X2 3800 vs D830

  • Thread starter Thread starter RJK
  • Start date Start date
RJK said:
D'y'all reckon this is correct !
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=237&model2=202&chart=63
...scroll down a ways and look for the 2 red bars.

...considering that the AMD 3800 dual core has 2 x 512kb L2 cache and runs
at 2ghz, whilst the Pentium 830 dual core runs at 3ghz and had 2 x 1mb L2
cache !
Click to expand...


Your link did not work...
but if you are asking if the X2-3800 kicks butt...
it does!
Although I had to think long and hard before I spent the cash...
I decided to get the X2 3800.

I built a machine for my g.f. who processes quite large images in
Photoshop.
The X2 was definitely worth it!

I asked a number of professionals in the business prior to making the
decision...
and they all said to get the X2 and stay away from Intel.

Interestingly...if you look at Adobe's hardware specs for using Photoshop
CS2...
they do not even mention AMD!
 
RJK said:
D'y'all reckon this is correct !
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=237&model2=202&chart=63
...scroll down a ways and look for the 2 red bars.

...considering that the AMD 3800 dual core has 2 x 512kb L2 cache and
runs at 2ghz, whilst the Pentium 830 dual core runs at 3ghz and had 2
x 1mb L2 cache !

regards, Richard
Click to expand...

Your point is? Both are very fast CPUs. The actual clock speed is no longer
a reliable indication of performance. Why do you think AMD and Intel both
moved away from naming processors by their clock speed?

Kerry
 
most review sites have praised the X2's over the Intel P5D 8XX series.
They cost almost $100 more too. But they say they're worth it. When the
next gen of intel's dual-cores come out that situation may change...stay
tuned.

[psss, it's not the clock, it's the architecture...]
 
most review sites have praised the X2's over the Intel P5D 8XX series.
They cost almost $100 more too. But they say they're worth it. When
the next gen of intel's dual-cores come out that situation may
change...stay tuned.

[psss, it's not the clock, it's the architecture...]
Click to expand...

I still don't get the point. The graph shows almost equal performance for
the two CPU's. Either would be a good option. If I was building a game
machine I would opt for the AMD and the nForce chipset. If I was building a
business machine I would opt for the Intel with an Intel chipset. Sometimes
the chipset determines which way to go which also determines which CPU to
use.

You missed my point which was that clock speed isn't a reliable indicator of
real world speed which seems to be the same point you are making :-)

Kerry
 
...ah! ..found this thread again !

....my point was aimed more at the on-die high speed Level 2 cache. i.e. the
more the better, and the more there is, MUCH more expensive it is.

Currently, for example, is it better to buy an AMD Sempron 2800 1.6ghz with
256k L2 cache, or a 3000 / 1.8ghz that only has 128kb L2 cache ?

I think there is really no such such thing as a "Sempron" or "Duron," I got
the impression years ago, (from web reading), the lesser cpu's are simply
poorer quality, and have had faulty banks of on-die cache disabled, (hence
all the overclockers hoping to get a cpu from the "next bin up" and tackling
the ceramic with a lead pencil), and rated for speed/heat according to how
it happened to emerge form the manufacturing process! ...Phew!

regards, Richard


Kerry Brown said:
most review sites have praised the X2's over the Intel P5D 8XX series.
They cost almost $100 more too. But they say they're worth it. When
the next gen of intel's dual-cores come out that situation may
change...stay tuned.

[psss, it's not the clock, it's the architecture...]
Click to expand...

I still don't get the point. The graph shows almost equal performance for
the two CPU's. Either would be a good option. If I was building a game
machine I would opt for the AMD and the nForce chipset. If I was building
a business machine I would opt for the Intel with an Intel chipset.
Sometimes the chipset determines which way to go which also determines
which CPU to use.

You missed my point which was that clock speed isn't a reliable indicator
of real world speed which seems to be the same point you are making :-)

Kerry
Click to expand...
 
RJK said:
..ah! ..found this thread again !

...my point was aimed more at the on-die high speed Level 2 cache. i.e.
the more the better, and the more there is, MUCH more expensive
it is.
Currently, for example, is it better to buy an AMD Sempron 2800
1.6ghz with 256k L2 cache, or a 3000 / 1.8ghz that only has 128kb L2
cache ?
I think there is really no such such thing as a "Sempron" or "Duron,"
I got the impression years ago, (from web reading), the lesser cpu's
are simply poorer quality, and have had faulty banks of on-die cache
disabled, (hence all the overclockers hoping to get a cpu from the
"next bin up" and tackling the ceramic with a lead pencil), and rated
for speed/heat according to how it happened to emerge form the
manufacturing process! ...Phew!
regards, Richard
Click to expand...

There are no absolutes. In your example it depends on what you are using the
computer for. If you run several programs at once probably the cpu with more
cache would appear to be faster. If you generally run one program at a time
and the program was cpu intensive then the faster cpu would appear to be
faster.

Kerry
 
If possible, get the sempron 3100+, with 8.1 Ghz clock and 256 KB L2 cache.
Just a note, I currently have a mobile sempron 3000+ and it works fine.
 
Back
Top