Help with CPU Decision

InFuZiOn · Post by **InFuZiOn** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:24 pm

Ok some of you know that I won the MSI motherboard for folding for LR. Well now its time for the decision of what CPU and video card to drop in. I'll figure out a videocard on my own but I'm not sure whether I should spend $415 For a X2 3800+ Manchester or spend $389 on a 4000+ ClawHammer...... Will I notice a large difference in the dual core CPU's or no because if not I'll save myself some money and go with the 4000+. Help me out here guys

Nobahar · Post by **Nobahar** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:56 pm

Eh, They're both overpriced for me- cpu's start at 500 but quickly drop in price initially. The ones in 400's are too high for me too, I'd find something in the 250 range.

If you buy either of those cpu's it's worth more than my entire system lol (monitor included, CRT :p)

jtm55 · Post by **jtm55** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:02 pm

Hi InFuziOn,

AMD's X2 3800+ will be great for multitasking, and once programs are written to take advantage of Dual core processors you'll really be set. In addition, the X2 3800+ is no slouch at gaming either, and there's only a nominal difference in cost. For me, I'd go with the X2 3800+.

One4yu2c · Post by **One4yu2c** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:11 pm

Out of those two, I'd also go the dual-core route.

LVCapo · Post by **LVCapo** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:11 pm

I'm working on a part 2 to my 3800+ article (I was crunched for time in the first one, had only three days to test it and write it up).
this article is going to be 100% overclocking. right now i've been running the 3800+ at 2.7, with the memory running 5:6 (225 FSB @ 2-3-2-5). Here are a few benches to give you an idea
Cinebench Multi- 36 seconds
3DMark05- 6473
Sandra ALU- 22806
there will be a lot more benches in the article, and a lot more overclocking scenarios (I'm waiting on maxtor to fix my HDDs).
In the end, I think the 3800 is an excellent processor. Overpriced? Definitely, but its a hot ticket, and companies are going to gouge you for the next couple of weeks/months until the sales cool a bit.

shwA · Post by **shwA** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:37 am

I'd go with the 3800+ too...

gvblake22 · Post by **gvblake22** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 5:18 am

Yeah, the 3800 X2 would be a great choice. As capper mentioned, waiting a few weeks to a month will surely bring the price down. Every little bit helps!

But yeah, if you are willing to spend the $$, you might as well go Dual Core and reap the benefits of true a multitasking system. As far as overclocking, obviously capper got his to 2.7Ghz, but I've also seen other results and it seems consistant to get about 2.6Ghz. With the 4000 San Diego, you can probably expect a little more, but I don't think it won't be able to compete with the Manchester at 2.6.

Sovereign · Post by **Sovereign** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:57 am

From what I have seen in reviews, the 3800+ X2 OCs like a beast...so get that and a good cooler. [envy]Hello dual 2.6GHz...[/envy]

LVCapo · Post by **LVCapo** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:46 pm

I've seen 2.95GHz on a few forums, but i have to question stability or longevity there. My best stable O/C is 2.7GHz. Most others are in the 2.6-2.7 range as well.
With a good cooling setup and some nice memory, this processor screams.

Zeratul · Post by **Zeratul** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:35 pm

It depends on what your going to be doing. If you'll be gaming go with the 4000+ but if your going to be doing alot of multitasking go with the X2... It wont be as fast for applications such as games, encdoing etc... but it is more future proof.

I would choose the X2.

palm521 · Post by **palm521** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:38 pm

well if you aiming for dual core get the 3800+ this wiill be proven to be more efficient in the future, when games and aplication starts using the dual core//

if u going for single core..
go for a venice cpu... even a 3000+ can handle 2.8ghz without problems and at 52 celcius on stock cooling.

so dont go for 4000+ in single core.. a 3000+ o 3200+ will do the job at those speeds

Zeratul · Post by **Zeratul** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:50 pm

palm521 wrote:well if you aiming for dual core get the 3800+ this wiill be proven to be more efficient in the future, when games and aplication starts using the dual core//

if u going for single core..
go for a venice cpu... even a 3000+ can handle 2.8ghz without problems and at 52 celcius on stock cooling.

so dont go for 4000+ in single core.. a 3000+ o 3200+ will do the job at those speeds

Not unless you plan on overclocking the 4000+. You can get the AMD 4000+ to 3.0 ghz easy and out perform an overclocked 3000+ or 3200+ greatly.

LVCapo · Post by **LVCapo** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:29 pm

I wouldn't buy a single core processor anymore. Now that dual core is on the market, things have been set in motion for more games and apps to implement it. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to buy yesterdays CPU at regualer prices when you can get the best new thing on the block and see a noticable increase in performance.
If you have ever had an AMD CPU then you know how badly they handle running more than one app at a time, the dual core fixes that, and after playing with a 3800+ for a little over a week now, I have alternately run it at 2.4 and 2.7 without too much effort and it is a pretty snappy chip.
If your mind is set on a single core processor, I'd only recommend a 3200, because of the price, or a 3700, because it still has the 1MB of cache, its cheaper than the 4000 while offering comparable performance.

infinitevalence · Post by **infinitevalence** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:46 pm

dual core is the way to go. After spending a week testing the 4400+ X2 all i can say is wow. its worth every penny in my mind. Now if you are very straped for cash then i can understand going single core.