for my new system my cpu budget will be about US$380 (NZ$550), i really
have two Athlon64 procs to choose from, the 4000+ or the X2-3800+.

the pc will be used mainly for 3D animation (single threaded), i don't
do much rendering these days, but occasionaly. gaming performance is
very important most of my $$ will be going on a 7800GT or GTX and
1920x1200 display.

at this stage the 4000+ is my preference, it crushes the X2 in gaming,
but i remember when i had a dual-cpu system (even a lowly PIII) the OS
was a bit more response... so i can't decide :/ i've heard the X2-3800+
OCs pretty well, could that run at 2.4GHz and does it shorten the life
of the chip considerably...?

gimp wrote:
>
> ... gaming performance is very important most of my $$ will be
> going on a 7800GT or GTX ...
>

Not worth waiting for the ATI R520 / X1800 cards?

I know, I know. They've been ages in coming, yield problems being the
biggest issue.
However, indications are that when they're launched in 4 weeks time it
will be a hard launch, similar to the 7800GTX, with volume availability.
Just thinking it would be annoying to buy a 7800, only to have it drop
in price not long after the R520 is released, or discovering that the
equivalent ATI card completely owns it.
I'm guessing the R520 may well be an overclockers dream (considering
they're built on 90nm technology).

Daniel wrote:
>> ... gaming performance is very important most of my $$ will be
>> going on a 7800GT or GTX ...

> Not worth waiting for the ATI R520 / X1800 cards?

> I know, I know. They've been ages in coming, yield problems being the
> biggest issue.
*snip*
> I'm guessing the R520 may well be an overclockers dream (considering
> they're built on 90nm technology).

wouldn't yeild problems indicate the opposite?

--
http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
>> I'm guessing the R520 may well be an overclockers dream (considering
>> they're built on 90nm technology).
>
>
> wouldn't yeild problems indicate the opposite?
>

My understanding is that issues were primarily with the number of pipes
that could be successfully tapped out. After their 3rd attempt at taping
out the GPU, they seem to have sorted enough of the issues out to
actually release them. I understand that 16 pixel pipeline versions are
readily available (i.e. best yields), although, I'm not sure if 24pp or
even 32pp (imagine crossfire with those cards ... grrrr) versions will
be available in the first week of October.
As far as clock speed goes, it's 90nm fab process tech, so I'd expect
higher clock speeds (apparently 600-650 MHz stock for top-end R520 GPU
core).
I'd be very interested to see what the power consumption and heat output
numbers for the new ATI cards will be - once those annoying NDAs have
expired of course.
Sooner or later, NVIDIA will have to go 90nm as well or lower, otherwise
ATI will leave them in the dust.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:03:38 +1200, gimp <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>for my new system my cpu budget will be about US$380 (NZ$550), i really
>have two Athlon64 procs to choose from, the 4000+ or the X2-3800+.
>
>the pc will be used mainly for 3D animation (single threaded), i don't
>do much rendering these days, but occasionaly. gaming performance is
>very important most of my $$ will be going on a 7800GT or GTX and
>1920x1200 display.
>
>at this stage the 4000+ is my preference, it crushes the X2 in gaming,

For gaming and any single-threaded applications, the Athlon64 4000+
will definitely be a faster performer than the X2 3800+.

>but i remember when i had a dual-cpu system (even a lowly PIII) the OS
>was a bit more response...

Yup, this is exactly why if I had $380 to blow on a chip, I would
definitely be getting the 3800+. That being said I don't do much
gaming and a lot of what I do involves either multithreaded apps or
multitasking.

> so i can't decide :/ i've heard the X2-3800+
>OCs pretty well, could that run at 2.4GHz and does it shorten the life
>of the chip considerably...?

I would imagine that the 3800+ would overclock quite well, the lowest
speed grade of any given line of chips usually does. Considering that
the 3800+ and the 4600+ are built using the exact same die, chances of
hitting 2.4GHz are pretty good (though obviously by no means
guaranteed). It shouldn't really have any noticeable effect on the
lifespan on the chip either.

What is a bigger worry with overclocking the processor is that you
often end up overlocking other parts of the system and usually that is
what ends up limiting how high you can clock the chip. There are a
number of websites out there that specialize in overclocking and which
might offer you some decent insights into what you could expect from
the chip.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Daniel wrote:
> gimp wrote:
>> ... gaming performance is very important most of my $$ will be
>> going on a 7800GT or GTX ...
>>
>
> Not worth waiting for the ATI R520 / X1800 cards?
>
> Just thinking it would be annoying to buy a 7800, only to have it drop
> in price not long after the R520 is released, or discovering that the
> equivalent ATI card completely owns it.


my 3D app Maya can have issues with ATI drivers unfortunately, they're
probably getting better but the industry [at least with my app] tends
towards nVidia hardware which have been solid with Maya for several
years. but good point RE the possible price drop, i won't buy before
the ATI release anyway.

gimp wrote:
>
> my 3D app Maya can have issues with ATI drivers unfortunately, they're
> probably getting better but the industry [at least with my app] tends
> towards nVidia hardware which have been solid with Maya for several
> years. but good point RE the possible price drop, i won't buy before
> the ATI release anyway.

Cool :-)

[...readies to suggest Quadro card, then faints at price...]

Tony Hill wrote:
> What is a bigger worry with overclocking the processor is that you
> often end up overlocking other parts of the system and usually that is
> what ends up limiting how high you can clock the chip. There are a
> number of websites out there that specialize in overclocking and which
> might offer you some decent insights into what you could expect from
> the chip.

thanks for the info :P been doing some googling and apparently people
have clocked it as high as 2.8GHz (!) 2.4 would be enough for me... i
would have to research it more as i've never OC'd and don't want to melt
down the chip/mobo.

i just found this:

http://forums.extremeoverclocking.co.../t-183472.html

probably the X2 is gonna win out i think

"gimp" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dg7ls7$okj$(E-Mail Removed)...
> for my new system my cpu budget will be about US$380 (NZ$550), i really
> have two Athlon64 procs to choose from, the 4000+ or the X2-3800+.
>
> the pc will be used mainly for 3D animation (single threaded), i don't do
> much rendering these days, but occasionaly. gaming performance is very
> important most of my $$ will be going on a 7800GT or GTX and 1920x1200
> display.
>
> at this stage the 4000+ is my preference, it crushes the X2 in gaming, but
> i remember when i had a dual-cpu system (even a lowly PIII) the OS was a
> bit more response... so i can't decide :/ i've heard the X2-3800+ OCs
> pretty well, could that run at 2.4GHz and does it shorten the life of the
> chip considerably...?
>
>

Im in the same boat as you.....
Personally tho, Im going for the X2 - future proofing the system for at
least 6 months (Yeah right)

Bitstring <dg7ls7$okj$(E-Mail Removed)>, from the wonderful person gimp
<(E-Mail Removed)> said
<snip>
>at this stage the 4000+ is my preference, it crushes the X2 in gaming,
>but i remember when i had a dual-cpu system (even a lowly PIII) the OS
>was a bit more response... so i can't decide :/ i've heard the
>X2-3800+ OCs pretty well, could that run at 2.4GHz and does it shorten
>the life of the chip considerably...?

Only elevated temperature shortens the life of the chip, and even then
it needs to be (IIRC) about 15c higher to halve the life (from 120 years
to 60! - OK I guessed at the 120, but that's probably the usual design
goal). Merely overclocking, doesn't do any harm (although ramping the
voltage to achieve higher clock speed definitely does reduce lifetimes
too, apart from the extra heat effect).

Chip power = constant * frequency * voltage * voltage .. as you can see,
ramping the (VCore) voltage has more effect than ramping the clock, but
still not a big issue if you can get the power away, and keep the chip
cool (and remember the AMD spec says 'it'll work for X years with the
core temperature at 80c' .. so you're probably already running well
inside the window.

Get the dual Core chip - =current= games might work better on the 4000+,
but game designers know how to code dual (or quad, or more) threaded
games, so future games may run lots nicer on a dual core chip - and even
for current games you'll at least be able to have all the WinXP OS cr&p
happening in the other CPU (which is significant sometimes).

I guess you could just stick in a XP3x00+ single core chip in now, and
wait for the XP4800+ to come down in price. 8>.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.