which processor to get?

chelseafc2005

chelseafc2005

Crunchtastic
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
897
Reaction score
0
I am upgrading my computer and i was wondeing which processor i shoudl get for it. I am choosingbetween the amd 64 3700 san diego and the amd 64 3800+ x2. I dont game that much but i do sometimes but i do multitask alot like messanging music burning and internet and sometimes emial. SO which processor would be the best for that. I dont overclock so that is not a factor in the purchase of the processor.
thanks in advance
 
A 3700 San Diego core will easily cope with burning a CD, using a messenger program and surfing the web, providing the rest of the hardware is good quality and you have a minimum of, say, 1Gb RAM.

If, however, you intend to use Photoshop, render some video footage, build a web page and use a CAD program simultaneously, then go for the dual core.

If the needs you've outlined are the most you'll ever do at once, save some money and get the 3700 San Diego (1Mb cache) and put the money you've saved towards 2Gb of branded RAM.
 
well if it is in your budget the x2 lol ...

u said yourself you like to multi task :p :) ;)

the cheaper alternative would be the 3700+ but you seem to like to multi task .. so get the x2 :)
 
i think i will end up getting the x2 because i can get it for just £30 more than the 3700 and it seems that the preformance will increase quite sharply between the two am i right??
 
All totally useless without a decent MB. ;)


:D
 
chelseafc2005 said:
i think i will end up getting the x2 because i can get it for just £30 more than the 3700 and it seems that the preformance will increase quite sharply between the two am i right??
Click to expand...

Not exactly 'quite sharply' but certainly worth having.

For an extra thirty quid seems like a good deal.

Myself, being a keen gamer, I'd go for the 3700 and 2Gb RAM, but that's just me ;)

Good luck with your build.

In my previous reply I said 'providing the rest of the hardware is good quality' and now Mucks has pointed out the same thing.

You probably know it anyway but it is worth mentioning if you're spending all that cash on a decent CPU don't throttle it with a cheap motherboard.
 
chelseafc2005 said:
I am upgrading my computer and i was wondeing which processor i shoudl get for it. I am choosingbetween the amd 64 3700 san diego and the amd 64 3800+ x2. I dont game that much but i do sometimes but i do multitask alot like messanging music burning and internet and sometimes emial. SO which processor would be the best for that. I dont overclock so that is not a factor in the purchase of the processor.
thanks in advance
Click to expand...
Hi Chelsea

Sounds like you requirements are very similar to mine (I don't game either) and I would suggest you look at the X2 chip, but take into account what Mucks & Flopps said about decent MBs.

IMO, the X2 setup seems to have much less difficulty handling the "heavy" multi-task demands.

Good luck with your build:thumb:
 
HI i baught the chip today and got a good motherboard to go with it. So thanks for all your help. Also im thinking on getting a gig of ram for my birthday what is a very good brand to get??
 
Here's a link to a recent memory test >> 2Gb RAM Test

All makes done well except Geil.

Any of the other makes are Ok.

If your motherboard supports dual memory, get 2 sticks.

And I'm curious, just what motherboard did you get?
 
I thaught that dual core processors were still largely irrelivent, because Windows doesn't assign the cores with specific individual tasks, even if you do 'Multi task'. I'd imagen those chips are better for either servers, or people willing to wait for the new Windows to come out.

If its multitasking and gaming we want, I agree with what was said earlier - get the most powerfull dedicated single core processor you can - and couple it with the biggest, fastest amount of RAM your motherboard will allow. That'll give you more 'width', if you know what I mean.

Also, yeah, the number '3800' is bigger than '3700' - but isn't the X2 by definition actually two 2ghz cores stuck together? The 3700 has a clock of 2.2, and also a whopping 1mb of cache all to itself... Considering you would largely only be using one core at a time with the X2, you may as well get the more powerfull singular processor.
 
Last edited:
tomsega , so what your saying is that if you are not using the 64-bit OS, the dual core will not make much of a difference? What about gaming wise?? Say I want to play a graphic intense game and do some video converting on my other monitor?? Would the pc split the job between the 2 processors? Or is it that the current wondows XP does not know how to do this? I am going with the 3700+ because I can't afford the dual core.. so it sounds like if what your saying is true I will not be losing out to badly.
 
games are designed to use one core so the other is left idle because XP doesn't split the load accross the cores, now say your encoding video normally on XP most encoding apps are multi threaded so both cores are maxed out but you can set the program to use just one in task manager, so one core is now being used to encode now you want to play a game because encoding anything takes ages you set your game again in taks manager to use the other idle core

and you can use any version of XP with a dual core CPU

and while the 3800 is 2.2ghz and only has half the cache you still have two of them so you can do almost twice the amount of work in the same time
 
Windows certainly wouldn't know to set one core on a game, and the other on video software. Obviously you never have only TWO things happening at once with a PC, so that ain't happening. Would you really want to set each core to do something everytime? I'm not sure how difficult that would be.

The general perception I get from the PC magazines I read is that you will benefit more from a 2.2ghz CPU with 1mb of catch, than you would with two 2ghz with 512kb catch each - because you'd only be using ONE of them. However, we're not talking a big difference here, and as soon as Microsoft perfect a multi-core happy OS -which no doubt they will - the X2 will probably kick ass.

I think 'Elderscrolls: Oblivion' is going to be multi-core compatable, because it was designed with the Xbox360 in mind. Other games will follow, I guess.
 
Last edited:
floppybootstomp said:
And I'm curious, just what motherboard did you get?
Click to expand...

i got the ASUS SKT-939 A8V S/L 2000MT/S it ws reccomended by a friend who owns one of those and it is a reasonable price
 
tomsega said:
Windows certainly wouldn't know to set one core on a game, and the other on video software. Obviously you never have only TWO things happening at once with a PC, so that ain't happening. The general perception I get from the PC magazines I read is that you will benefit more from a 2.2ghz CPU with 1mb of catch, than you would with two 2ghz with 512kb catch each - because you'd only be using ONE of them.
Click to expand...


you will get better performance on a single core because that is what games are designed for, they dont need the other core so gamers only really need one core

no XP doesn't automatically set apps to run on one core nor does it split single threaded apps accross the cores ,but you can tell it to run everything on one core and nothing on the other except certain programs, so you can use one core with all of the background apps running and any CPU intensive task on just that one core, then you can use the other core for another CPU intensive task
 
Back
Top