3800+ X2 vs 4200+ X2

[Veech]

Hi all,

I'm a heavy gamer and am looking to upgrade my system.

I currently have a P4 3.0G, Asus P4C800-E, AIW9800 128MB video card, and 512MB RAM.

This system is 2 years old, and I want to upgrade it to play the latest games, such as FEAR, smoothly.

I have already purchased 2GB of RAM and will pop it in the current system as a temp fix. I am looking at upgrading to an Asus A8N-SLI board and a GTX video card, with the idea of getting a second GTX card down the road to utilise the SLI.

The question is, what CPU should I go for? Everyone is raving about the 3800+ X2. A quote below (from another thread) convinces me that dual-core is the way to go:

"The way I see it you are always multi-tasking. Playing a game while having an anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewall, and other programs such as FRAPs, or Ventrillo will undoubtebly favor a dual core system.

At this point in software and hardware development, why anyone would not buy a Dual Core chip when looking to buy a $300-400 processor is beyond me. "

Makes sense to me.

Now, I'm not a big overclocker and unless this 3800+ X2 is guaranteed to OC with no ill effects and no extra high maintenance (massive cooling, higher wattage PS, fiddling and tweaking settings for hours, etc) then I would just as soon pay a little extra for a higher rated CPU such as a 4200+ X2. I had first planned to get an Athlon64 4000, but now folks are recommending the 3800 X2. However, in games, I'm afraid the 3800 won't give the performance of a 4000+ or 4200+ X2, even when overclocked.

Right now on PriceWatch a 4000+ is $365, and a 4200+ X2 is $470. That's high, but I had budgeted the $365, and if adding $105 gets me dual-core and *faster* performance, I don't mind stretching a bit.

So the question is, does the Athlon64 4200+ X2 give as much, or even anywhere close to, bang for buck as the 3800+ X2? For a reluctant overclocker, is it a worthwhile purchase at this point?

Thanks...

 

[stevty2889]

Well my 4200+ X2 has no trouble running at 2.618ghz, with the stock cooler, and never gets above 51c under max load. The 3800+ X2 seems to get around 2.4-2.5ghz fairly well, but there are never any gurantees when overclocking. The 3800+ X2 is really the best bang for the buck. The video card has a much larger role in games than the CPU does, so while you aren't guranteed to reach 4000+ speeds with a 3800+ X2, the differance is really small enough that it won't be very noticable. I couldnt' go back to a single core after having this X2.

 

[PKing1977]

The dual core video drivers from Nvidia really work well. Also, FEAR should have dual core optinmizations. Thus, FEAR should play extremely well on a 3800+. However, the 4200+ is not bad as well

PKing

 

[AkumaX]

save $$$ and get X2 3800+

 

[Markfw]

from what I have seen, every X2 3800 has gone to at least 2300. 99% are at 2500 or better from what I have seen. Read the thread on the subject. As far as cooling, the MOST you would need is the $30 XP90 retail with the fan that comes on it ! And just do NOT set your vcore over 1.475 ! 1.45 to be safe since you don't want to OC much. crank it until you get problems, then go down 50-100. I don;t like to spend weeks to get my max OC, just minutes. Worked twice so far ! 24/7 for weeks with no problems at 100% both cores.

 

[Veech]

*ACK* I just realised... I purchased 2x 1GB Corsair VS1GB400C3 sticks, the cas3 value stuff. I called them and they said the VS stuff is less inclined to support OC'ing than their XMS sticks.. but of course the price difference to get XMS costs the same (or more) than the difference between a 3800+ and a 4200+.

Damn!

So all of this talk of overclocking the 3800+, is that done with plain ol' vanilla cas3 DDR400 RAM? Or does it require the fancy stuff?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

You can overclock fine with value ram, just use a memory divider. High speed (overclocked) ram provides very little performance anyway.

 

[Fallengod]

an opteron at 3ghz is best bang 4 buck fyi.

 

[Veech]

Originally posted by: modempower
an opteron at 3ghz is best bang 4 buck fyi.

?? Those are mucho dinero...

 

[alimoalem]

x2 3800 is the bang for buck processor but if you have the cash, nothing wrong with buying a cpu that's faster at stock to overclock to even higher speeds later on

 

[lopri]

I have a slightly different view. I think the decision should be between 3800+ and 4400+, not between 3800+ and 4200+.

Reason: Extra Cache.

Unfortunately there is not X2 4000+, and the first 1MB L2 cache is available from 4400+. I know it will even more extend your budget (yeah.. we've all been there) but in the long term, the extra cache will pay off especially for gaming.

So if you want to save and enjoy some awesome overclocking (not guaranteed, however - especially with A8N-SLI), go with the 3800+. If your budget allows and you want a better futureproff along with a peace of mind, go with 4400+.

lop

 

[PKing1977]

The extra cashe has been shown not to give that great of a performance boost in applications. Sure there is a slight diffrence, but not enough of the one that a slight OC wont make up for. When I got my X2, I did not have the option of the 3800+, so I got the cheapest one I could. If cost is a concern, then the 3800+ will be the best option. Even at stock speeds this chip will run games really well.

PKing

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: PKing1977
The extra cashe has been shown not to give that great of a performance boost in applications. Sure there is a slight diffrence, but not enough of the one that a slight OC wont make up for. When I got my X2, I did not have the option of the 3800+, so I got the cheapest one I could. If cost is a concern, then the 3800+ will be the best option. Even at stock speeds this chip will run games really well.

PKing

Indeed you're agreeing with me. (unless you're having a buyer's remorse *joke* *JOKE*)

Please note that I'm not arguing the fact: CPU MHz matters. If you're fairly certain that you can get the same/higher level of OC from 3800+/4200+, by all means go for it. And from the same sense, there is not much to argue. He should just pick up a 3800+ and OC it.

But he's contemplating between 3800+ vs 4200+. And I'm suggesting that 3800+ vs 4400+ would make a better *contemplating* since the choice between 3800+ vs 4200+ is fairly obvious. (or not?)

Remember that AMD names differently and charges more for the extra L2 cache. Like you said, there IS a difference.

lop

 

[drifter106]

Nice thread...I to am torn between the 3800 vs the 4400. It will be used for gaming and video encoding (camcorder to pc to edit to burn). Anyway, is the extra cache on the 4400 going to give a substantial improvement? Even 5 to 10% would be valuable in working with video files. Paying the extra $150 would be a pretty good trade off in the long run if I knew the cache would help.

thanks people for all the good and responsible threads here!!!

jd

 

[PKing1977]

I cant remember the review, but I think it was an anandtech review that put the 4200 and the 4400 up to see just how much the extra cashe impacted performance. The result was more in the line of 2 - 4% because AMDs memory controler is very good, so L2 cashe does not impact performance on an AMD like it does on an intel chip.

PKing

 

[Aznguy1872]

X2-3800 hands down.

 

[Mucker]

My picks:

Single core, 939 Opteron 146, $215 shipped: http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=OS146BNBOX

Dual core, X2 3800, $347 shipped: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a...62&ATT=Processors&CMP=OTC-pr1c3grabb3r

You'll want to put at least a little OC on these, it's a crime not to

m

 

[Cheesetogo]

Originally posted by: Mucker
My picks:

Single core, 939 Opteron 146, $215 shipped: http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=OS146BNBOX

Dual core, X2 3800, $347 shipped: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a...62&ATT=Processors&CMP=OTC-pr1c3grabb3r

You'll want to put at least a little OC on these, it's a crime not to

m

When did they come out with socket 939 opterons? Are you sure that site is right?

 

[lopri]

Hey.. You're a bit late to the party. (Not that I joined)

Look here

 

[TheGingerbreadGenius]

This thread is so close to what I was going to post I'll do it here instead if that's allowed...

I'm looking to build a new PC to satisfy my gaming ego (right now I'm stuck on an 800Mhz AMD with a Gforce 4. Not pretty.) and I'm dithering as to a processor. I'll be going AMD since I simply refuse to buy Intel on ethical grounds etc. I'd originally planned to get a 4000+ single core or whatever AMD 64bit single core processor I could afford (I'm looking on www.overclockers.co.uk at the moment). I'm fairly sure I can afford a 4000+, but then I noticed that the difference price-wise between that and a 3800+ Dual core is less than £5.

The thing with the PC I'm building is that I really don't want to have to upgrade much for quite a while. Mainly because it's not my cash. My parents aren't gonna want to even HEAR about a PC budget after this. So, with future-proofing in mind, which is the wiser choice: The 3800X2 or the 4000+?

I reckon I'll mostly be gaming on this thing, though I DO want to get the most out of it I can, so I'll be teaching myself how to programme in a few languages as well and might even start mucking around with stuff like The GIMP, but I won't be doing it all that much at the same time.

How is the 3800X2 for gaming? From what I'm reading here it's pretty good, but I'm curious as to how it fares against a 4000+. It does worse I'm guessing, but not by a huge amount. In short:

Would the 3800X2 do well enough in games nowdays (paired with a 7800GT) to keep me happy for a while and when Dual Core optimised applications come out will it still be comparatively fast enough to kick ass and chew bubblegum? 'Cos I don't want to buy the 4000+ now and be left weeping when Dual Core optimised stuff leaves it behind in the dust.


I am probably looking to OC this stuff, but I'd like to see how they perform against each other without OCing first 'cos the OCing isn't guaranteed.


First post too. I'm basically just here to ask Qs from time to time and learn from this place.

 

[Mucker]

Hardly scientific, but promising so far: http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=415237&highlight=opteron

 

[Fallengod]

as I said already. A 939 $200 opteron at 3ghz is definitely the best bang 4 buck IMO. In gaming especially, thats going to be faster than an x2...or at least the low "cheap" ones.

Btw thanks for the url muck. THats interesting to see. I didnt think the SD's were still able to get that high.

When did they come out with socket 939 opterons? Are you sure that site is right?

Where have you been cheese?

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: TheGingerbreadGenius
This thread is so close to what I was going to post I'll do it here instead if that's allowed...

I'm looking to build a new PC to satisfy my gaming ego (right now I'm stuck on an 800Mhz AMD with a Gforce 4. Not pretty.) and I'm dithering as to a processor. I'll be going AMD since I simply refuse to buy Intel on ethical grounds etc. I'd originally planned to get a 4000+ single core or whatever AMD 64bit single core processor I could afford (I'm looking on www.overclockers.co.uk at the moment). I'm fairly sure I can afford a 4000+, but then I noticed that the difference price-wise between that and a 3800+ Dual core is less than £5.

The thing with the PC I'm building is that I really don't want to have to upgrade much for quite a while. Mainly because it's not my cash. My parents aren't gonna want to even HEAR about a PC budget after this. So, with future-proofing in mind, which is the wiser choice: The 3800X2 or the 4000+?

I reckon I'll mostly be gaming on this thing, though I DO want to get the most out of it I can, so I'll be teaching myself how to programme in a few languages as well and might even start mucking around with stuff like The GIMP, but I won't be doing it all that much at the same time.

How is the 3800X2 for gaming? From what I'm reading here it's pretty good, but I'm curious as to how it fares against a 4000+. It does worse I'm guessing, but not by a huge amount. In short:

Would the 3800X2 do well enough in games nowdays (paired with a 7800GT) to keep me happy for a while and when Dual Core optimised applications come out will it still be comparatively fast enough to kick ass and chew bubblegum? 'Cos I don't want to buy the 4000+ now and be left weeping when Dual Core optimised stuff leaves it behind in the dust.


I am probably looking to OC this stuff, but I'd like to see how they perform against each other without OCing first 'cos the OCing isn't guaranteed.


First post too. I'm basically just here to ask Qs from time to time and learn from this place.

In pure single core apps, an X2 is going to perform almost exactly like a 3200+. However, it should perform a bit better, due to the fact that you can run all your BG apps (AV Firewall AIM MP3, etc) on one core and devote all the resources to the game with the other core.

Plus, I haven't seen an OC less than 2.4GHz, which is the same speed as a 4000+, just the dual core has 512K less cache, but that doesn't make that much of a difference, 2 to 4 percent.

Seriously, you'll regret going with the 4000+ a couple of years from now...

 

[Mucker]

Take a look at eva2000's results here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1092690&postcount=22

Remember, this is a $160, 1MB cache cpu, 1106 MHz overclock at 1.52 Vcore

games should run pretty well there

 

[Fallengod]

Thats insane. I cant wait until monarch carries those 146 939 oems for $175. Im so on that. Like white on rice!