FX 55 or X2 3800

gamer98 · 11 Apr 2006 at 15:01

Title self explanatory which ?

joeyjojo · 11 Apr 2006 at 15:19

gamer98 said:
Title self explanatory which ?

I'd go with the X2. It's much cheaper and dual core (future proof).
Why not go with a 4200 or 4400 if youve got the cash?

Traducer · 11 Apr 2006 at 16:14

I'd go witht he 3800 it clocks really nice and its Dual Core.

gamer98 · 11 Apr 2006 at 16:30

guys the FX 55 i want is only £270 is that good because if u guys thought i was gna pay £500 ?

helpimcrap · 11 Apr 2006 at 16:40

x2 3800.... would soon get up to FX55 speeds.

geeza · 11 Apr 2006 at 17:00

helpimcrap said:
x2 3800.... would soon get up to FX55 speeds.

sorry for the high-jack but would a X2 3800 be worth getting over a clocked opteron 146? (for the duel core part)

-origional post- the X2 3800 would be better i think aswell

edit -i see the X2 3800 only has 512kb cache or is it 512kb per core (therefore 1mb) or are they used individually?

Traducer · 11 Apr 2006 at 17:10

geeza said:
edit -i see the X2 3800 only has 512kb cache or is it 512kb per core (therefore 1mb) or are they used individually?

Its 512kb per core.

geeza · 11 Apr 2006 at 17:14

Traducer said:
Its 512kb per core.

so would processes be using 1mb cache or 512kb? I dont really know how duel core works and whether you can combine the 2 cores so to speak

monkeypants · 11 Apr 2006 at 17:23

It's two separate L2 caches.

Core0 has access to L2 cache0 (512kb)
Core1 has access to L2 cache1 (512kb)

They communicate through the HTT link so core 1 cannot access L2 cache0 and vice versa. Running a single threaded app, it'll have the same power as the equivalent Venice CPU.

geeza · 11 Apr 2006 at 17:25

monkeypants said:
It's two separate L2 caches.

Core0 has access to L2 cache0 (512mb)
Core1 has access to L2 cache1 (512mb)

They communicate through the HTT link so core 1 cannot access L2 cache0 and vice versa. Running a single threaded app, it'll have the same power as the equivalent Venice CPU.

it wouldnt matter anyway with 2 512 MB cache sizes

(thanks for explaining though)

monkeypants · 11 Apr 2006 at 18:48

geeza said:
it wouldnt matter anyway with 2 512 MB cache sizes

I only just noticed what you were getting at :rolleyes:

kimandsally · 12 Apr 2006 at 10:39

monkeypants said:
I only just noticed what you were getting at

100% get the 3800, I've had 2 x FX55's and a 4400 and now on a Opteron 170, don't even think of getting the FX the 3800 will beat it without any doubt whatsoever.

matt1 · 12 Apr 2006 at 23:26

Man you get through your chips Andy.. jezz.

I'd go for the X2 too, single core days are numbered and you'll regret it in a years time. Then again if gaming performance is your major priority the FX may hold a slight edge but I'd still go for the X2.

wombleboy05 · 12 Apr 2006 at 23:28

i would go for the 3800

Explicit · 12 Apr 2006 at 23:38

kimandsally said:
100% get the 3800, I've had 2 x FX55's and a 4400 and now on a Opteron 170, don't even think of getting the FX the 3800 will beat it without any doubt whatsoever.

What did you do with all them?

Monstermunch · 12 Apr 2006 at 23:55

3800+ X2 processor, or if your budget can stretch further try looking at the Opteron 170 with 1mb L2 cache per core and should clock to 2.6~2.8ghz.

Also bear in mind that Quake 4 has shown a 60% increase in speed with the dual core patch!

gamer98 · 13 Apr 2006 at 09:01

hey guys can 1 of u explain *** the hell Opteron is i have no idea ?

vanandjuanunited · 13 Apr 2006 at 09:04

Opteron's are s939 server chips which should overclock well. Because they are server chips they run cooler and are generally the pick of the chips due to being used in servers.
Opteron 165 = x23800+ although opty has 2x 1 meg cache.

Opteron 170 has a 10x multi so should be easier to clock on a good board. 165 has a 9 multi.

gamer98 · 13 Apr 2006 at 09:06

cheers m8 so do u think its worth getting sn opteron instead of x2 they have 2 cores and a better cache ?

is a AMD Opteron 250 good ?

vanandjuanunited · 13 Apr 2006 at 09:10

Only difference betwen opty 165 and x2 3800 is the cache. Have never had a x2 3800 so cant give you an opinion of them. Am more than happy with my opty 165 at 2.45Ghz. The 170 on my board would run at 2.74ghz assuming it clocked that high.
Will depend on your budget and what board you have. If I was doing it again I would go for a opty 170.

Opty 250 needs a s940 board so not a lot of use. Has to be s939.