X2 3800, bad proccessor?

tomanders91 · 4 Dec 2006 at 15:54

how would anyone rate this proccessor? is it actually decent for gaming or pretty crap? if i overlocked it enough could i get it to near stock E6300 speed?

thanks

ps: this will only be untill september next year, then its to an core 2 duo or something or maybe AMD would have bounced back on top.

just Scott · 4 Dec 2006 at 17:18

Well, I have a 3800+ chip and I'm not too happy with my computers performace. I don't know whether this is down to my RAM (1GB Corsair Value Select) or other things like my GFX card (6600TD

) but still, my computer doesn't perform well. I can't even do basic multi tasking, e.g encoding a video and using Opera is almost impossible.

However, I think if my other components were upgraded the 3800+ would surely be better.

It's a pretty good clocker, you can get up to 2.65Ghz on stock volts. My chip became unstable at 2.8GHz on air cooling (I think my PSU wasn't letting me go any further TBH). But I'm really not sure if you can get stock E6300 speeds with it, someone with a Conroe rig will tell you probably.

Dureth · 4 Dec 2006 at 17:30

H2F I think you must be talking about a single core 3800 rather than the dual core X2 3800. The X2 3800 would be absolutely fine using opera and encoding video. To be honest a single core 3800 should be fine doing that.

X2 3800's generally clock quite well and when overclocked to 4600 speeds (from 2.0Ghz to 2.4 Ghz, very easy) is roughly on par with a stock 6300.

just Scott · 4 Dec 2006 at 17:32

Dureth said:
H2F I think you must be talking about a single core 3800 rather than the dual core X2 3800. The X2 3800 would be absolutely fine using opera and encoding video. To be honest a single core 3800 should be fine doing that.

X2 3800's generally clock quite well and when overclocked to 4600 speeds (from 2.0Ghz to 2.4 Ghz, very easy) is roughly on par with a stock 6300.

Nah, I have the dual core x2 3800+ running at 2.6GHz but still find the performance quite bad.

I think there's something wrong with my components, though.

n1kunj · 4 Dec 2006 at 18:14

H2F Scott said:
I think there's something wrong with my components, though.

Sounds very odd, my 3800 is at 2.4GHz (crappy clocker, needs high volts to do anything

) and I can encode a video with nero (using both cores), listen to music, be on firefox, download stuff and various others at the same time with no problems.

@OP, It's an A64 so paired with a good graphics card it will tear through games. If overclocked I'd say you'd be lucky to get to the same sort of performance as a 6300, but you might get close.

If you're just upgrading the processor (which I think you are) then it'll be a fine upgrade but if you're upgrading from an older socket A / 478 PC you'd be stupid not to go for a 6300.

ghgh · 4 Dec 2006 at 19:56

I've got the spec in my rig and im very happy with it. I dont game much other than low demanding ones but in windows the PC is pretty quick. I came from a 3700+ @ 2.5 GHz and it is definitely a lot faster even though the san diego had twice the L2 cache.

Anyone with a E6300 - how long does it take to calculate 1MB Super PI at stock speeds? At 3GHz an X2 512KB l2 cache version should do it in 29 seconds or so.

Big.Wayne · 4 Dec 2006 at 20:01

tomanders91 said:
how would anyone rate this proccessor? is it actually decent for gaming or pretty cr*p?

hehe that's funny!

An X2 3800+ is a great CPU, even at stock, but better if you overclock it!

Obviously there are better processors now, but that doesn't automatically make the 'older' processors cr*p :confused:

(although if you read these forums you may get the impression that they are!!)

If your system is sluggish running an X2 3800+ my first guess would be something isn't configured correctly?

El Jimben · 4 Dec 2006 at 21:00

Only having 1GB of RAM probably doesn't help either

just Scott · 4 Dec 2006 at 21:17

Big.Wayne said:
hehe that's funny!

An X2 3800+ is a great CPU, even at stock, but better if you overclock it!

Obviously there are better processors now, but that doesn't automatically make the 'older' processors cr*p (although if you read these forums you may get the impression that they are!!)

If your system is sluggish running an X2 3800+ my first guess would be something isn't configured correctly?

What exactly wouldn't be configured properly?

My other hardware? Or the x2 3800+ chip itself?

(sorry to hijack this thread lol)

ghgh · 4 Dec 2006 at 21:40

El Jimben said:
Only having 1GB of RAM probably doesn't help either

Ive only got 1gb of RAM and my system seems to fly for the spec...

To OP, to you have two processors showing in task manager?

steve258 · 5 Dec 2006 at 11:41

Not a bad proccy at all you just need to oc it then it performs really well.

With a budget rig I'd much prefer a X2 3800+ with a decent GPU rather than an E6300 with a less powerful GPU.

Kamakazie! · 5 Dec 2006 at 17:38

A 200mhz (4200+ speeds) overclock would put the CPU at least equal and maybe a little bit faster overall than an E6300.

It will do everything you want and more.
It will not be as fast at SuperPI but come on? who cares? what do you use the PC for? Gaming and general apps or superpi?

EDIT: Just to state, this doesn't mean that you couldn't overclock the E6300 and have an even faster cpu, because you could.

Sniper123 · 5 Dec 2006 at 22:23

ghgh said:
I've got the spec in my rig and im very happy with it. I dont game much other than low demanding ones but in windows the PC is pretty quick. I came from a 3700+ @ 2.5 GHz and it is definitely a lot faster even though the san diego had twice the L2 cache.

Anyone with a E6300 - how long does it take to calculate 1MB Super PI at stock speeds? At 3GHz an X2 512KB l2 cache version should do it in 29 seconds or so.

29s @ stock speed's
17s @ 3.22ghz

ghgh · 5 Dec 2006 at 22:51

Sniper123 said:
29s @ stock speed's
17s @ 3.22ghz

thanks

so a e6300 @ stock ~ 3000MHz A64 512KB L2 I guess.

Kamakazie! · 6 Dec 2006 at 12:58

ghgh said:
thanks

so a e6300 @ stock ~ 3000MHz A64 512KB L2 I guess.

Since when did SuperPi = Actual performance?
It is only a measure of 1 part of the CPU architecture...

An E6300 is roughly = 4200+ at stock
with either one edging it depending on what reviews you look at.

ghgh · 6 Dec 2006 at 14:05

Kamakazie! said:
Since when did SuperPi = Actual performance?
It is only a measure of 1 part of the CPU architecture...

An E6300 is roughly = 4200+ at stock
with either one edging it depending on what reviews you look at.

Yeah..only meant it was similar performance wise in super pi but Im suprised how good the x2 really is if what you say is true about the E6300 being roughly a 4200+ @ stock speeds...is this in gaming? as multi media benchmarks ive noticed, in si soft sandra that the duo 2 beats the x2 by two times.

Quixote · 7 Dec 2006 at 00:10

a 3800+ X2 is a very respectable CPU, the more when overclocked. Most importantly, if the E6300 or required mobo RAM is out of your budget, it will perform fine - it's not worth skinting yourself for that bit extra.

ByteJuggler · 7 Dec 2006 at 02:26

H2F Scott said:
What exactly wouldn't be configured properly?

My other hardware? Or the x2 3800+ chip itself?

(sorry to hijack this thread lol)

either? RAM timings... Hypertransport bus... clock speed... all come to mind as potential candidates... Have a dig around in your BIOS.

scaramanga182 · 7 Dec 2006 at 11:44

I've got mine clocked to 2500mhz on a freezer pro and its about 28c idle and 45c under a heavy rendering load. Can't knock it at all, I could probably squeeze a few mhz out of it if I put some more volts through it.

mrthingyx · 7 Dec 2006 at 12:05

ghgh said:
Yeah..only meant it was similar performance wise in super pi but Im suprised how good the x2 really is if what you say is true about the E6300 being roughly a 4200+ @ stock speeds...is this in gaming? as multi media benchmarks ive noticed, in si soft sandra that the duo 2 beats the x2 by two times.

Dude - not meaning to be patronising at all, but using Sandra as any indicator of actual practical performance is looking at the size of a bodybuilder's biceps and automatically think he/she'd be good at tennis.

Real performance? Boot up a game and if it churns out more than 30fps (at a minimum) then it's a great CPU. Beyond that, there is little appreciable difference. On these forums, lots of bodily fluids will be gushed over the 'monumental' increase in perceived performance when going from an Opteron at 2.6GHz to a C2D @ 3GHz whilst actual benchmarks show only slight increases in performance. Read benchmark sites and judge for yourself.

In answer to the OP, the 3800+ X2 is not a bad CPU at all. There are better ones out there, sure, but there are also faster cars out there than a Porsche 911.