Athelon64 3700+ or Athelon 64 3800+ Dual Core?

1337DuD3 said:
Actually the CAS latency on my RAM is really good. It's timing are 2.5-3-3-6. It's not so much about frequency so much as it is quantity. But I'll be gaming, I just want a processor that will perform better. Dual-Core is what I want, but I don't know...:confused:

Those timings aren't great... Especially for slow RAM. That's just pretty standard even for PC3200 RAM now.
 
i dont get it. you guys are all fanboys. What the hell is the point of getting dual core, when no games, until LATE LATE 2006 MAYBE! if not mid 2007 will take advantage.. MAYBE! of the dual core. Not a single program or game currently uses this second core, it's more of a title than performance related siginificance. the fx 60 easily outperforms the dual cores currently out, being able to be oced at around 3.8ghz. Buying dual core is like buying a ferrari, but NEVER EVER EVER being able to drive it. you just have it sittin in the garage.

besides, if you get dual core, that probably means that you have to get a better PSU anyway. so i would not recommend it.

i personally defintely suggest getting the extra ram and the 3700+.

(btw, i know not ALL of you are fanboys, but the ones who are tend to hype up the dual core for more than it is.. i mean soon they're coming out with QUAD core. and it'll be default in 2007 machines with intel [they announced it] and also with amd socket F machines. so by the time you get to use ur sorry ass dual core, quad core will come out.)
 
acekrn said:
i dont get it. you guys are all fanboys. What the hell is the point of getting dual core, when no games, until LATE LATE 2006 MAYBE! if not mid 2007 will take advantage.. MAYBE! of the dual core. Not a single program or game currently uses this second core, it's more of a title than performance related siginificance. the fx 60 easily outperforms the dual cores currently out, being able to be oced at around 3.8ghz. Buying dual core is like buying a ferrari, but NEVER EVER EVER being able to drive it. you just have it sittin in the garage.

besides, if you get dual core, that probably means that you have to get a better PSU anyway. so i would not recommend it.

i personally defintely suggest getting the extra ram and the 3700+.

(btw, i know not ALL of you are fanboys, but the ones who are tend to hype up the dual core for more than it is.. i mean soon they're coming out with QUAD core. and it'll be default in 2007 machines with intel [they announced it] and also with amd socket F machines. so by the time you get to use ur sorry ass dual core, quad core will come out.)


That's correct.

Dual Cores aren't fully being utilized by games right now, and maybe not until 2007. I don't multitask for the most part anyways, so I have no reason for it for the time being.

I think I'm going to get the Athlon 3700+, maybe even the 3500+ and OC it. But I'm defiently getting more RAM though. Two gigabytes of RAM is probably a better upgrade then getting a second core. Games are becoming more and more memroy hungry, and with the edition of Windows Vista coming out, I'll definetly need the extra performance boost in the memory catagory.

As for Quad-Cores, you should definetly check out the Quad-Core arrival Estimation thread in the Processors section, we have a lot of really good ideas in that thread, I suggest you check it out. :)
 
dual core... more future proof and you'll be glad you got it... you can multitask like no other...
 
Get both what? The A64 3700+ and the RAM, or the A64 X2 3800+???

Also, I was shopping around on Newegg, and to my surprise the Opteron 144 was cheaper then the A64 3700+! Now, with the new Opteron 144 Venus in mind, which should I get?

The Opteron 144 venus is $189.

The Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego is $213.

The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is $297.


Which in your opinion, is the better buy?
 
1337DuD3 said:
The Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego is $213.

The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is $297.


Which in your opinion, is the better buy?


:cool:


X2's are future proof. I'd go with those.
 
Back
Top Bottom