Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help deciding on AMD processor....

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 7, 2007 5:38:58 PM

So I'm getting ready to get a new system... I work for a major computer company and so I can get some good deals on pre-built systems. My choices are the AMD 64 X2 3800+, 4200+ or 4600+.... When I look at the benchtests, they all seem pretty close on performance...

My question is, when these are tested in Vista...will the results be different? I assume Vista will utilize multi-cores more effectively.... I just don't want to pay $40 to $80 more for a processor that is a few seconds faster. I'm quite tight on money. Thanks!

More about : deciding amd processor

February 7, 2007 5:49:48 PM

Your have to choose between same CPUS, but working on different frequencies. You are not going to notice dramatic performance difference between them. So, choose the CPU that has the highest frequency/price value.
3800+ is 2000MHz.
4200+ is 2200MHz.
4600+ is 2400MHz.
February 7, 2007 6:17:09 PM

Quote:
So I'm getting ready to get a new system... I work for a major computer company and so I can get some good deals on pre-built systems. My choices are the AMD 64 X2 3800+, 4200+ or 4600+.... When I look at the benchtests, they all seem pretty close on performance...

My question is, when these are tested in Vista...will the results be different? I assume Vista will utilize multi-cores more effectively.... I just don't want to pay $40 to $80 more for a processor that is a few seconds faster. I'm quite tight on money. Thanks!


As long as they are AM2 and you can upgrade your processor at a later time, get whatever is cheaper and put the money into RAM. You want 2GB for Vista from what I've heard. IMHO, a 3800+ with 2GB RAM is > than a 4600 with 1GB RAM. If they are socket 939 I would wait until your company goes to AM2....

Centurion
Related resources
February 7, 2007 6:40:15 PM

Quote:
So I'm getting ready to get a new system... I work for a major computer company and so I can get some good deals on pre-built systems. My choices are the AMD 64 X2 3800+, 4200+ or 4600+.... When I look at the benchtests, they all seem pretty close on performance...

My question is, when these are tested in Vista...will the results be different? I assume Vista will utilize multi-cores more effectively.... I just don't want to pay $40 to $80 more for a processor that is a few seconds faster. I'm quite tight on money. Thanks!
If you intend on overclocking, i would suggest the 4200+. The higher multiplier will help get you a bit higher, and will be a little faster when not overclocked. The x2 4200+ is probably one of their best performance/$ chips. GL :) 
February 7, 2007 7:01:33 PM

Sorrykinda off topic ... but is Vista optimized to make better use of multi cores?? I keep seeing people say this but wasn't sure if it was actually true.
February 7, 2007 7:54:24 PM

Quote:
Sorrykinda off topic ... but is Vista optimized to make better use of multi cores?? I keep seeing people say this but wasn't sure if it was actually true.
I would imagine it is, but how much difference it actually makes compared to XP is hard to say. I know that my P4 w/out HT runs great on VISTA... i think a lot of the "hype" about having to upgrade everything for VISTA is just that ...hype. In the future, VISTA will glean some advantages from the newest hardware..i.e. DX10, but as of now, VISTA works fine on mid-range hardware. I have 1GB of RAM, and i have no problems, but i would bet that in some games like BF, the extra RAM will really come in handy.
February 7, 2007 8:16:03 PM

My dual core chip I've never tested for XP, but on Vista it's working about as well as I expected. There are tmies when it slows down for a moment when a regular priority program starts doing something heavy, but my browser goes at it's normal speed after a second or two. I think once the other core is filled up the second one switches the browser over and runs it fine. Least I think that's what's happening. Could be me just thinking that since Vista Ultimate is supposed to do it. Don't know if it does it in Home Premium.
February 7, 2007 8:57:37 PM

Id go for the C2D , better processors indeed!! , joking!!
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2007 9:46:46 PM

Yes, Vista is designed to work better with multi-cores. There should be some small immediate improvement, but more when applications began to make better use of multi-core and Vistas features.

Higher speed processors do provide better preformance, particlularly in gaming and certain cpu intensive applications like 3D gaming and graphics - including rendering and design. In basic applications like common MS office usuage, there has been little change for some time.
All depends on what you do now - and may do in the future.

I would suggest finding the sweet spot - the point before you start getting significantly larger price increases for the same unit speed increase. Right now I think that is around the X2 4600+.

I too would currently recommend C2D over X2, but I assume from your list that it is not an option.
February 7, 2007 9:48:55 PM

Captain Obvious strikes again!!!

He said, those are his options..... so, I guess that is what he meant.

wes
February 7, 2007 9:52:19 PM

nonetheless , the K8 x2 is still a good processor.

Via is a good option aswell!
February 7, 2007 10:01:43 PM

C2D is not an option.... the equivalent system on the intel side here are all Pentium D's... crapola. So, I'm going with the AMD, which is cheaper AND faster than the Pentium D's.... (it's the D 820 or 925)
February 8, 2007 12:36:41 AM

Heyyou,

you and I both know that you won't notice the difference in the vast majority of situations. In very CPU intensive stuff you will, while in the vast majority of games you won't. Yeah, Core 2 is faster, but, X2's are a superb choice as well. So, it's my opinion you should either help, or not post anything.

wes
February 8, 2007 12:44:34 AM

Quote:
Heyyou,

you and I both know that you won't notice the difference in the vast majority of situations. In very CPU intensive stuff you will, while in the vast majority of games you won't. Yeah, Core 2 is faster, but, X2's are a superb choice as well. So, it's my opinion you should either help, or not post anything.

wes


geezz , your a very smart person!! , then if you knew that I knew that , then why have you just told me that?? :evil: 

whats wrong with abit of sense of humour in the thread haa?? i think his questions allready been answered aswell! , so why dont you stop nit picking or dont post !!

it was a joke , get over it!
February 8, 2007 1:19:06 AM

Sorry sorry,

It starts to get hard to tell the difference between those who are joking and those wild fanboys on here. But, I will try really hard to get over it, though I am not sure if I will be able to. :twisted:

wes
February 8, 2007 1:33:13 AM

its ok wezzie , i see where you are coming from , i must admitt , it did sound a bit fanboyish ! , only a Intelliot wouldnt have been joking! heehe.

although i was trying to start a flame war with BaronM !! it would of been fun.
!