3800+ vs X2 3800+

G

G66

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
155
is there a massive performance difference between the 3800+ X2 and the normal 3800+
cause I'm buying a 2nd pc (budget LAN, for games) and I want to know.
 
"lot of software"? As of January 2007, you could say vast majority of software is not multi-threaded.

As for performance, for instance: a plain single core 4000+ outperforms a dual-core 4200+ in many benchmarks (up to 20% or more in some benchmarks). This is documented.
 
No wonder everybody hates AMD now a days. Way to give the guy crappy advice. Dual core is the way to go kid.
 
Agree with above.

Quad cores are coming out, and most of the line up from
AMD and Intel are Dual-cores.

The gaming and software/apps industry will follow suit.

Dual-core is the only way to go.

Additionally, 3800+ X2 is a nice overclocker.

Just read up on OCing threads on your spare time and
OC that sucker to the GHz you want (with in reasonable limits of coure ;) )
 
"everybody hates AMD"

You speak for everyone? Who is everybody? Intel shareholders?

"the gaming and software/apps industry will follow suit."


They haven't yet, and until they do, dual-core, quad-core, or even octal-core CPUs will remain a pointless and from an end-user and everyday consumer viewpoint, a wasteful "look-at-what-I-gotz" technology.

Dual-core or multi-core technology to be specific, just shows how much IT world has regressed. They are simply out of ideas. There is no innovation left. Anyone remember 3DFX's Voodoo5 6000? I do.

20011024-02.jpg


20040929003.jpg



This card (photos above) never went retail. Only limited sample versions were produced. It has a total of 4 cores and requires an external power source. (Not internal, it needs an AC adapter. Although it could be modified to draw power from a standard PC PSU) 3DFX was going to declare bankruptcy, but they got bought out by nvidia before they could. Can you guess why things got so bad for 3DFX? I can: no innovation left. Nivida's much smaller, single core cards could run circles around the latest 3dfx offerings. (picture below)

971612188.gif


Voodoo5 5500 did go retail (photo below). It only had two cores, but it was massive. Produced right before 3DFX went away


P6120040.jpg


You want benchmarks. Go to TomsHardware and check it out. Plain old single core 4000+ kills the dual-core 4200+.
 
Yup; for games, single-cores are faster (at least for now). I would have gotten a single-core 3800+ for my gaming computer too if it weren't for the fact that Conroe outperformed everything by such a ridiculous margin. Still, quad-cores are useless when even dual-core processors are not fully utilized. The X6800 is generally faster than the QX6700 by a good margin except in specialized benchmarking programs. There will be more software that takes advantage of multiple cores in the near future, but by then there will be new processors and the people who were willing to buy quad-core processors today will have upgraded since they're mostly interested in achieving high benchmark scores. Anyways, if you're on a tight budget and you're using that thing only for gaming, go for the single-core. If you might do other work with it, a dual-core might be worth it since the X2 3800+ is cheap, anyway.

Go to Tom's Hardware and check out their CPU charts. They're not inaccurate, despite what people say.
 
CurrentlyNotHere said:
"lot of software"? As of January 2007, you could say vast majority of software is not multi-threaded.

As for performance, for instance: a plain single core 4000+ outperforms a dual-core 4200+ in many benchmarks (up to 20% or more in some benchmarks). This is documented.
Click to expand...

I wonder why a A64 4000+ (2.4GHz, 1MB L2) will outperform a A64 x2 4200+ (2.2GHz, 512KBx2)? Maybe the extra 200MHz and 1MB for just one core that isn't split? Even though one would think that a 4200 would mean more MHz than a 4000 by being a bigger number and all. I'm sure if you bump the x2 4200 up to 2.4 you'd be looking at more of a TIE on single threaded apps.

Already its pointed out that there is no real reason for going quad yet since the majority of programs still aren't multithreaded, even games, but by the end of this year alot of that should change, then it will become much more tempting to move to quad which should also should be cheaper at that time. Maybe a Q6600 for $300-400?

As for what the OP wanted to know, its not massively gonna be different until you start using a majority of SMP aware apps. Which if on a budget will still make the 3800+ a good choice.
 
CurrentlyNotHere said:
You want benchmarks. Go to TomsHardware and check it out. Plain old single core 4000+ kills the dual-core 4200+.
Click to expand...

Don't ever cite TomsHardware. It's like using Wikipedia as a valid source for a dissertation. They have continually shown benchmarks that make no sense, and have lost all of my (and the vast majority of [H] goers) trust. I'm not challenging the validity of what you say (in single threaded apps that is).

So, in order to answer the OP's question: In single threaded applications (currently most games) the 3800X2 will perform more slowly. However, we currently have a few games like Quake 4 engined games (Quake 4, Quake Wars), Call of Duty 2, soon to be all Source powered games, Crysis, Alan Wake etc. which all benefit from multiple cores.

To be honest, I wouldn't build a system today that wasn't dual core. I would purchase the 3800X2 and overclock it to have the best of both worlds.

In fact, even if this is just a cheapo LAN rig, I would go for the 3800X2 so that you can host games on the same machine without having to worry about slowdown.
 
plus, as mentioned above, the software will inevitably follow the hardware
 
why would you go single core?

Dual cores dropped in price a long while ago.

If i had a choice back then, I would definitely go with a dual core, in the long run I'm sure all games will utilize the two cores.

looking at your current rig... I'm sure a dual core wouldn't do much harm to your budget.
 
CurrentlyNotHere said:
Dual-core or multi-core technology to be specific, just shows how much IT world has regressed. They are simply out of ideas. There is no innovation left. Anyone remember 3DFX's Voodoo5 6000? I do.
Click to expand...

Just as a point of interest, I think that is a very poor analogy. You say this as though microprocessor architecture doesn't change along with the transition to more cores. Netburst to Conroe proved to be one hell of a boost, and all of that was all because of a change in the technology.

We need/want multiple cores now because single cores cannot handle anything past one thread at a time. If we want true multitasking, we'll need true multicore parts. It is a logical progression, and isn't the slapdash thing the Voodoo 5 series was.
 
well that was quite a debate...but...I think ive made a decision

loads a mates + 4 pc's with X2 3800+'s = Happy LAN party

soz oldie [H]core single threaders... you lose (quoted from team america say in same style)

+ "way to go kid" this is processor selection not karati training...

thanks for the voodoo analogy it was flaud but it does bring round a very potent issue; where next? and in what way?

we can go faster or we can go wider (like most people on this forum, no offence)...
 
You want a better analogy? Just imagine if somebody produced a hover vehicle, one that could levitate and all that. Pretty nice eh? But problem is, there is no infrastructure to handle any hover vehicles, or hover vehicle traffic. There is no hover air traffic control, no refueling stations, or service centers. In addition, these new hover cars cost much more than your average normal car.

So yes, multi-core tech is ahead of its time. So much, that it does not make any sense in today's world.

As for multi-core technology in general. We have Intel to thank for this nonsense. They basically answered a question nobody asked.

Anyways, flawed analogy or not, they (Intel) pushed this technology for the same reasons 3DFX released their multi-core monstrosities. They were getting their ass beat by their competition, except it didn't work out that well for 3DFX. Like I said, they basically answered a question nobody asked. They held back the industry with this move for years. Sure, dual CPUs, or quad, or octal, etc, can perform under certain conditions, if the software is there, but its not. In addition worst thing AMD did was get into the multi-core technology race.

All the resources spent could have been used to improve the current single core technology, and once proper software (infrastructure) was available, multi-core CPUs would have made more sense.

As for the cost, I was able to pick up a single core 4000+ for $85 on newegg during their Christmas sale ($99 now), and another one for $95 before the sale. At $85, there is no way you can beat it in the "bang-for-buck" category. Nearest available dual core chip was a 4200+, for $150 ($151 now). Nearly twice the price does not justify the performance gap, especially when plain old single core beats that chip on many benchmarks, up to 20% or more. So, in effect you pay almost twice as much and get a slower chip.... I mean, common-sense-wise?
 
Nay say and throw benchmarks around all you want. Anyones that's ever run a dual core isn't running back to singles. My old [email protected] cost me 200 bucks when I bought it. My current Opty [email protected] cost me 250 bucks a month ago. It may be a little slower on the single threaded benchmarks, but the overall system smoothness isn't something you can rate with little numbers on a chart. I'll take a slower dual core over a faster single core system anyday.
 
well what the dude said above is true too.

However, people have more and more apps running
in the background and foreground these days, and
dual-cores do help.

I multi-task, and often use multiple multimedia programs
at once, such as liquid apps (pro 7), adobe apps (premier, photoshop, illustrator)
cakewalk (sonar), etc. and I couldn't imagine using a single
core for doing this.
 
CurrentlyNotHere said:
So yes, multi-core tech is ahead of its time. So much, that it does not make any sense in today's world.

As for multi-core technology in general. We have Intel to thank for this nonsense. They basically answered a question nobody asked.
Click to expand...

Nonsense?! So you're saying that nobody realizes any performance benefits from dual core setups? You really must not use systems to their potential...

Anything to do with multimedia (video encoding, photo manipulation, archive extraction, audio encoding, etc.) shows a massive benefit with multiple cores, some games (soon to be most games) already show framerate improvements, and the entire system is much more usable, quick, and responsive when running multiple programs.

As I said before, this isn't just a simple process of bolting more of the same processors together. They fit within reasonable power envelopes (i.e. not like the V5 6k), and we are continuing to improve architectures. Notice that Intel left Netburst, and AMD left K7 (and soon K8), and they'll both continue on with newer and more efficient architectures in the future. There is most definitely still a drive to innovate, the case in point was Intel finally giving up the 10ghz pipe dream with Netburst.

I agree that there is a price difference, and that if you are working with an ultra-tight budget (or building something just to check email/surf the web) single cores are certainly winners in the bang vs buck category. Beyond that though, I think you are doing a disservice to yourself by going single core nowadays. For the OP especially, he can now host games on the same machine he plays on without having to worry about a drop in the framerate.

pigwalk said:
Nay say and throw benchmarks around all you want. Anyones that's ever run a dual core isn't running back to singles. My old [email protected] cost me 200 bucks when I bought it. My current Opty [email protected] cost me 250 bucks a month ago. It may be a little slower on the single threaded benchmarks, but the overall system smoothness isn't something you can rate with little numbers on a chart. I'll take a slower dual core over a faster single core system anyday.
Click to expand...

Your Opteron is faster in single threaded apps too man; it's clocked faster than the old single core proc.
 
so while on a single thread the dual core processor has a processor spare. does this get used for background stuff or does it do nothing. Does this help with hosting games? can the pc play the single threaded game with on cpu core then host the server with the other. cause OMFG that would be usefull
 
so while on a single thread the dual core processor has a processor spare. does this get used for background stuff or does it do nothing. Does this help with hosting games? can the pc play the single threaded game with on cpu core then host the server with the other. cause OMFG that would be usefull
 
G66 said:
so while on a single thread the dual core processor has a processor spare. does this get used for background stuff or does it do nothing. Does this help with hosting games? can the pc play the single threaded game with on cpu core then host the server with the other. cause OMFG that would be usefull
Click to expand...

Not to sound rude, but did you read my posts? That was one of the main reasons why a dual core proc is such an advantage for LAN games: you can host the game on the same machine while running the game to play and you've got processing power left to spare.
 
I didn't know that single core processors were still being made.

I also thought this argument was settled a fewy years ago, go dual core (or more).
 
People evangelizing single cores make me laugh. Get a clue folks, the world has moved on around you. Apps dont have to be multithreaded for you to see benefits from having the extra core in any variety of multi-tasking you might do. Sure it would be NICE if more stuff were multithreaded, but multi-cores make computing life easier in so many ways.
 
just go dual core because if you are going AM2 which I assume you are (Im too lazy to read) the price of a new 3800 x2 is $133 at ClubIT I believe.
 
just ordered my new pc with an x2 3800+ bargin £460 (bout $900 I think)
 
Maybe the extra 200MHz and 1MB for just one core that isn't split?
Click to expand...

What? Do you know ANYTHING? AMDs cache is not shared like intel. X2's have cache for each core, it's not split.

Graphics drivers are optimized for dual core and see a performance gain, out of gaming performance is light years better, background tasks will be offloaded, and games are quickly going multithreaded. Only a fucking idiot would recommend a single core in 2007.
 
One more reply of multicore all the way. AM2 will get a Quad Core processor before the end of the year to, in the form of the Budapest core.

I have two systems that I use on a daily basis; one is a dual core (laptop) one is a single core 4000+ @ 2.5. The dual core always feels faster to me, because I am the type of user that always has something going on. It is entirely possible to play a game on the dual core with a few windows of firefox and Office thrown open in the back ground. Obviously, many people close down everything to get the most frames per second that they can, but it works fine for me. My 4000+ seems more sluggish when I have my usual bunch of apps flung open.

I just bought an X2 4200+ for another system I'm putting together to overclock. I wouldn't build a new system with a single core, nor would I suggest that someone else do so. It's not good advice.
 
Why dual core?

- Burning DVD
- Encoding a divx movie
- Playing F.E.A.R

All at the same time.. Enough said.
 
CurrentlyNotHere said:
"everybody hates AMD"

You speak for everyone? Who is everybody? Intel shareholders?

"the gaming and software/apps industry will follow suit."


They haven't yet, and until they do, dual-core, quad-core, or even octal-core CPUs will remain a pointless and from an end-user and everyday consumer viewpoint, a wasteful "look-at-what-I-gotz" technology.
Click to expand...

Not True. The next Unreal Engine will be mult-threaded.

Besides Windows XP will auto-load ballance your processor by sending different applications to different cores. If you run more then one processor at the same time your will benifit. I usually have a browser open and have my game up at the same time. Very helpful.
CurrentlyNotHere said:
This card (photos above) never went retail. Only limited sample versions were produced. It has a total of 4 cores and requires an external power source. (Not internal, it needs an AC adapter.
Click to expand...

Your comparing a card/concept that came out over 7 years ago with technology that is out today - that in itself should be your first warning. I won't chastize you for pointing out a card that draws less power then today's high end GPU's. The external powersupply was only needed because the average PSU during that time was around 300 watts. Today's top cards require 500+ watt powersupplys. You also realize you can get the next quad-cores for as low as 65W for the entire chip? Thats 16.25 Watts a CPU! Much less then any single core chip today.

The industry has realized instead of going for the higher clock / heat output its much better to go with more cores. They are thinking in 2 dimensions now and bumping clock speed and capability at the same time.

Consumer applications will follow suit ... it will just take time.
 
w1retap said:
Why dual core?

- Burning DVD
- Encoding a divx movie
- Playing F.E.A.R

All at the same time.. Enough said.
Click to expand...
Who's lacking so much time, while gaming even lol, that they have to do all three of those things at the same time?
Only a fucking idiot would recommend a single core in 2007.
Click to expand...
My uncle loves the single core, "outdated" S939 system I just built for him for $400. Only an idiot pigeon holes the performance needs of all users, wasting money on unused technology. In two years from now, I'll buy him a dual core CPU and extra gig of RAM and it'll be a nice performance jump and cost dirt. Keep buying the new stuff so I can buy your "worthless" old stuff. Thanks!
 
tuskenraider said:
Who's lacking so much time, while gaming even lol, that they have to do all three of those things at the same time?
Click to expand...

That's sounds like admittance that single core processors are incapable of doing this. That's like trying to say, "lol why do you want to download that movie so fast with broadband? What's so wrong with 56K?"

My 3500+ just bricks if I do anything like Anti-Virus or encoding videos. Want to surf the internet or play a game while this is going on? Oh hell no, wait about 5 minutes, and just maybe it'll consider working for you.

My crappy, bottom of the barrel, first generation dual-core Pentium D 820, on the other hand, has no problem with doing all of these things.

I'm upgrading the 3500+ to a X2 4600+ on Friday. I will notice a huge difference where I need it to, especially with video editing, encoding, and multi-tasking.
 
tuskenraider said:
Only an idiot pigeon holes the performance needs of all users, wasting money on unused technology.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that, and I think that is one of the biggest issues enthusiasts have when recommending parts of building someone a new system.

In my opinion, for a gamer/enthusiast/workstation user or anyone running very intensive apps who often multitasks, I wouldn't recommend anything less than a dual core proc. However, for someone like my parents (who enjoy Excel, Word, Firefox, and burning CDs/copying pictures :D ) I can build them a computer costing significantly less than a dual core system which still affords them far more power than they need.

With prices having dropped so much on dual core systems I think they are becoming much more viable (than when they were still $300 minimum), but there are still many situation where a single core processor is still the best solution. Carefully assess the needs of who you are building for, and build accordingly.
 
i've had dual core for a year now. but i went to a sempron for a few months while waiting for K8L to come out.

I mostly play some games that aren't FPS. My sempron is doing just fine while oc'd to mid 2ghz range. I spent the money saved on a better video card for now.

But definitely, if you're into encoding, lots of multitasking, then dualcore is golden (or quad).

nothing wrong with single core. it still does stuff just fine. I thought it was gonna lag like a mofo when i downgraded, but it was still quite snappy (not AS snappy), but good enough by far. And now my gf has a better computer than i Do (CPU-wise) ahhaa
 
G66 said:
so while on a single thread the dual core processor has a processor spare. does this get used for background stuff or does it do nothing. Does this help with hosting games? can the pc play the single threaded game with on cpu core then host the server with the other. cause OMFG that would be usefull
Click to expand...

Yes, you can run a dedicated server and the game client at the same time. This is about the only good use of dual-core for gaming atm.
 
My turn. Just an FYI but I can tell you for a fact that Quake 4 runs better on a dc proc. I tested mine last night.
 
GlimmerMan said:
Yes, you can run a dedicated server and the game client at the same time. This is about the only good use of dual-core for gaming atm.
Click to expand...

Except for games that are multi-threaded and except for the fact that NVidia drivers are now multi-threaded and except for the fact that the OS is multi-threaded.

This "debate" is silly. SMP systems are ancient. Multi-proc systems have been around forever and the advantages, and scale limiations, of processor scale out have been known and fairly well understood forever as well.

Anyone who has worked in technology for a while has been architecting multi-proc systems for high CPU load applications for years.

Gaming has just stagnated because it is a consumer application and multi-socket systems were out of the hands of the vast majority of consumers. No point in coding for a platform that isnt in your demographic.

Today, multi-CPU systems are a commodity with multi-core single package CPUs. In addition, the consoles are now multi-core. Game programmers are lazy and slow to adapt, but they will definitely take advantage of hardware that is there - to look at it cynically, it gives them yet another excuse to not optimize :)

Short of a case where you are building a system for general use where cost is the MAIN object, I cant see why anyone wouldnt just build a dual-core. It wont be long before the single cores cost MORE than the dual since they will just be excess inventory (if that hasnt already happened).

For the life of me I cant understand why anyone would want to argue passionately against muli-core procs. Thats just very strange unless it is to rationalize a recent and substantial investment in a single core. If thats the case, you have to get over it. Ive been there too... There is plenty of life left for single cores already in use, but that doesnt mean it is a responsible recommendation to tell someone to buy one NOW.
 
That's sounds like admittance that single core processors are incapable of doing this. That's like trying to say, "lol why do you want to download that movie so fast with broadband? What's so wrong with 56K?"
Click to expand...
Not at all. It means I like my attention to be focused at the task at hand. I consider gaming leisure time, and therefore don't need to be doing other things while playing a game. If I'm burning a disk, downloaded music, etc.I'll probably be browsing the internet. I've certainly let bit-torrent do it's thing while doing about anything, besides online gaming. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to. All this talk of adding CPU power and most systems still rely on 7200rpm hard drives to get data to them.:rolleyes:
 
mlambert890 said:
Except for games that are multi-threaded and except for the fact that NVidia drivers are now multi-threaded and except for the fact that the OS is multi-threaded.
Click to expand...

Probably not good to do it for the few games that uses multiple threads. Other than that, just set CPU affinity for the server and the single-thread game and things will be fine.

mlambert890 said:
Multi-proc systems have been around forever and the advantages, and scale limiations, of processor scale out have been known and fairly well understood forever as well.
Click to expand...

Not in the context of games.

mlambert890 said:
Today, multi-CPU systems are a commodity with multi-core single package CPUs.
Click to expand...

How many people do you see around here have a dual or quad socket system?

mlambert890 said:
Short of a case where you are building a system for general use where cost is the MAIN object, I cant see why anyone wouldnt just build a dual-core.
Click to expand...

How about for people who don't overclock, on a budget, and interested primarily in gaming. CPU speed is still king since all but a few games are single-threaded.

mlambert890 said:
For the life of me I cant understand why anyone would want to argue passionately against muli-core procs.
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone arguing passionately against multi-core. Frankly, I don't know why people keep asking the "single-core vs dual-core" question. Theres like a billion threads on this already.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned C2D yet.
 
just got my pc, its got a NZXT Apollo case...

got a X2 3800+
a 7900 gs (rks)
and 1 gb RAM (2X512mb DDR 800)

the whole system rks and I can barely tell the difference between that and my main pc (GAMING MONSTER!) see below v.
 
CurrentlyNotHere said:
Dual-core or multi-core technology to be specific, just shows how much IT world has regressed. They are simply out of ideas. There is no innovation left.
Click to expand...
This is such a wildly incorrect assertion that I'm not even sure how to best set it straight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top