AM2 Upgrade

I'd say up to 80% depending upon the app.

Wow guys that's incredible, I wasn't expecting that much of a jump.

Thanks for your quick responses.......I'm going off to change CPU's ASAP!!!!

;-)

Wait five months, my friend. If you MUST upgrade to a dual-core now, grab a 3600+, 3800+ or 4000+ from Newegg. The 3600+ and 4000+ both come in 65nm varieties and should run exceptionally coolly (the 3800+ and 4000+ also have 90nm EE versions, which also run very cool).

But DO NOT spend a lot of money. If you don't have 2GB of DDR2 800, buy that instead of a new processor and wait for K8L.

Ok thanks for the advice, I am actually running 2GB of Kingston Value RAM.......so upgrading to DDR2 800 will make more of a difference?

Thanks again

So only a BIOS update for the new CPU's later in the year? Excellent.

I think I might upgrade the CPU and maybe do the RAM when the newer ones come out.

Save more money by buying the single core 3800+ now very cheap and good for current games and heaps faster than what you have now, them upgrade later

Even OC the SC 3800+ for more performance.

Remember that the newer AMD CPU's out later in year with extra operations will not run at there full potencial in your current board.

Newegg carries the 3600's for $115, but requires you to buy some Biostar motherboard. I think the total costs like ~$170 so you'd be better off buying the 3800+ X2 in my opinion.

It "could" be the best buy for the $ if the system isn't running newest versions of apps or multiple tasks with high CPU utilization. It depends quite a lot on what it's running.

It is true the present CPU could be o'c, that would be a good thing to look into if there's an inclination to do it, but even then it can vary a lot how far it o'c.

It isn't necessarily a questio of why spend $99, suppose an $83 A64 4000+. Granted that's OEM, but he doesn't need the 'sink anyway.

I cannot stress enough, the mistake far too many people make trying to compare CPUs with new(est) benchmarks before finding out if the intended system will run newest software. There are great strides being made on newer software, particularly mainstream titles for dual cores, but not so much older non-premium apps. Otherwise we'd have to know the use.

It isn't just gaming that single core CPUs excel at per $. A benchmark isn't going to show you that most of the time your second core is practically idle, while the first could've been faster. Intel and AMD did not go to dual core for performance benefits per se, they went there because they couldn't ramp single core higher at the time. NOW they can ramp single core, at least in this low end pricing we're talking about it is still a viable alternative if the lifespan of the upgrade isn't meant to be several years.

I don't have enough info to conclude single core would be the better alternative though, it could indeed be that the performance issue prompting upgrade IS that there are multiple compute-bound threads that need to run simultaneously.

Something else too often overlooked is that the CPU manufacturer itself does provide you that number they deem a representation of relative performance. If AMD says a X2 is a 3800 but a single core is a 4000, there is reason to believe they did find tasks where it was faster, often enough to earn the higher number. That is not always going to apply with the faster cores on any numbering plan, we certainly saw it with the Athlon XP too, but it still shows there was variability in what tasks benefitted more from dual core or single core clock speed (within a limited budget).

Thanks guys, this is an interesting topic I've started!!!!

I managed to buy the 65W version of AM2 4200 today so I will install it tomorrow.

Can't wait to see the benchmark differences.

Next upgrade = Video Card

False as stated. "Going dual core" doesn't mean that is what the purchaser has for software today, does not mean the CPU purchaser plans on rebuying all the software within the most used period of these parts, and does not mean it will in actual use be the higher performing per $.

There is no sense at all in trying to guess what the future will bring for an unknown use of a system. Some dual core architectures are particularly good besides being dual core (Core2Duo) and thus have benefits beyond just being dual core. Others (like A64 X2) are not bad at all, but represent a less significant upgrade.

I could say 43 is a larger number than 42, but it is enough to bother mentioning? WOrth the time? Worth the cost? We'd need details to know. It is not worthwhile to do something unless it is ENOUGH of an improvement and you entirely miss the point by writing "improvement" without enough consideration of how much.

Are you telling us you are promoting something you dont even use yet? It depends quite a lot on the task, and # of them, which is fastest. It is a false statement to say dual core is faster without considering the use. In the lower priced CPUs I mean, because that is were the limited budget gets you either a faster single core or a slower dual. Either have their own advantages depending on use.

Sticking with 939 though due to $$$ but and Opteron 165/170 will be better than what I have and will last me another year or 2, especially since I will be overclocking the new chip as well and should hit at least 2.5-2.8 with either one I choose.[/quote]

It may suit your uses well, but you'd have to know that second core isn't going to mostly be idle. If it is mostly idle, a single core @ 3.2GHz will be faster at many uses. It is up to the user to determine how they use their system. It just so happens these chips that run at highest speed are more scarce though, yields dictate it and the pricing so there was a point where both Intel and AMD could get higher yields of two cores at lower speed, than one at higher speed. THAT is why Intel and AMD went dual core, they would've continued ramping single cores if they could've.

If you already have very new software or plan to purchase it very soon, the story begins to change. This is a prerequisite though, not an afterthought.

Now go convert a video or run Orthos with the Task Manager/Performance tab up so you can bask in the glory that is dual core.