Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should I upgrade? AMD 64 3700+ to 64 X2 4200+?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 23, 2007 2:18:01 PM

My setup:

AMD Athlon 64 3700+
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
2x 7800GTX
2Gig valuselect

Now I wanted to upgrade one component before I switch over to a new socket mobo in a year or so, and I could see a lot of CPUs were being discontinued for socket 939. I managed to get an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and installed it. The difference isn't very noticeable. It was the fastest I found on Newegg though. Anyone have any imput? Is it worth $170?

BTW I also overclocked it from 2.2ghz to 2.5ghz.

More about : upgrade amd 3700 4200

March 23, 2007 2:27:25 PM

If you only game, then you won't note any difference. There are only a few titles that take advantage of two cores. But for the upcoming games, it worths the upgrade. Multitasking is done more efficiently and audio/video rendering is improved also.
But you should already know this...or not...
March 23, 2007 4:01:17 PM

Yes!
The X2 4200+ will perform better than the 3700+ for sure. Also most modern games will have benefit of the second core, because all are optimized for dualcore CPUs. Even if you run singlethreaded software, you'll still have a benefit of a dualcore CPU because the OS is running multiple threads in parallel and will utilize the second core for all other stuff, while letting a performance hungry singlethreaded app to be run alone on the first core.
All the new software this year will be optimized for dualcore(some software for quadcore) CPUs. So, you'll have a nice and faster system in the following year, until your next system.
Also, your new CPU is OCable to 2.5GHz or more.
Related resources
March 23, 2007 4:10:47 PM

Quote:
My setup:

AMD Athlon 64 3700+
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
2x 7800GTX
2Gig valuselect

Now I wanted to upgrade one component before I switch over to a new socket mobo in a year or so, and I could see a lot of CPUs were being discontinued for socket 939. I managed to get an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and installed it. The difference isn't very noticeable. It was the fastest I found on Newegg though. Anyone have any imput? Is it worth $170?

BTW I also overclocked it from 2.2ghz to 2.5ghz.



I don't remember what the clock of the 3700+ is but if a game is not multithreaded you will only see a difference when a lot of things are going on in the background.

Dual core is a much better idea right now as the new DX games will start to have multi-core support. You could also lok at the Opteron series 1xx. Those have been known to reach 2.8GHz easily and run cool and stable.
March 23, 2007 4:41:29 PM

The only reason I think that its not worth the extra money is because the 3700 will overclock to 3ghz and unless you run a lot of apps at the same time the 4200 @ 2.5 won't seem much faster. Of course the 4200 is still the better CPU, but I just don't think its worth the extra money. If you can get $70 or something for the 3700, then it would be worth it though.
March 23, 2007 4:58:23 PM

Quote:
My setup:

AMD Athlon 64 3700+
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
2x 7800GTX
2Gig valuselect

Now I wanted to upgrade one component before I switch over to a new socket mobo in a year or so, and I could see a lot of CPUs were being discontinued for socket 939. I managed to get an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and installed it. The difference isn't very noticeable. It was the fastest I found on Newegg though. Anyone have any imput? Is it worth $170?

BTW I also overclocked it from 2.2ghz to 2.5ghz.



I don't remember what the clock of the 3700+ is but if a game is not multithreaded you will only see a difference when a lot of things are going on in the background.

Dual core is a much better idea right now as the new DX games will start to have multi-core support. You could also lok at the Opteron series 1xx. Those have been known to reach 2.8GHz easily and run cool and stable.

2.2Ghz / 1MB L2 San Diego core.[/from memory]

I, too, would suggest an Opty that you just overclock.
March 23, 2007 5:13:23 PM

I do use Photoshop CS and some video editing occasionally. My thing is, I want to sqeeze some extra life out of this set up before I have to upgrade the mobo and ram just to get a new cpu.

My old CPU:
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego 2.2GHz 1MB L2 Cache

My new CPU:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Toledo 2.2GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache

Anyone think I could go higher than 2.5GHz on the X2 (I just upped the MHz to 232 or something with the multiplier on 11)? I am cooling the thing with a ZALMAN CNPS9500 in a well ventilated case.
March 23, 2007 5:21:05 PM

Quote:
I do use Photoshop CS and some video editing occasionally. My thing is, I want to sqeeze some extra life out of this set up before I have to upgrade the mobo and ram just to get a new cpu.

My old CPU:
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego 2.2GHz 1MB L2 Cache

My new CPU:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Toledo 2.2GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache

Anyone think I could go higher than 2.5GHz on the X2 (I just upped the MHz to 232 or something with the multiplier on 11)? I am cooling the thing with a ZALMAN CNPS9500 in a well ventilated case.



2.7GHz may be doable with a litle extra voltage, but I'm running at 2.3Ghz (4400+) and I am more than happy. I have heard stories of 250 MHz HT so that would put you around 2750MHz, but it would be advisable to turn the HT multplier down to 4.
March 23, 2007 5:35:28 PM

Especially for gaming use, I wouldn't spend $170 to go from an Athlon 64 3700+ to an X2 4200+. I would think it is better to either go for a faster chip, or stick with what you got.

I recently went from an Athlon 64 3800+ to an X2 5200+. While the dual core is the faster chip, hands down, on most applications, I really don't notice any difference in speed, with the exception of converting video.
March 23, 2007 5:42:21 PM

Quote:
I recently went from an Athlon 64 3800+ to an X2 5200+. While the dual core is the faster chip, hands down, on most applications, I really don't notice any difference in speed, with the exception of converting video.

Yes, but it's top performance we're talking about; In web surfing or other everyday applications, everything FLAWLESSLY does the trick; P4 and above, AthlonXP and above but when you play modern games, encode/decode etc, you really want THAT DIFFERENCE a dual or quad core makes.
I seldom can distinguish even the 2.45G X2 4200+ from the former 1.8GHz 3000+, even in CAD or graphics stuff, about 6 days a week, but when it comes to photorealistic rendering or a 2 min walkthrough, I really love it.
March 23, 2007 5:54:32 PM

I'm not saying I want to go back to my older chip, but the dual core does not really offer much performance benefit on nondemanding tasks. You're right that the ol' first generation Pentiums were fine for word processing and web surfing as long as they weren't starved for RAM. I do notice the dual core difference on video format conversions, as well as audio tasks.
March 23, 2007 6:13:57 PM

yeah its worth the upgrade, especially with more dual core supported games coming out having a dual core will be a plus
March 23, 2007 6:16:29 PM

Quote:
yeah its worth the upgrade, especially with more dual core supported games coming out having a dual core will be a plus

Well, more than a +, it is ~ x1.8 :D 
March 23, 2007 6:45:57 PM

Yeah, but this guy is going to spend $170 to get an X2 4200+ part because of the 939 upgrade path. I really think he would be better off sitting tight for a few months, and putting that towards a new system with better future upgrade possibilities. After the April price cuts, the C2D 4300 will be around $120, and who knows what chip you'll be able to get in the X2 line at that price, but at least a 4200+ I would guess. I think the left over $50 could be put towards a motherboard, and if needed RAM, and he would end up with a better overall system.

It's a shame that AMD pulled the rug out on 939, and made the switch to AM2 that really didn't offer any substantial performance benefit.
March 23, 2007 7:05:56 PM

I totally agree, unless you feel that you really need an upgrade, waiting an getting a new CPU/MB/RAM would be the best option.
March 23, 2007 8:16:37 PM

Quote:
I totally agree, unless you feel that you really need an upgrade, waiting an getting a new CPU/MB/RAM would be the best option.

Maybe I can't totally agree with you and digitaldoc, because, it's true that prices will drop a lot in April but still what is he getting on a budget; a $120/140 E4300/E6300 still needing at least other $250 for good RAM and mobo, total $370+... C'mon, he almost gets the performance of an E6600 if he clocks the Opty 170 to 2.7GHz (yet haven't seen someone miss it) for just $180; The 939 has still a lot of juice in it....
Of course, the E4300 overclocks even better but the point is that at the end of this year, with the prices down to who knows what, he'll still feel like upgrading to a quad, no matter what he does now, so why not just spare those $190+ for the big day :D 
March 23, 2007 9:04:41 PM

NO!
March 23, 2007 9:32:27 PM

So how much better would a Opteron 170 Denmark 2.0GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache be than a Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Toledo 2.2GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache?
March 23, 2007 9:37:16 PM

The opty would be a better choice if OC'ing. Its basically a more stable chip, and goes through more quality control, since it was for the server end.

Though, don't let that fool ya, you can use the chip as a workstation, and no, you don't need server or ECC memory to run it.
March 23, 2007 10:42:08 PM

Quote:
So how much better would a Opteron 170 Denmark 2.0GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache be than a Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Toledo 2.2GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache?

Well, the difference is in overclocking; with the opty you will probably do 2.7-2.8GHz while with the X2 4200+ probably no more than 2.5-2.6GHz. If your motherboard can smoothly pull out 280 HTT, The Opteron170 is the best choice.
March 24, 2007 12:31:22 AM

Good idea using the Opteron; quite frankly, I hadn't considered that option. Assuming that it can overclock to clock speeds in the 2.6 GHz range, it's actually quite reasonable. It's going for $188 on NewEgg. I still wouldn't pay $170 for an X2 4200+ though.
March 24, 2007 12:32:38 AM

Well it was 150, 170 after tax...
March 24, 2007 12:48:20 AM

Do you have it up and running? What clock speed are you running it at? Are you glad you purchased it? Inquiring minds want to know!
March 25, 2007 7:04:19 PM

I had it up and running at 2.55GHz but I just ordered an Opteron 170 which I plan on clocking even higher. Like I said, I just want kind of a "best bang for the buck" CPU to hold me over before I do the mobo/cpu/ram upgrade a year or two from now. Plus I wanted a faster processor to keep up with my two 7800GTXs, I had a 64 XP 3700+ before and I could tell it was the bottleneck.
March 25, 2007 10:09:56 PM

Quote:
I had it up and running at 2.55GHz but I just ordered an Opteron 170 which I plan on clocking even higher. Like I said, I just want kind of a "best bang for the buck" CPU to hold me over before I do the mobo/cpu/ram upgrade a year or two from now. Plus I wanted a faster processor to keep up with my two 7800GTXs, I had a 64 XP 3700+ before and I could tell it was the bottleneck.


I don't think I'm following you...You ave a 3700+, a X2 4200+ clocked at 2.55 and you just ordered an Opteron 170 to get the best bang for your bucks??? I don't consider wise buying a chip that will clock 200mhz faster if you already have a x2 4200+
March 25, 2007 10:21:55 PM

What I did was decide on an Opteron 170 over a X2 4200.
March 25, 2007 10:37:18 PM

So, you sent back the x2. I see. But you didn't mention that.
March 25, 2007 10:59:43 PM

Quote:
So, you sent back the x2. I see. But you didn't mention that.


You can do that? Just cuz you didn't like it??

You must have had to pay a restocking fee or SOMETHING.
March 25, 2007 11:02:14 PM

You are right about the restocking fee, but it's worth the 20 bucks to get something I'll be happy with for the next couple years.
March 25, 2007 11:19:16 PM

I am still rocking my 3700+ and it sits at a rock solid 2800Mhz which is the speed of an FX-57 which still stomps on whatever i throw at it.

I highly suggest staying with your San Diego... its a great core that overclocks great... runs cool and although it only has one core, it performs very well.

Imagine how much more of a kickass cpu you could buy, for the same price as that 4200, if you waited just one more year.

Think about it...
I doubt your computer right now is a slug by any means.
March 26, 2007 12:17:48 AM

Quote:
One thing you may consider as a low cost alternative is the 3800 dual core. Tiger Direct has it for $99 USD after MIR (usual OC's to about 2.5 or 2.6). If not that then the Opty is the definite choice.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

Tiger direct? eww, read about them on the consumer somthing or other, or some buisness thing, they are baddd
March 26, 2007 12:28:14 AM

After several orders from Tiger I have had no issues (I usually order from the EGG though)
March 26, 2007 12:53:20 AM

Quote:
After several orders from Tiger I have had no issues (I usually order from the EGG though)


yeah, i orderd my first computer from them, and also a couple other parts.. but Ive heard and read the bad... I have ordered everything for my current comp from egg, and only the nearest PC club to get my old rig up and running quickly
!