Opinion wanted from A64 X2 owners

Am almost ready to buy a whole new machine (for a friend) for the purpose of 'general internet, office use with some games (Sims 2) and media playing (mostly music)'.
Will be getting (briefly) an Athlon64, 1GB Corsair RAM, Geforce 6600, Samsung 250GB hard drive, NOT o/c'd.
Am only thinking that this machine will almost certainly not be upgraded over the next 3 - 4 years and has to still be good / useable at that point.

From experience (as opposed to review websites graphs & charts), is there a tangeable benefit in going with an X2 3800+, or will a single core 3700+ suffice? The X2 will add approx £90 to a system that overall costs currently around £1200. (It's costing so much not due to core components but quality peripherals that are less likely to devalue so quickly).

Cheers in advance.

For most applications today you are not going to notice much difference between single and dual core processing, unless you are running numerous applications all at once. The dual core stuff is still a bit ahead of its time since most programs still aren't made to take advantage of the technology - even games. This is, of course, going to change within the 3 to 4 year timeline you gave.

In short, I think it worth it to drop another 90 quid on an X2 if you want the computer slightly more future-proof.

it isnt even worth the money for a 3700 imo, a 3500 and a 6800GT would be a far better combo imo.

But there's only around £12 difference from a 3500+ to a 3700+ (same speed, double the L2 cache - SURELY worth it!). That money wont do much for the graphics card. And games are only occasional, Sims hardly requires 100 FPS!

I would agree with ilikeoatmeal, an X2 at the moment isn't really necessary, but it will future proof the machine more. The way things are looking, cpu's will start to have 2 or more cores as standard in the next year or so, and as a result more and more applications will start to take advantage of this.

Hope this helps

Andy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSIC

But there's only around £12 difference from a 3500+ to a 3700+ (same speed, double the L2 cache - SURELY worth it!). That money wont do much for the graphics card. And games are only occasional, Sims hardly requires 100 FPS!

---

My apoligies, in head prices need updating obviously.

Depends what u do really. X2 is SUPER great when u run engineering softwares or scientific applications. I experienced at least 40 to 80% improvements in computational time depending on software. Best results are when ur running loop multi dimensional simulation.

I'm a normal user I would say. I use many more programs at the same time now though, then when I did when I had a single core. Gaming is still excellent, but running over 6 big apps at one time is very smooth and I will never have a single core again! :)

Hi MSIC,

I'm in a similar situation in that I'm about to build a new system.

I started off thinking about an X2, but there are several things that have put me off.
The price is quite steep (£230 for 3800 from scan) and I'd say not worth it unless you're certain that your going to get the benefit. I've also heard of people having problems with some games. Basically you have to asign the game to one core only, before it will work properly. That may not be a problem for an enthusiast but I doubt your friend would thank you :)

The Athlon64 3700 "San Diego" is a really nice chip and "only" £155 (scan). It has the same 90nm core as the FX57 and they're ~£750.

The only thing that has made me stop and think is the article in this months CustomPC about Opterons. The 144 again has the same core as the FX57, can be overclocked to 2700-3000MHz (depending on how lucky you are) and is only £110.

I'm probably going to choose an Opteron (for myself), but if I was building for someone else, who was only going to use it for surfing, office and a bit of gaming, I've go for cheap, cheerful and mainstream. That has to be an Athlon64 and the 3700 is the one with the best performance before the prices get silly.

If you think your friend really might need the extra power (of an X2) I'd advise you/them to wait a while. Who knows, in a few years the FX57 will probably be £150 and the 4400/4600 X2s certainly will be :mrgreen:

U will need to ask ur fren wat sort of software he uses. Is his rig ONLY for normal stuff? Does he encode DVDs? Will he need to work with several high CPU processes in one go?

If u're familiar with the habit of multitasking, you'll appreciate what the X2 offers you. If you game, how many times have Norton or Diskeeper suddenly begin to do its work while you're playing chase in CS:S?

If ur fren's going to be running complex VB, AutoCAD, SolidWorks and Mathematica then he'll feel the improvement immediately.. really.

3-4years. X2 no doubt.:)

If this guy is just a general user I'd think even a 3700+ is a bit too much. Go for a 3200+ or something similar, hell, people around here are happliy using Socket A setups for more than general uses. I'd save the money and get a large monitor or something that's useful to him.

If overlocking and gaming is your thing then the 3700+ will destroy even a 4800+. If you are not a gamer or overclocker (when I say overclocker, I don't mean a person who merely goes into the BIOS and adds a couple hundred MHz to his otherwise stock CPU) then you definitely want an X2, just in case you ever want to run multiple CPU intensive applications.

I'd like to clear up a myth though, so please pay attention you gaming lot:

A dual-core CPU is no more smooth than a single-core if the CPU utilization reaches 100%. Also, you can run 1000 applications on a single-core and it will multitask as smooth as a dual-core as long as all of the programs demands do not exceed 100% of the CPU time.

The true power of a dual-core is almost always wasted on gamers. Only programs written to take advantage of multiple cores will truly tap the dual-core's power.

Games are almost all videocard these days and that will not likely change. Gamers are better off spending their money on dual GPUs rather than dual CPUs, don't you think?

NightshadowUK's suggestion to save the money and buy a bigger/better monitor, is excellent advice. Get you're friend a 19in TFT and they'll be far more impressed than with some techie explanation about dual processor thingumies :)

StormPC is also spot on. For gaming the graphics card is much more important than the cpu. There are plenty of games where switching from a 3700 64 to a 3800 X2 will make no difference. It'll certainly make no difference for "internet, office and music". I do all those things on my old 1GHz Athlon with no trouble.

£1200 is quite a lot for an ordinary PC these days (my parents recently bought a Dell for £350), so getting him a system for "only" £1100 might please him.

I'm getting them (it'll be a family PC) a Dell 2005FPW, same as me. Best monitor ever - apart from the 24" version. And now the 30" version (i'm not jealous...).
Also Logitech 3000 Mouse & Keyboard, Akasa PSU & Antec P180 case, with JBL speakers. The peripherals are already taken care of, this thing will look 'wow'. I know, because that's my computer's exterior.
And they already have an Athlon 1.3 Ghz with 256MB ram, it works, and I have already suggested them upgrading current PC, they want a new one. Full stop. I'm not going to talk them out of it.
So the only issue at hand is the CPU, X2 or not. There doesnt seem to be an easy concensus, but people actually with X2's in their 'My System' are all saying get one. I think I just might do...

If you're not using or at least not GOING to use the horsepower, then dun spend £230 on an X2 and just settle for a solo instead. But if the family's a heavy user, X2 couldnt be a better choice.

I don't believe a dual core is needed. The PC is gonna be used for the following:

General Internet use - those web pages aren't gonna load any quicker with an X2.

Office use - Word processing / spreadsheets / databases do not utilize dual core, at all, not a sausage.

Some games i.e. Sims 2 - I maybe wrong here, but for him to mention the Sims 2 as a game he plays would suggest he doesn't really play anything more taxing, and even *IF* he does (which I doubt), only UT2007 (as far as I know) is planning to take full advantage of dual core, and even then I'm expecting my 3700+ to handle it. Sure, they come in if you're running a crap load of programs at once, but I'm pretty sure a 3200+ can handle average use... with ease. People say dual cores improve even standard games, maybe they do, but only where benchmarking is concerned. A dual core maybe able to run CS:S 'better' than my system, but 'better' isn't needed when I'm able to max everything out and still bounce off the FPS limit set by Vertical Sync.

Media playing - this would go off RAM more than the CPU, again, I suggest you save the money and get 2GB RAM, although, I'd like to note that even a Socket A system with 256MB RAM can play MP3s and videos...

There's no way a dual core is for standard use, a single core will suffice, spend the money saved on extra RAM, a large TFT and some lovely surround sound speakers.

I agree with NightshadowUK.

I know when I plan to spend a load of money on some fancy new toy, my mates will often say "What do you need that for ?". My reply is always "What's NEED got to do with it ? I WANT one :mrgreen: ".

If you go for an X2 your friends will be happy with their super fast PC, there's no doubt about it. (20" wide screen + antec P180 :bowdown: )

But if you have any concerns about cost and value for money then NightshadowUK's advice is spot on. The extra cash is better spent on more/faster RAM, HDD, etc.

Have you thought about giving them a striped raid array ?

Am concerned about RAID in terms of reliability, again given that it needs to still be reliable 4 years down the line without upgrades or them popping in to 'PC World' :angst: .
The other thing about money is that i gather they will be paying for it through the 'Home Computing Initiative', which i'd always assumed meant that you had to get some HP machine and pay for over the next 3 years getting ripped off in the process. Apparently it applies to self-builds also (i havent verified this myself). The upshot of this is, my friend will end up paying £800 for a £1200 machine after tax savings... hence the desire to get a decent spec now.

Quote:

---

although, I'd like to note that even a Socket A system with 256MB RAM can play MP3s and videos...

---

I know, i know. What can i say .... not my decision!

Quote:

---

But if the family's a heavy user,

---

I had a look at their current machine last night for the first time. The kids (11 and 14 i think) have added lots of "wonderful things" like pop-up blockers (that add spyware), "amusing" moving icons so the mouse is some Irish leprechaun, and there's about 15 different applications running from boot-up such as Kodak easyshare for a camera that is no longer in use. Trust me, although they arn't 'heavy users' in my sense of the terms, they will be pushing a machine to it's limits!!!:mrgreen:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billythewiz

I know when I plan to spend a load of money on some fancy new toy, my mates will often say "What do you need that for ?". My reply is always "What's NEED got to do with it ? I WANT one :mrgreen: "

---

Too right, I'd love an X2 system but if I'm being honest with myself it'd just be spank fodder!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSIC

Am concerned about RAID in terms of reliability, again given that it needs to still be reliable 4 years down the line without upgrades or them popping in to 'PC World'.

---

Budget depending, you could always get a Raptor for Windows and system applications, and keep aside a standard large capacity SATA drive for storage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billythewiz

I know when I plan to spend a load of money on some fancy new toy, my mates will often say "What do you need that for ?". My reply is always "What's NEED got to do with it ? I WANT one :mrgreen: "

---

Too right, I'd love an X2 system but if I'm being honest with myself it'd just be spank fodder!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSIC

Am concerned about RAID in terms of reliability, again given that it needs to still be reliable 4 years down the line without upgrades or them popping in to 'PC World'.

---

Budget depending, you could always get a Raptor for Windows and system applications, and keep aside a standard large capacity SATA drive for storage.

tbh your gunna have probs with any pc at some point whther it be a virus from downloaded music or just a common falut that average users wont be able to fix, i dont even think that there is an issu bout the cpu
if they dont know much bout pcs im sure that a 3700 will blow them away they arnt gunna think mmm if only we got that 3800 we would have been able to do this this that and that slightly easier, like what they dot know wont hurt them and forgive me if im wrong but family pcs arnt performance hugry monsters usually cue dell bas models do the job fine prob even run sims and how much oh rite 500 quid.
just get em a 3700. and a gig of ram and a normal hardrive why do they need raid?

The budget is stupidly big considering what they need it for... would they not happily save some cash or are they intent on spending it?

exaclty tbh you could build a pc for that for like 600 quid

why they cant do wat normal familes do and buy like a 600 quid dell i dont know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightshadowUK

I'd love an X2 system but ... it'd just be spank fodder!

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by project187

just get em a 3700. and a gig of ram and a normal hardrive

---

I agree completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by project187

why do they need raid?

---

What's need got to do with it ? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightshadowUK

The budget is stupidly big considering what they need it for

---

Absolutely.

Your family is going to have a serious upgrade problem in the next few years anyway. In 1-2 years time, those 11 and 14 year old kids are going to discover Quake5, BF3 and WoW online. For that they're are going to want a kickass PC each. :crazy:

The "family PC" will only be used by the parents for surfing and office. :shocked2:

lol raid smaid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSIC

Am concerned about RAID in terms of reliability, again given that it needs to still be reliable 4 years down the line without upgrades or them popping in to 'PC World' :angst: .
The other thing about money is that i gather they will be paying for it through the 'Home Computing Initiative', which i'd always assumed meant that you had to get some HP machine and pay for over the next 3 years getting ripped off in the process. Apparently it applies to self-builds also (i havent verified this myself). The upshot of this is, my friend will end up paying £800 for a £1200 machine after tax savings... hence the desire to get a decent spec now.



I know, i know. What can i say .... not my decision!



I had a look at their current machine last night for the first time. The kids (11 and 14 i think) have added lots of "wonderful things" like pop-up blockers (that add spyware), "amusing" moving icons so the mouse is some Irish leprechaun, and there's about 15 different applications running from boot-up such as Kodak easyshare for a camera that is no longer in use. Trust me, although they arn't 'heavy users' in my sense of the terms, they will be pushing a machine to it's limits!!!:mrgreen:

---

I hope you are not saying they need a dual-core to run spyware better...:embarrassed:

Also, it is a myth that dual-cores ALWAYS multitask better than single-cores. They absolutely do not. There are only two cases where a dual-core beats out a single, and overclocking is not one of them. They are:

1) Programs written SPECIFICALLY to take advantage of multiple cores, and...
2) Running multiple CPU INTENSIVE PROGRAMS where CPU utilization is maxxed out. This happens sooner on a single-core in most cases because there is less CPU power.

It should be noted though that I have tested dual-cores, and if you run 2 or more programs that max out both cores you are in the same boat as a single-core, that is, things will be just as jerky (un-smooth). Of course, the more cores you have the less likely it is that this will happen.

If you gamers think multi-cores help, why not get a quad dual-core Opteron system. If we follow your logic about the X2 and gaming then the 8-core Opteron should be a really good gamer.:rolleyes:

I have noticed a big diffenece when using my dual core as compared to the other single core systems I've used.

Running 7 or more apps at one time just makes everything easier and smoother

And games have seen an advantage (the Quake 4 patch) when I enable dual core - I've been able to up the AA from 2 x to 4 x AA at 1600 x 1200 (widescreen enabled) :)

multi threaded games or not, lets just see what UT2K7 gives. Regardless of what others say, I do feel lots difference when I multitask. This is probably related to the sort of softwares I use tho. I guess people here that want to perform a 6 hour mathematical simulation and STILL want to use the PC will be superly happy (I'm one of them).

I guess if the family's a bunch of uni academics (like me n my mrs), the system would serve them very well. If not, just get a 3200+ and a decent gfx card and be happy with it. I cant recall how terrible is to wait 14+ hours for a database search to complete before I can run another program on my now RIPed 3500+ and spare 3200+.

Decision time.

Quote:

---

why not get a quad dual-core Opteron system

---

Will do.

Only joking.

A 3700+ (single core) is what i'm going to get. I reckon X2 is overkill, it'd be nice, but not needed, even in a few years time. The husband does know a little about computers ie he will have heard of dual core, but i think on balance 3700+ it is.

And by the way, for all who keep saying "£600 PC is all you need" have you actually tried to build a machine that can blow people away in terms of asthetics for this much money?? If so i'd like to see you spec one up here!! The monitor ALONE is £350, and that's from alot of shopping around (dell sell it for over £500 still).

Cheers for the input from everyone, especially those who have the X2's.

Actually Dell DON'T sell it for over £500 any more, they did a few days ago but it seems they've just dropped the price to £381!.
Not that absolute cheapest, but only about £30 more, so not bad...

well aot of people dnt build pcs to look nice an monitor is not to look nice its for a function and you can get them refurb for 250 if youd like and when someone says building a system normally thats just the tower and yes it isnt a hard feat to build a pc for 600 pounds exluding perhiperals

To be honest, any of AMD's (or Intel's) processors could run what you want it to, with no problem at all. My outgoing Pentium III 500 happily ran IE, Firefox, Winamp, Word and Outlook at the same time with no discernible lag (although it had 640MB).

With AMD's new M2 Processor sockets arriving soon, it may be a better investment to get the cheapest cpu/motherboard/memory deal you can, but a better video card such as a 7800GT (as has been said, it's rarely the CPU that limits frame rate). I can't imagine that you would see any difference running those apps on a 4800 rather than a 2800. I *would* go for a 300GB drive rather than 250GB if you can (shop around, the difference can be <£10), preferably one with a 16MB buffer.

Personally, I went with the X2 3800 and don't regret it for a second. I use some pretty heavy duty graphics and engineering software which really benefits, and dual core upgrade patches are already available for some games (Quake 4, Call of Duty 2 etc).

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSIC

Decision time.



A 3700+ (single core) is what i'm going to get. I reckon X2 is overkill..

---

An X2 is not overkill. Make no mistake, the X2 is much more powerful in tasks that require CPU muscle. Games just do not take advantage of that power. Because of this the X2 is not a good deal for gamers. An Opteron 146 overclocked to 2.8GHz (they will reach this quite easily) will destroy a 4800+ X2 for a fraction of the cost, but ONLY in games and other non-multithreaded programs.

Please don't miss the point here as many of the X2 cheerleaders seem to. The X2 is a monster and it's price is justified if you will use both cores most of the time. If not, I believe a single-core is a much better choice.:thumbsup:

So you agree with me, the X2 IS overkill then!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSIC

So you agree with me, the X2 IS overkill then!

---

No, in your application it is underkill, since a single-core will kick the dual-core's arse.

Can someone explain to me why a dual core processor is worse than a single core processor at the same clock speeds - apart from the price thing obviously.

Unless I'm missing something, having a dual core there, for when you're online gaming and your PC decides it's time to start virus checking for example can only be a good thing?

Tom

At same clock speeds/cache and ignoring price, it's not worse at all. There's a minor heat/power penalty and some potential software issues with certain drivers, but as far as the hardware goes it's not worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSIC

Decision time.
And by the way, for all who keep saying "£600 PC is all you need" have you actually tried to build a machine that can blow people away in terms of asthetics for this much money??

---

Yes, I built someone a Shuttle SK43G based box a year ago. It was Socket A with plenty of ram, cheap TFT and a good DVD burner. Last I heard she still absolutely adores it (and the fact the whole system takes very little space). Was 500 quid including windows XP & virus checker.

I would have to ask for 1200 quid whether one monster PC is better than a shuttle per child.

I'd say x2, by the time hes looking at upgrading the machine more dual core support will be around and will make up for its &#163;90 extra costage.

If all he does is play the SIM's then theres not really much point in the spending of &#163;1200 on a machine for it IMHO anyways...

Very few people actually know what a PC costs - even those who claim to know something about them (Intel Pentium 4 with HT technology anyone?). People are still stuck in 1996 when a decent machine would set you back &#163;1400. They don't realise that a &#163;500 dell will do more than they could ever throw at it.

I would ask the "client" what he really wants to do with the machine, how long he expects to keep it before it's thrown away and a new machine built, whether he wants the ability to upgrade chip, gfx card, amount of ram in the future for the kids, does he plan to use it for viewing TV/DVD's/PVR etc etc.

People are blown away by how big the monitor looks and how thin it is. They like the really cool case cos it's got audio and firewire on the front with a flashing light and a cool drive bay. Very few of them could tell the difference in a blind test between an X2 3800, 2gb ram, 7800gtx and an xp3200, 512gb ram and a 9700pro. Doubly so if they are just surfing the net or using word.

Imho a 19" monitor will be of far more benefit than an X2. Perhaps saving him &#163;&#163;&#163; is more wow factor. Hehe why not show him this thread.

I respect that it's his money and that's my 2 cents worth of opinion.

Well, the machine has been built and delivered over 3 weeks ago now, and all is well.
For what it's worth, the monitor, case, speakers, mouse and keyboard came to nearly &#163;550, so the internal components made up the rest.

And money wasnt an issue, as he had a bit of a windfall, and was quite happy / willing to spend &#163;1500.

Now, to put this matter to rest, i'm in no way saying that you can't build a good PC for &#163;500 or &#163;600 - i can post a spec for such a system right now - but you have to bear in mind that he already had a halfway decent machine, and a &#163;500 PC just wouldn't be much of a step up from what he had (both in performance AND looks / feel).

End result - &#163;1200 spent, a nice machine produced, and one very happy family.

THE END.

Well what did you get him? lol

BTW, I'm doing just fine with my old skool 3200+ & 6800GT (playing most games [CS:S, Doom3, Quake4] at 1280x1024 quite smoothly) so I'm partial to the el cheapo route.