cpu comparison

[swingman]

I'm looking at three systems, identical but for the cpu's. In order of low
to higher cost they are Athlon 64 3800+ (2.4ghz), P4 640 HT (3.2 ghz), and
Athlon64 X2 4200+ (2.2ghz). The three systems are fairly close in cost and
I wonder if it's clear which cpu is the strongest? I know they cannot be
compared based on clock speed. What do you folks think? TIA

 

[John]

I'm looking at three systems, identical but for the cpu's. In order of low
to higher cost they are Athlon 64 3800+ (2.4ghz), P4 640 HT (3.2 ghz), and
Athlon64 X2 4200+ (2.2ghz). The three systems are fairly close in cost and
I wonder if it's clear which cpu is the strongest? I know they cannot be
compared based on clock speed. What do you folks think? TIA

Depends on the cost obviously but Im biased towards the AMD X2 and so
are many sites though it depends on what AMD vs what INTEL obviously
once again.

The X2s are very popular and getting raves. I just bought the 3800 x2
upgraded from the AMD 64 3000 and now that Ive been using it for
roughly 2 days I like it. Still havent put it through its paces with
really tough tasks but my general impression was that there was little
difference between it and the 3000 for everyday use but I feel it more
now. Everything in general feels peppier even mundane single core
tasks though its obviously not night and day but everything does feel
speedier. Since the X2 3800 is even in single core apps rated higher
than the 3000 its not exactly a surprise.

One thing I didnt have some updates which I just installed last night
--- theres a AMD X2 driver at their site and theres a Windows XP dual
core patch that resolves some performance problems with the dual core
if you dont have it. Maybe its my imagination but it seems to have
made it a bit peppier in performance.

Im going to test it tonight as a few things seemed to have gotten
worse. Sometimes when you are downloading and using ACDSee classic to
view graphics files its actually WORSE than my single core AMD 64
strangely enough so maybe these patches fixed that. Or maybe ACDsee
classic is just too old. I like it cause its small and fast the new
versions I actually tried them and I didnt like them.

Also as others have pointed out ---- dual cores fix some problems
obviously when your CPU usage is maxed out having two cores helps but
it doesnt help when the bottleneck is your HD and other parts of your
system.

Frankly cost wise the AMD X2 dual core is very good. Going up to the
4200 isnt going to add a lot though I think it has 1 meg cache. Not
sure where that would make a difference. Some say it doesnt at all for
most users and others say it does in some cases. Other than that the
small stock speed difference vs the cost I dont think is worth it.
Many people are buying the X2 3800 to OC it as it can reportedly hit
2.4-2.5 easily it comes stock 2.0 so it can match the highest stock X2
AMDs selling for far higher prices. Some are reportedly hitting
2.7-2.8 with air cooling.

 

[kony]

I'm looking at three systems, identical but for the cpu's. In order of low
to higher cost they are Athlon 64 3800+ (2.4ghz), P4 640 HT (3.2 ghz), and
Athlon64 X2 4200+ (2.2ghz). The three systems are fairly close in cost and
I wonder if it's clear which cpu is the strongest? I know they cannot be
compared based on clock speed. What do you folks think? TIA

Depends on the task.
Regular A64 3800 for most single-threaded things such as
games. X2 for multithreaded or multitasking where the
background applications have a realtime need for processing.
P4 for a few modern optimized applications such as content
creation. P4 is generally a poor choice and might be
outperformed even at it's strongest points when only
considering 3.2GHz version.

However, you are wrong that they're identical but for the
CPU. They definitely use different motherboards, which can
matter a lot (even more than CPU depending on the use and
expansion) and maybe even other details we cannot forsee.

 

[philo]

I'm looking at three systems, identical but for the cpu's. In order of low
to higher cost they are Athlon 64 3800+ (2.4ghz), P4 640 HT (3.2 ghz), and
Athlon64 X2 4200+ (2.2ghz). The three systems are fairly close in cost and
I wonder if it's clear which cpu is the strongest? I know they cannot be
compared based on clock speed. What do you folks think? TIA

well
i just built an X2 3800 for my G.F. who uses Photoshop quite heavily...
it's a winner for sure!


it was not easy for me to part with that much money though!

 

[John]

I'm looking at three systems, identical but for the cpu's. In order of low
to higher cost they are Athlon 64 3800+ (2.4ghz), P4 640 HT (3.2 ghz), and
Athlon64 X2 4200+ (2.2ghz). The three systems are fairly close in cost and
I wonder if it's clear which cpu is the strongest? I know they cannot be
compared based on clock speed. What do you folks think? TIA

Tried downloading and using ACDsee Classic again which was one of the
few things that seemed worse than my single core and the patches and
AMD dual driver seems to have fixed the problem.

 

[swingman]

I'm looking at three systems, identical but for the cpu's. In order of

Depends on the task.
Regular A64 3800 for most single-threaded things such as
games. X2 for multithreaded or multitasking where the
background applications have a realtime need for processing.
P4 for a few modern optimized applications such as content
creation. P4 is generally a poor choice and might be
outperformed even at it's strongest points when only
considering 3.2GHz version.

However, you are wrong that they're identical but for the
CPU. They definitely use different motherboards, which can
matter a lot (even more than CPU depending on the use and
expansion) and maybe even other details we cannot forsee.

Thanks for the reply. You're quite right about different motherboards
having significant impacts on performance - I hadn't even thought of that.
What I meant when I said the systems were identical apart from their
processors is that they have the same amount of ram, type of hard disk,
optical drives and onboard graphics. I'm specifically looking that the HP
Pavilion a1330n, a1340n, and a1350n. They all have:

1 gig ram
250gig SATA hard disk
1 DVD burner
1 DVD ROM
Radeon Express 200 graphics
1 PCIe slot (for video upgrade)

They are priced at $670 (Athlon 64 3800+), $690 (P4 640 3.2gig with HT) and
$745 (Athlon 64 X2 4200+). I can ignore the small price differences and
make a choice based on performance, but it sounds like no one CPU is the
clear winner (?) Another consideration is which system might support a cpu
upgrade down the road (I wouldn't count on it though <g>)

 

[John]

They are priced at $670 (Athlon 64 3800+), $690 (P4 640 3.2gig with HT) and
$745 (Athlon 64 X2 4200+). I can ignore the small price differences and
make a choice based on performance, but it sounds like no one CPU is the
clear winner (?) Another consideration is which system might support a cpu
upgrade down the road (I wouldn't count on it though <g>)

The 3800 is an excellent performer. Unless you want to get the
ultimate game machine or do lots of CPU intensive work and even if you
do the 3800 is excellent.

I would save the $75 buck difference between that and the 4200 and get
a better graphics card if you have any desire at all in playing games.
See how much the 6600GT is if you dont want to spend that much.
The 6600GT someone just posted a $100 deal with rebate. Its a fine
mainstream gaming card. IF you really are into games get a 800XL or
6800GT instead and if you are a fanatic get a 7800GT those are coming
down really fast in price.

 

[kony]

The 3800 is an excellent performer. Unless you want to get the
ultimate game machine or do lots of CPU intensive work and even if you
do the 3800 is excellent.

I would save the $75 buck difference between that and the 4200 and get
a better graphics card if you have any desire at all in playing games.

I concur, a video card is the next best addition to the
system and would be worth more to me than the X2 CPU today.

See how much the 6600GT is if you dont want to spend that much.
The 6600GT someone just posted a $100 deal with rebate. Its a fine
mainstream gaming card. IF you really are into games get a 800XL or
6800GT instead and if you are a fanatic get a 7800GT those are coming
down really fast in price.

Even a lower end video card trumps X300 integrated video.

 

[swingman]

The 3800 is an excellent performer. Unless you want to get the

ultimate game machine or do lots of CPU intensive work and even if you
do the 3800 is excellent.

I would save the $75 buck difference between that and the 4200 and get
a better graphics card if you have any desire at all in playing games.
See how much the 6600GT is if you dont want to spend that much.
The 6600GT someone just posted a $100 deal with rebate. Its a fine
mainstream gaming card. IF you really are into games get a 800XL or
6800GT instead and if you are a fanatic get a 7800GT those are coming
down really fast in price.

Thanks again for recommendations. I don't play games, but I do work with
pictures and may do video editing eventually. Perhaps the 6600 GT would
still be a good choice?

 

[kony]

Thanks again for recommendations. I don't play games, but I do work with
pictures and may do video editing eventually. Perhaps the 6600 GT would
still be a good choice?

It's a bit overkill then. If you're seriously planning on
video editing and/or you're using newer multithreaded
software then the X2 may indeed be a performance boost for
that, but it's relative to how much you'd be doing it and
what the real total budet is. In other words if the budget
stretches to allow the X2 and a budget video card, it's more
appropriate to get a separate video card for a $700-800
range system rather than a $400 system.

 

[John]

Thanks again for recommendations. I don't play games, but I do work with
pictures and may do video editing eventually. Perhaps the 6600 GT would
still be a good choice?

Since you wont be overclocking eventhough its a small difference if
you dont mind spending the extra money the 4200 X2 may be worth it to
you depending on the $75 price difference and your budget. For video
editing etc if you arent into games you dont really need much of a
video card but many sites recommend against built in graphics. It
sounds like thats what you are getting so get the lowest cost decent
graphics card thats offered. That may mean a 6600GT or even a 6600
non-GT or even lower 6200 or some other ATI variant. Usually the built
in graphics share memory with the system.

So consider the cost of the separate card and the extra money you
would spend $75 on the 4200. If you can afford both and you dont mind
spending more then get both. If you do mind then get the 3800 and a
separate card.

 

[swingman]

Since you wont be overclocking eventhough its a small difference if

you dont mind spending the extra money the 4200 X2 may be worth it to
you depending on the $75 price difference and your budget. For video
editing etc if you arent into games you dont really need much of a
video card but many sites recommend against built in graphics. It
sounds like thats what you are getting so get the lowest cost decent
graphics card thats offered. That may mean a 6600GT or even a 6600
non-GT or even lower 6200 or some other ATI variant. Usually the built
in graphics share memory with the system.

So consider the cost of the separate card and the extra money you
would spend $75 on the 4200. If you can afford both and you dont mind
spending more then get both. If you do mind then get the 3800 and a
separate card.

I will probably go with the 3800+ and use the built-in graphics initially,
then upgrade the video after a while (I did see sub $100 offers for the
6600GT). Thanks again to you and everyone else who responded with helpful
feedback.