Dual Core Desktops
So far, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Manchester has remained unchanged for the most part. The X2 3800+ is still a bit pricier than its Pentium D counterpart, the 830, but it has proven to be the better CPU in Anand’s comprehensive X2 3800+ article. The big question is if the small increase in price is worth the increase in performance. If you’re not on a super tight budget and have the $15-$30 to spend, then the X2 3800+ Manchester [RTPE: ADA3800DAA5BV] is definitely the processor to go buy.
The Intel Pentium D processors haven’t fluctuated much over the course of these past several weeks. Intel still has the ball in their court with the entry level dual core 820 being drastically cheaper than AMD’s entry dual core, the X2 3800+ (Manchester). Even though they are not on the same level of performance, they are still entry level. We are hoping to see AMD add to the entry level competition, as more competition equals lower prices.
So far, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Manchester has remained unchanged for the most part. The X2 3800+ is still a bit pricier than its Pentium D counterpart, the 830, but it has proven to be the better CPU in Anand’s comprehensive X2 3800+ article. The big question is if the small increase in price is worth the increase in performance. If you’re not on a super tight budget and have the $15-$30 to spend, then the X2 3800+ Manchester [RTPE: ADA3800DAA5BV] is definitely the processor to go buy.
AMD Athlon 64 X2 (939) 3800+ 2x512KB Manchester
The Intel Pentium D processors haven’t fluctuated much over the course of these past several weeks. Intel still has the ball in their court with the entry level dual core 820 being drastically cheaper than AMD’s entry dual core, the X2 3800+ (Manchester). Even though they are not on the same level of performance, they are still entry level. We are hoping to see AMD add to the entry level competition, as more competition equals lower prices.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
38 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Sunday, October 30, 2005 - link
The 2.2 GHz 1MB 939 3700+ is very similar in performance to the 2.4 GHz 1MB 754 3700+, with the exception of the 939 chip using 90nm SOI vs. 130nm SOI. The top chip for 754 will be the 3700+, with a *mobile* 4000+ coming in the future - which may or may not work on most 754 boards. (90nm SOI chips for 754 exist, but they don't work on quite a few of the older boards.) So, you're saving $50 relative to socket 939, more or less.Things you can't get from socket 754 (most likely ever):
Dual Core
4GB of RAM
SLI and/or Crossfire
Faster than 2.6 GHz (without overclocking)
None of those things are huge shortcomings, but 939 is a better platform overall. Running two DIMMs is in general more stable, there is a much larger selection of quality motherboards, and the simple fact that 754 is now a "value" platform means that most boards target a different audience. If you're looking at $275 or so for 3700+ 754, $300-$325 for 939 is a pretty reasonable upgrade. Both are destined to be replaced next year, but even when M2 and S1 come out, there will still be plenty of faster 939 chips floating around.
JarredWalton - Sunday, October 30, 2005 - link
Incidentally, as far as performance, I'd say:939 vs. 754:
dual-channel = 0 to 10% more performance; 7% typical in games
Rev. E vs. Rev. C = 0 to 7% more performance; 5% average
So, clock for clock, with the same amount of cache, a San Diego will be around 0 to 18% faster than a Clawhammer, with the typical performance boost being 10 to 12%.
Right now, the 754 3700+ is a great deal for upgraders - hell, it's cheaper than the 3400+ (both variants) as well as the 3200+ Hammer core. It's a little odd, as the price should be closer to $250 (looking at the other 754 chips). The San Diego 3700+ is probably still faster, but I don't think it's $75 faster.
San Diego will also overclock better than the Clawhammer, if that's important to you - especially the 754 Clawhammer. You'll be lucky to get that chip to 2.6, but the San Diego will often do 2.7 to 2.8, and even 2.9+ in some cases (water cooling will help). I'd say 939 is by far the more flexible option, but there are still some interesting options at times for 754.
yacoub - Sunday, October 30, 2005 - link
So Jarred, if one is looking at building a new system, but has no interest in SLI and wants to keep it cheap, would s754 still be a viable option or not?Figure using whatever s754 board supports SATA, USB2.0, and PCI-E as the basic requirements.
Throw in that 3700+ chip, a 7800GT, a 74GB Raptor 10k drive, and 1-2GB of pc3200. No overclocking.
I'd love to see how that setup runs some of the latest games like FEAR and Quake4.
JarredWalton - Sunday, October 30, 2005 - link
Wait... did you just use "cheap" and then list a 7800GT and a Raptor!? ;)I really don't get why people are so hung-up on Raptors. Yeah, the 10K RPM helps some applications load a bit faster, but I'd take 2GB of RAM with a 160GB HDD over 1GB with a 74GB Raptor. But I digress.
Performance-wise, the 3700+ 754 should be within 5% of the 3700+ 939 for games, and while 5% is a measurable difference, it's not noticeable. I'd still go for 939, as the increased competition has created a lot more quality motherboards. What's the best socket 754 motherboard? I think it's probably the DFI LanParty UT 250Gb - even now! But that's an AGP board.
The ASUS K8N4-E Deluxe is pretty good, but more expensive than the feature set warrants IMO. The DFI Infinity 4X is probably the best PCIe 754 board for price/performance, but then you miss out some features like Firewire and SATA2. I can't comment on the Abit NV8, Gigabyte GA-K8NE, etc. as I haven't tried any of them. Anyway, http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=nforce4%207...">here's the list of nForce4 754 boards - choose your poison.
yacoub - Sunday, October 30, 2005 - link
Thanks Jarred, that's a very helpful reply! :)JarredWalton - Sunday, October 30, 2005 - link
The 2.2 GHz 1MB 939 3700+ is very similar in performance to the 2.4 GHz 1MB 754 3700+, with the exception of the 939 chip using 90nm SOI vs. 130nm SOI. The top chip for 754 will be the 3700+, with a *mobile* 4000+ coming in the future - which may or may not work on most 754 boards. (90nm SOI chips for 754 exist, but they don't work on quite a few of the older boards.) So, you're saving $50 relative to socket 939, more or less.Things you can't get from socket 754 (most likely ever):
Dual Core
4GB of RAM
SLI and/or Crossfire
Faster than 2.6 GHz (without overclocking)
None of those things are huge shortcomings, but 939 is a better platform overall. Running two DIMMs is in general more stable, there is a much larger selection of quality motherboards, and the simple fact that 754 is now a "value" platform means that most boards target a different audience. If you're looking at $275 or so for 3700+ 754, $300-$325 for 939 is a pretty reasonable upgrade. Both are destined to be replaced next year, but even when M2 and S1 come out, there will still be plenty of faster 939 chips floating around.
Visual - Saturday, October 29, 2005 - link
AMD Athlon 64 X2 (939) 3800+ 2x512KB ToledoTOLEDO???
is that for real, like, they lock half the l2 for these chips, or is it just a mistake?
Nyati13 - Saturday, October 29, 2005 - link
The full 1M cache failed test, but a 512K subsection tested good, so they lock the bad half, and sell it as a 512K chip, instead of just throwing it away because the full 1M cache failed.CPU companies have always done this... it's nothing new
beakerman - Saturday, October 29, 2005 - link
Am I the only one that can't see the Dual Core Product List on Page 2? I see an empty chart.stephenbrooks - Saturday, October 29, 2005 - link
As usual there seem to be some oddities in the pricing, like right nowIntel Xeon 3.4GHz 800FSB 1MB Monarch Computer 469.00
Intel Xeon 3.4GHz 800FSB 2MB NewEgg 465.00
...but never mind, I suppose it makes choosing between the two easier :)