and a very conservative pocketbook mindset, but my computer runs great!

really!
January 6, 2007 12:36:46 AM

Quote:
I don't get it why my sentences don't register that "most people don't need that much cpu power" (paraphase). How many different ways are there to say that?


Can you give me an example of someone who 'requires' dual core but 'doesn't need that much CPU power'?

Kind of defeats the whole purpose of dual core.
January 6, 2007 12:56:55 AM

sure, office worker.

Curiosity made me configure. system comming in a moment....
January 6, 2007 12:57:49 AM

Quote:
I don't get it why my sentences don't register that "most people don't need that much cpu power" (paraphase). How many different ways are there to say that?

I don't have any problem with your cpu being twice the horsepower of mine!

really!

8)

Just as long as my other components are excellent, I'm happy.

Probably this will be irritating somehow, but honestly I'm not trying to be irritating. I just seem to have a system approach, and a very conservative pocketbook mindset, but my computer runs great!

really!


That sounds dangerously like BaronMatrix nLogic®
"It's not just fast... it's fast ENOUGH!!1one"
January 6, 2007 1:10:07 AM

The office boss wants a box that will go Vista, cause he's gonna make the grunts ("assistant") do a lot of fast work with Microsoft Office (Yeah, there are actually folks just like that, I even have been in their offices).

So I'm doing the $90 WinXP with free upgrade OEM in the box, and garanteeing him the 1 GIG RAM, and dual core he specified, cause he knows he wants the box to last 6 years. He wants me to add another Gig Ram later, but not now, cause he's a penny pincher.

heh heh....it's kinda funny, but it's actually realistic, sadly.

He says he'll use the old keyboard and mouse from last system, and has a 15" flat panel his kid doesn't want anymore at home. lol

As a point of pride, I'll tell him it's a nicer system than a cheap Dell cause the hard drive is first rate.

----------------------------------------
Barebone Computers
Qty. Product Description Unit Price Savings Total Price
1 FREETECH Cobra G6100 AMD Socket 939 AMD Athlon 64/Sempron NVIDIA GeForce 6100 Barebone - Retail
(Case, PS, and Motherboard)
Model #: COBRA G6100
Item #: N82E16856121015 $83.99

Internal Hard Drives
Qty. Product Description Unit Price Savings Total Price
1 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3160215A 160GB 7200 RPM IDE Ultra ATA100 Hard Drive - OEM
Model #: ST3160215A
Item #: N82E16822148212 $56.99

Desktop Memory
Qty. Product Description Unit Price Savings Total Price
1 Kingston ValueRAM 1GB (2 x 512MB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model KVR400AK2/1GR - Retail
Model #: KVR400AK2/1GR $97.49

Processors
Qty. Product Description Unit Price Savings Total Price
1 AMD Opteron 165 Denmark 1.8GHz Socket 939 Dual Core Processor Model OSA165CDBOX - Retail
Model #: OSA165CDBOX
Item #: N82E16819103588 $153.99

Operating Systems
Qty. Product Description Unit Price Savings Total Price
1 Microsoft Windows XP Home Sp2b 1pk w/Upgrade Coupon for Vista - OEM
Model #: N09-02142
Item #: N82E16832116169 $89.99

Subtotal: $482.45
Shipping: $20.06

Total: $502.51

------------------------
This was higher than I wanted, but too lazy right now to work further. Perhaps could do $480, but it's a $500 ballpark it looks like.
January 6, 2007 1:12:27 AM

Quote:
sure, office worker.

Curiosity made me configure. system comming in a moment....


Office worker? I'm sure they run a lot of multithreaded applications and do huge Excel and Access database calculations on the fly while showing off a Powerpoint presentation at the same time. :roll:

I'm an 'office worker' and my Athlon XP 2400+ does the job perfectly. You simply don't need a dual core for standard office applications.

Like I said earlier, I think your trying to create a market that isn't really there in order to justify your fascination with the X2 3800+.
January 6, 2007 1:18:41 AM

heh heh....this would also be my own cheap replacement if someone stole my comp, and car broke down, etc., and had to make due for a while on a tight budget with the new baby coming.... It'd do everything fast enough, well, enough, and I'd be satisfied and have a better computer at this moment than 90% or more of the desktops being used right now.
January 6, 2007 1:19:43 AM

Amen bro. If it does what you want......then you're in the right place.
January 6, 2007 1:21:45 AM

btw, just cause a businessperson wants a cheap box that will be still great 6 years from now (because of dual core), doesn't mean there is anything wrong with his attitude!
January 6, 2007 1:26:52 AM

Quote:
sure, office worker.

Curiosity made me configure. system comming in a moment....


Office worker? I'm sure they run a lot of multithreaded applications and do huge Excel and Access database calculations on the fly while showing off a Powerpoint presentation at the same time. :roll:

I'm an 'office worker' and my Athlon XP 2400+ does the job perfectly. You simply don't need a dual core for standard office applications.

Like I said earlier, I think your trying to create a market that isn't really there in order to justify your fascination with the X2 3800+.


My old Athlon 1.3Ghz runs great in the spare bedroom, especially with all the poorly written software uninstalled. Boots very fast, and $12 for WordPerfect works nicely with the 6 yr old Officejet.

No problems. Fast, and perfect.
January 6, 2007 1:30:53 AM

Quote:
btw, just cause a businessperson wants a cheap box that will be still great 6 years from now (because of dual core), doesn't mean there is anything wrong with his attitude!


No PC, even a a QX6700 based one, will be 'still great' 6 years from now.

Look at a PC from 2001. You're looking at a 1GHz Athlon/P3, with 256 to 512MB of PC133 SDRAM, 40GB HDD, GF2 GPU, etc etc.
January 6, 2007 1:42:09 AM

Perhaps you're right re the 6 years! I'd love to see software come out that would just make my low end dual core a piece of junk!

I hope so!

Meanwhile.....it may still be working somewhere 6 years from now, like my circa 2001 Athlon 1.3
!