Jump to content


Photo

New 4400+ X2


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 2005

2005

    120% Member

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 1,375 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 05:42 PM

Yea, the shipping will raise the cost considerably. But I would go for 19"... 17 to me is to small but its up to you.

#22 MaLing

MaLing

    Official Birthday Wisher

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 2,120 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 11:29 PM

All right, thanks again.

#23 kodiak536

kodiak536

    100% Member

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 338 posts

Posted 12 April 2006 - 09:00 AM

I've built a system for my wife using 3800 X2 with 1Gb of memory and it too doesn't show too much improvements on games. Some process does seems to be a bit faster but, I don't see what all the "hype" is with this type of processors. As you can see, I built mine using Intel and it does just as well as AMD in gaming department, which is our main purpose for the PC's.

#24 Ljugtomten

Ljugtomten

    Swedish Translator

  • Alcohol Translator
  • 437 posts

Posted 12 April 2006 - 11:57 AM

QUOTE (2005 @ Apr 11 2006, 11:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yea, the shipping will raise the cost considerably. But I would go for 19"... 17 to me is to small but its up to you.


I would go for a 19" LCD or +21" CRT.

Using a ViewSonic P220f CRT at home (22", 20" visible) at 1600*1200, don't know how one could cope with 1024*768 only some years ago..

Unfortunatly stuck with a 17" LCD at work running 1280*1024.. But I agree, they are great at displaying text with ClearType and functions like that.

#25 2005

2005

    120% Member

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 1,375 posts

Posted 12 April 2006 - 05:03 PM

That X2 3800+ is more or less a AMD socket 939 veince 3200+ when its not being used in a mutli threaded app. You would see a big difference if you OC'ed that 3800+ to about 2.5ghz and added another GB of ram.

Now take my opteron 165 for example... it ships @1.8ghz which is painfully slow by todays standards. Overclock that beast to 2.8ghz and she runs like a deamon.

And that 3800+ is a manchester... and has half the on chip cache of the 4000+ and the 4400+ (toledo cores). Cache can be a big factor in certaint apps.

#26 MaLing

MaLing

    Official Birthday Wisher

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 2,120 posts

Posted 12 April 2006 - 10:20 PM

QUOTE (Ljugtomten)
I would go for a 19" LCD or +21" CRT.

Sounds good. However, buying a 21" one is a little bit over my capability. ninja.gif

Edited by MaLing, 12 April 2006 - 10:20 PM.


#27 ChiefNuts

ChiefNuts

    68% Member

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 173 posts

Posted 13 April 2006 - 06:44 AM

QUOTE (2005 @ Apr 12 2006, 05:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That X2 3800+ is more or less a AMD socket 939 veince 3200+ when its not being used in a mutli threaded app. You would see a big difference if you OC'ed that 3800+ to about 2.5ghz and added another GB of ram.

Now take my opteron 165 for example... it ships @1.8ghz which is painfully slow by todays standards. Overclock that beast to 2.8ghz and she runs like a deamon.

And that 3800+ is a manchester... and has half the on chip cache of the 4000+ and the 4400+ (toledo cores). Cache can be a big factor in certaint apps.


So I've been planning an upgrade as well, but my system is a little older (XP 2800+ & 1024 RAM) Does a jump to single core 64 or DC 64 show that much improvement over the XP Generation?? I mean, I've read the reviews, and seen the stats, but does it 'feel' faster, or more responsive?

#28 shawn_nee

shawn_nee

    120% Member

  • Alcohol Beta Tester
  • 3,085 posts

Posted 13 April 2006 - 08:52 AM

It depends on what you are doing with your computer I think. If you aren't running more then 1 or 2 apps then single core may do it for you. I beleive though with todays standards going to a dual core might be a better option for future upgrades and programs you might start running.

I remeber reading a report that the next jump in core tech will go to a 4 core die. That is going to be killer!

#29 2005

2005

    120% Member

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 1,375 posts

Posted 13 April 2006 - 09:45 AM

A single core socket 939 would be fine for now... just go for a San Deigo core and your good to go. I would suggest buying the slowest one you can and overclocking it to about 2.5-2.7ghz

#30 ChiefNuts

ChiefNuts

    68% Member

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 173 posts

Posted 13 April 2006 - 10:26 AM

San Diego, that's the 1mb cache processor right? Its identical to the Toledo X2Processor sans the dual core. The San Diego has 64+64 L1 cache, is that split between the two channels of the memory controller? I couldn't find any info into the reason they label it as this.

Jito463, Nice choice btw. I'm not much of an overclocker, but spending tax returns on high-end computer parts really sounds nice.

Edited by ChiefNuts, 14 April 2006 - 05:30 AM.


#31 2005

2005

    120% Member

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 1,375 posts

Posted 13 April 2006 - 12:48 PM

A toledo core (or denmark for that matter, which is what core my 165 is) is essentially two san deigo cores on the same silicon. The 3700+ San Deigo has exactly the same amounts of on die cache's as Jito's 4400+ and my Opty 165. Thats the main thing, having that extra cache comes in handy during cpu intense apps like audio and video work, and gameing.

The San Deigo has 1MB L2 cache... not 128K

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819103539

64+64 is the L1 cache... 1MB is L2 cache

#32 MaLing

MaLing

    Official Birthday Wisher

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 2,120 posts

Posted 14 April 2006 - 05:30 AM

QUOTE (shawn_nee)
I remeber reading a report that the next jump in core tech will go to a 4 core die. That is going to be killer!

I wonder how much extra performance 2/4/8... cores give if the RAM speed does not improve much. Nowadays the mulitipier is already 12/14/18... times, it is meaningless to me...

#33 ChiefNuts

ChiefNuts

    68% Member

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 173 posts

Posted 14 April 2006 - 05:33 AM

Sorry, I Meant 64+64L1. Just wondering why they split it up like that. I figured the 2800+ will work for a little while longer (Video Card is an X800) But I was looking into making a media server/video encoding system that would double as a game server on thoes party nights. DC procs would be most beneficial to the video transcoding/encoding process correct?

As far as ram speed goes, the AMD's haven't been as bandwidth hungry as the P4 is. That and with multiple cores, or i guess it would be multiple sockets, AMD really shines because of the integrated memory controller and the coherent HyperTransport links between the processors. So every physical processor has a dual channel connection to system memory, and then a link to the other processors. Very efficient, and scalable. This is why i'm sad to see AMD start using DDR2, because they don't need the bandwidth, the chips like the latency more, but your completely right, there isn't much of a performance increase once you get to 2+ cores on a desktop system. Maybe CAD and workstations using intense graphics, but not the average user.

Edited by ChiefNuts, 14 April 2006 - 05:49 AM.


#34 MaLing

MaLing

    Official Birthday Wisher

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 2,120 posts

Posted 14 April 2006 - 06:29 AM

Shawn, just a diversion of topic: What is a Pastafarian? Is this a kind of religion? I can not find this word in my dictionary.

Edited by MaLing, 14 April 2006 - 06:30 AM.


#35 shawn_nee

shawn_nee

    120% Member

  • Alcohol Beta Tester
  • 3,085 posts

Posted 14 April 2006 - 07:31 AM

QUOTE
Shawn, just a diversion of topic: What is a Pastafarian? Is this a kind of religion? I can not find this word in my dictionary.


It's part of another post I had....

http://forum.alcohol...showtopic=23426

As far as the multi-multi cores, they are still way off for marketing but for the average computer user, we wont need them till we grow a second set of eyes, ears, arms, and be able to multi task our brains to control 2 games like fear at once.

#36 Charalambos

Charalambos

    Support Team Member

  • Support Team
  • 5,003 posts

Posted 14 April 2006 - 10:05 AM

QUOTE
As far as the multi-multi cores, they are still way off for marketing but for the average computer user, we wont need them till we grow a second set of eyes, ears, arms, and be able to multi task our brains to control 2 games like fear at once.


That's a very good point. After a certain point progress is not really substancial. Xbox 360 will take the place of Xbox and Playstation 3 the place of Playstation 2 but will there be any visible difference? However not the 3D revolution that the 32 bit consoles started when they were released. I don't think that after Playstation and Saturn there was real progress( except for the more polygons in our television screens), which I think was inevitable since there was not a 4th dimension to be introduced... The good thing is that even today my Saturn is a decent game playing console, which wasn't true for the 8 bit and 16 bit consoles after some years of their release. Also my Pentium III desctop will probably last must longer than any i486 did. cool.gif

#37 2005

2005

    120% Member

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 1,375 posts

Posted 16 April 2006 - 06:26 PM

If you have a good TV and the right cables... there is a BIG difference between the saturn/ps1 and the XBOX/PS2. The latter being very graphically superior. The PS3 will output in 1080P I think, and thats above DVD quality.. with an HDTV you will be astounded at the graphic quality.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users