• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Best amd cpu to buy?

toString

toString

toString

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
9,038
Location
London
I've always gone AMD in the past, as they're usually better value..
But I've been out of the hardware game for a few years now. I have an 1900+ xp atm. So what's best at the moment? I looked on OcUK but it's not really clear which is better.
Is it the X2 or the opteron?

Also, I'm not really into overclocking anymore (just dont have the time) So maybe that will effect the outcome?

Thanks for any info :)
 
When you say "best" it depends on what you will be using it for..

if your a hard core gamer i'd say that the FX57 is best (at the moment)

if your in to multi tasking, digital creation or general all round use i'd say the X2 4800+ is the "best" (at the moment)

of course , depending on if you want to spend that kind of money on a CPU
 
Heh, yes those are a bit expensive!
Well I wouldn't say 'hardcore gamer', but I would want to get the best out of games. I don't do digital media stuff though...



How about these two? Roughly the same price (240)

AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 90nm (Socket 939) - Retail (ADA4000BNBOX) (CP-120-AM)


AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+ (Socket 939) - Retail (ADA3800BVBOX) (CP-134-AM)

Just trying to work out of this "duel core" stuff is better than the normal 64's..
 
well, if you do anything (or will do in the future) multi tasking, then i think X2 is the future, and the way to go

if you mainly do one thing at a time on your pc then a single core is still fine and will do you well.
 
In scenarios where games only utilise one core the A64 4000+ single core will pull ahead but the X2 will pull ahead in Dual Core optimized applications. Personally I don't see any need in Dual core yet

Mul
 
Oh right! So you actually need something that will use duel cores... I just assumed they would 'share' the load normally.
Well seems quite clear I want just a normal A 64 then :)

Thanks for the advice guys.
 
you dont just need applications that are multi threaded, it does share the load from other applications too.


but it still sounds like the 4000 is right for you :cool:
 
KingAdora said:
What does 3800+ 4000+ actually mean anyway? I never really understood...
It's obviously not 3.8ghz 4.0ghz...?
Click to expand...
its basically the equivalent to the intel clock speeds of their cpu's...so a 3800+ would be like a 3.8Ghz pentium ;)
 
A2Z said:
its basically the equivalent to the intel clock speeds of their cpu's...so a 3800+ would be like a 3.8Ghz pentium ;)
Click to expand...


This is not correct the AMD was never to done to combat the Intel's Prozzer. This thing is and old Skt A thing, basically the Barton 2500, and the 3000, 3200 although they ran at 1.8+, 2.0+, 2.2+, the number are to co-inside of the AMD's Palmario Core. So in Simple terms its the Barton Vs the Palmario Cores and nothing to do with Intel.

Most people just assumed this as AMD's biggest rivals at the time were Intel ;)
 
Check out the Asrock Dual SATA thread over on the mobo forum. People getting some very nice (and easy) overclocks with this cheap mobo and Opterons!

I have an Asrock with Venice 3200 running very nicely but I did do the voltmod and it's not for the squeemish! ;)
 
stvmor said:
Check out the Asrock Dual SATA thread over on the mobo forum. People getting some very nice (and easy) overclocks with this cheap mobo and Opterons!

I have an Asrock with Venice 3200 running very nicely but I did do the voltmod and it's not for the squeemish! ;)
Click to expand...

:confused: the volt mod is essential and so easy a baby can do it
 
Last edited:
KingAdora said:
Hmm I'm still confused then :o

How do you know what the equivilent p4 is to say a.. 3800+ ? The must be someway of knowing this (without doing benchmarks)..
Click to expand...

The AMD PR ratings were launched with the Athlon XP line as a comparison point to the original Athlon Thunderbird. That is, an XP1600+ would perform like a 1.6Ghz AMD Athlon Thunderbird CPU

They can very roughly be compared to Pentium 4's though and this is how people see them and compare them in reviews. The A64 3800+ is like a P4 3.8Ghz

Dual core is slightly different. The X2 3800+ is effectively two A64 3200+ CPUs so it can be compared to a P-D 3.2Ghz (but it's a lot quicker)
 
The only thing that has a direct comparison between AMD and Intel chips is the price. See how much they cost, and what chip you can get for what you are prepared to spend, then check out some online reviews that test what you are interested and see which appears to be the better buy. Personally, I buy AMD.
 
no games released to date, or that are scheduled to be released as of yet, utilise more than one core so a dual core is pointless as you'll have one core doing nothing, the 3700+ is highly overclockable, has the same core as the fx-57 (san diego) and is perfect for games, and a damn sight cheaper....
 
There's a Quake IV dual core patch that gives a sizable improvement. FEAR is said to have multi-threaded elements and there is a dual core patch for COD2. UT2007 is also said to benefit from dual core processors and the new graphics card drivers increase performance for dual core chips :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom