Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3800 X2 or 4000 San Diego?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 16, 2005 5:28:34 AM

I've been reading many opinions on many sites on what to do here and it seems to be a 50/50 split of opinions for people with the same dilema as me.
I've have decided to lay my cards on the table and hope you guys can aid me in making the best decision based on my computer use.

System Specs
Amd 3500 (overclocked to 2530 when gaming)
6800GT
4x512mb Corsair Valueram
2x250gb Maxtor Diamondmax 10 Sata (raid0)

I can not decide what to get. My choices are the 3800X2 (dual core) or the San Diego 4000 Single Core.
I spend about 4 hours each day on my computer. It's use is broken down like this,
any time the computer is on (about 5 days a week) I'm using at least 1 downloading program while:

25% browsing internet (rarely while listing to an mp3 at the same time)
25% watching video files from HD downloads (occasionaly High definition .wmv files)
20% Gaming
10% listening to MP3's
10% doing routine maintanance like defrag, spyware scan and moving files to correct partitions, unzipping files and testing downloads, installing zips, ect.
5% Burning a CD or emulating to Virtual disks
5% Video encoding to burn to dvd.

I have a Dual Boot system with about 8 partions on the raid array as so:

Xp-64 13g
Xp-32 10g
Games 60g
Apps 20g
Downlds 80g
Movies 80g
Videos 60g
MP3 40g

I am particularly fond of overclocking my system to it's max when Gaming which requires me to interupt my donwloading by reseting my computer and going
into the BIOS. Keep in mind that I downclock my computer to 1ghz for energy conservation while downloading.

Max overclock is:
CPU 2530
Ram 214 (4x512mb PC3200) 2.5/3/3/8 (2T) (everest bandwith at overclock results 5900 read/1900 write)
6800GT (418/1100)

I feel that there may be a slight bottleneck even with my CPU overclocked. I feel there would be a noticable performace gain using a San Diego 4000.
However I feel that there will be a performance loss of 5-10% on gaming if I buy a 3800X2 according to all the benchmarks I've compared.
Also, since nvidia came out with those new Dual core beta drivers which work on SOME games it seems that there is a 2-4% performance increase. Net result
seems like about 5% loss in performance if I chose Dual core compared to possibly up to 10% gain using the 4000.
The gaming issue is a significant deciding factor for me in my final decision. But the dual core advantages are something that I consider too. I'm confused on which outweighs the other given my use of the computer. I'm not concerned about 1 or 2 years from now with games being multi-thread. I care only about the advantages of each processor today.

In addition their is a current memory controller issue with my 3500 Clawhammer sometimes. I have to be careful about using all 4 sticks of ram and what I set the divider to. I have no problem with it anymore as I currently know what works and doesn't work. Will I have this problem with the 3800 x2 or the 4000
San Diego?
Could some of you, especially the ones who have upgraded from a 3500 (clawhammer or any other core) to a 3800 X2 or 4000 San Diego give me your own
personal advise and experience on which to purchase.
Thank You.

I'm planning on selling this 3500, and maybe the ram for a cheap price while replacing it with 2 x 1g sticks for better performance in the future too. Anybody interested in that can talk with me as well.



<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by scwam on 10/16/05 01:33 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : 3800 4000 san diego

October 16, 2005 6:19:29 AM

Too bad it's not an abit board. They supply a version of clockgen that is so good for changeing speed in windows.
You are stuck with the old fashioned one, all you have to do is google for it.
Clockgen will allow you to change chip speed in windows, so you dont have to reboot.
Neither chip will do much for you. At your present OC, you are getting about as much power as you possibly could today.
Then again, you could get one of the s939 opterons. You may get a better OC with one of those.
October 16, 2005 7:04:54 AM

Man, I forgot to mention I have an Abit Av8 939. I have not checked that clockgen program. I'll look for it.
Regarding the upgrade. I'm hoping that its not only the overclock that will help me, but more important maybe the architecture of the 4000 that would improve the gaming performance compared with the advantages of the Manchester using the multi-apps. From what you say it seems that clockspeed is the biggest factor over the core type?
Related resources
October 16, 2005 9:30:23 AM

Sweet. Its called uguru. You have the decoder on your mobo. Just load the prog off the mobo cd. It gives you a default setting, and 3 presets. If I were you, I would work from the underclocked bios, as that should give you more range.
Wusy is right, the 4000+ is overpriced, and generally has the same OC limit as the 3700+.
The extra cache does help, but then the opteron has it as well. They use the venus core, which is basicly the same die cut as the FX chips. Top binning, and all that. People who have tried them are getting great OCs. A 146 holds the record now for OCs on A64s. It retails for about $200.
October 18, 2005 9:05:08 AM

If your 6800GT pleases you i'd get the 3800+X2. most people are hitting 2.5 ghz with ease on the stock cooler. If u want the 1meg cach thing. I'd suggest the 146 or 148 939 opty with some mem that will hit @ least 250.(2x1gig crucial ballistix for EI)

The know-most-of-it-all formally known as BOBSHACK
!