witch is better right now a athlon 63 3700 san diego or a athon 3800 x2

[threemooses]

witch is better right now for gamming a athlon 64 3700 or a athlon 64 x2 3800

 

[SomeIranianKid]

if you can afford it get the x2

 

[gurusan]

x2. much more future proof than the single core

 

[Vybuni]

Right now is the 3700. Twice the cache and 200MHz faster.

 

[Twizted_3kgt]

I really hate the phrase 'future proof' now because of you people.

3700+.

In the future when games use dual core, the 3800 X2 will be on the bottom of the food chain. 512kb L2 cache? 2.0 ghz? Not much headroom. If you're thinking about dual core gaming in the future, you better be thinking at least an Opteron 165/170.

 

[mgoldb2]

I really hate the phrase 'future proof' now because of you people.

3700+.

In the future when games use dual core, the 3800 X2 will be on the bottom of the food chain. 512kb L2 cache? 2.0 ghz? Not much headroom. If you're thinking about dual core gaming in the future, you better be thinking at least an Opteron 165/170.

A) there already games using dual core the most known being quake 4 with SMP patch.

B) 3800+ x2 is going to kill a 3700+ in any muti-threaded game.

C) nothing future proof but most people dont buy a new computer every 6 mounths so you get what you can when you do buy. He going to be much happier with the 3800+ X2 in 6 mounths.

D) athlons not that cache bound (due to it onboard memory controller) so the 512cache not going to make a huge difference.

E) 200mhz you talking 5fps most of the time max.

In conclusion unless you keeping your computer less then 6 mounths go with the 3800+ x2.

 

[Flanker]

witch is better right now for gamming a athlon 64 3700 or a athlon 64 x2 3800

At this very moment, and for the next 8 months, the 3700+ will beat the X2 3800+.

In the future when games use dual core, the 3800 X2 will be on the bottom of the food chain. 512kb L2 cache? 2.0 ghz? Not much headroom. If you're thinking about dual core gaming in the future, you better be thinking at least an Opteron 165/170.

You're missing the complete specs of the X2 3800+. There are TWO 512MB cache cores, and TWO seperate cores running at 2.0GHz. Thats pretty much the same as a Opteron 165/170. There is A LOT of headroom there. A X2 3800+ would be like a FX-55 in a multi-threaded game.

Then again, thats a long ways away. 8 Months. I'll be writing my college applications by the time major Dual Core games come out...

E) 200mhz you talking 5fps most of the time max.

In conclusion unless you keeping your computer less then 6 mounths go with the 3800+ x2.

While you were right about most of the stuff, 200MHz can mean A LOT mroe than 5FPS max in a game. BF2 is a pretty well-rounded game, and 200MHz can make probably 15FPS difference.

And its not simply, "If you're keeping you PC more than 6 months, get a Dual Core." A 3700+ will still kick a$$ when Dual Core games come out, a X2 3800+ will simply kick MORE a$$. And if he's asking about RIGHT NOW, then the 3700+ is a clear winner.

 

[mgoldb2]

While you were right about most of the stuff, 200MHz can mean A LOT mroe than 5FPS max in a game. BF2 is a pretty well-rounded game, and 200MHz can make probably 15FPS difference.

can you show me where you found that information? I have not seen those results anywhere. at Xbit labs they acturally have a fx-57 and a athlon 64 3200 within 2FPS of each other battlefield 2 1280X1024 FSAA 4X High Quilty. At lower setting you might be right but I dont buy computers to play on low settings and unless your computer low end you proberly dont even need those extra FPS on lower setting. The truth of the matter most games are video card bond even if you have a 7800GTX so the cpu not going to make a big difference till you get to the lower end. Even thoe I have seem some impressive FPS of dual core beating single core in quake 4 with SMP patch.

 

[PP Mguire]

Dont tell any of this to my 3800+X2 running at 2.4

 

[Flanker]

Or my 3200+ running at 2.7GHz...