AMD CPU Performance Q

kicks66 · 15 Aug 2006 at 09:13

is thre a performance comparison between an AMD 64 3000 (or other similar ones) and the new dual core one? id like to know if id notice a big performance increase between my 3000 and an x2 3800 (if thats the lowest you can get)

Tetras · 15 Aug 2006 at 09:18

You can try:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html and http://tomshardware.co.uk/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005uk/

kicks66 · 15 Aug 2006 at 10:53

from those links it seems ill get a very small amount of difference, i think ill stick with my current one

hp7909 · 15 Aug 2006 at 11:01

kicks66 said:
from those links it seems ill get a very small amount of difference, i think ill stick with my current one

Just curious, which benchies were you looking at? Because a X2 3800+ is way better, e.g. DivX benchie - does that in 4-mins less than a 3000+. That could add up to hours less depending on what you are encoding. Apart from that, Multitasking is where the dual-core chip really shines/sells it for me. Also, don't forget the 3000+ only runs @ 1800MHz while the X2 3800+ 2000MHz :eek:

Other thing you have to consider, this Socket 939 processors won't be around for long

Broon · 15 Aug 2006 at 11:03

I take it you made your comparison benchmark a game? If you look at the performance difference in video encoding between singal and dual core is much more impressive and eventually more games will be released with dual core in mind.

kicks66 · 15 Aug 2006 at 11:19

thing is, i dont do any video encoding, and i encode a couple of a songs every month, but apart from that its just games

how much is the cheapest amd dual core?

Tetras · 15 Aug 2006 at 21:34

If it ever appears will be the X2 3600+, but at the moment it is £100 (for the X2 3800+).

Minstadave · 15 Aug 2006 at 22:01

kicks66 said:
thing is, i dont do any video encoding, and i encode a couple of a songs every month, but apart from that its just games

how much is the cheapest amd dual core?

To be honest you sound like you have your head screwed on right, if dual core isn't going to help you in the things you use your computer for then its going to be a waste of money upgrading.

I'm still running single core and my machine does everything I need, and very fast. The only reason at the moment I'd go dual core would be if it wasn't much more that a decent single core, and I know dual core makes for a smoother multitasking environment.

At the moment you can get a San Diego 3700 for £65 and a 3800X2 for £110, the San Diego is going to give you better games performance for less money.

kicks66 · 15 Aug 2006 at 22:10

in the end the benchmakr in game stuff and a mate persuaded me to go the dual core intel e6300, it seemed to do pretty well at playing games

Minstadave · 15 Aug 2006 at 22:12

kicks66 said:
in the end the benchmakr in game stuff and a mate persuaded me to go the dual core intel e6300, it seemed to do pretty well at playing games

Thats an awesome CPU for the money, plays games amazingly, and is dual core for when you need it

Zillio · 15 Aug 2006 at 23:34

Pursuaded me that I do not need to upgrade my 3500+ 64 yet.

trojan698 · 15 Aug 2006 at 23:39

Minstadave said:
Thats an awesome CPU for the money, plays games amazingly, and is dual core for when you need it

Seconded, while you wont see a dramatic improved moving to an X2 3800, the difference you'll notice moving to an E6300 would be simply astonishing. It completely outstrips my old 3ghz opty in everything

AnastieByte · 16 Aug 2006 at 09:54

Sorry to jump onboard but I have a 4000 cpu. Is the change to a 6300 that big? I was tempted with the 6600 but you got me thinking

Minstadave · 16 Aug 2006 at 10:10

AnastieByte said:
Sorry to jump onboard but I have a 4000 cpu. Is the change to a 6300 that big? I was tempted with the 6600 but you got me thinking

It depends, for £130 quid you'll get a nice boost in performance and a second core to play with, especially if you clock the 6300 over 3ghz (seems easy with the right motherboard). But you'll need a new mobo and RAM aswell.

AnastieByte · 16 Aug 2006 at 10:19

Sadly not got the knowlage to overclock. So if thats something you dont do would you go to 6600 still? I think with my kit this would all come to around £550

Minstadave · 16 Aug 2006 at 10:43

AnastieByte said:
Sadly not got the knowlage to overclock. So if thats something you dont do would you go to 6600 still? I think with my kit this would all come to around £550

If you're not overclocking then you may want to stick with your 4000 for a while, the 6300 only really shines with clocking, the 6600 would be faster, but worth £550 (CPU+Mobo+RAM) probably not when you have a decent CPU currently.

Raikiri · 16 Aug 2006 at 10:51

AnastieByte said:
Sadly not got the knowlage to overclock. So if thats something you dont do would you go to 6600 still? I think with my kit this would all come to around £550

Stick with what you have if you are not overclocking, it isnt worth the cost. But saying that everyone can overclock

just read a few guides and ask for advice on here

AnastieByte · 16 Aug 2006 at 10:53

Raikiri said:
Stick with what you have if you are not overclocking, it isnt worth the cost. But saying that everyone can overclock just read a few guides and ask for advice on here

Cheers for the advice. The PC runs fine its just that Conroe Thing

Overclocking would not know where to start

Minstadave · 16 Aug 2006 at 10:56

AnastieByte said:
Cheers for the advice. The PC runs fine its just that Conroe Thing Overclocking would not know where to start

We'll you're in the right place if you want to learn. Have a look at the overclocking stickies and jokesters great thread:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17612922

Then start your own when you feel brave enough and we'll talk you through it

kicks66 · 16 Aug 2006 at 11:16

you dont evven have to overclock much, just a small amount (10% increase say) would still give good improvements.