Athlon64 X2 3800+ Feedback need I WANT one but is it good ??
 

Athlon64 X2 3800+ Feedback need I WANT one but is it good ??


Whats the difference to the 4200. Which was the one i wanted but to
expensive. Why is the 3800 X2 less expensive ?


Thanlks.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 01:00:38 +1000, No One Realy No one.com wrote:


Athlon64 X2 3800+ Feedback need I WANT one but is it good ??


Whats the difference to the 4200. Which was the one i wanted but to
expensive. Why is the 3800 X2 less expensive ?


Thanlks.

Clock speed is the only difference.
3800+ X2 is clocked at 2.0 ghz, the 4200+ X2 is clocked at 2.2ghz.

Check out these reviews:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3...0/index.x?pg=1
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...4-x2-3800.html
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2484

The 3800+ X2 seems to be an easy 20% overclock to 2.4ghz equivalent to
the 4600+ X2 at half the cost.

When the 3800+ X2 becomes available mid-august I will be buying it to
place on my new Asus A8N-SLI PREMIUM motherboard.

Steve

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 01:00:38 +1000, No One Realy wrote:

Whats the difference to the 4200. Which was the one i wanted but to
expensive. Why is the 3800 X2 less expensive ?

It's less expensive because AMD wanted it to be. The difference is the
3800+ X2 has a 10 multiplier for 2000MHz, and the 4200+ X2 has an 11
multiplier for 2200MHz. Even though they're both capable of going higher,
this has been the way CPU's have always been marketed. The actual
manufacturing cost of all of them are basically the same. It's just that
the profit margins are greater on the higher priced ones. That's why
people overclock the slower models. Although overclock is a misnomer IMO.
If you truely overclocked the cpu, it wouldn't run. Maxiclock would be a
better descripter, mxaimizing the clock speed that the core works at.

--
KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:05:37 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 01:00:38 +1000, No One Realy wrote:

Whats the difference to the 4200. Which was the one i wanted but to
expensive. Why is the 3800 X2 less expensive ?

It's less expensive because AMD wanted it to be. The difference is the
3800+ X2 has a 10 multiplier for 2000MHz, and the 4200+ X2 has an 11
multiplier for 2200MHz. Even though they're both capable of going higher,
this has been the way CPU's have always been marketed. The actual
manufacturing cost of all of them are basically the same. It's just that
the profit margins are greater on the higher priced ones. That's why
people overclock the slower models. Although overclock is a misnomer IMO.
If you truely overclocked the cpu, it wouldn't run. Maxiclock would be a
better descripter, mxaimizing the clock speed that the core works at.

Don't count on overclocking X2s yet, they are brand new and there isn't a
lot of margin in AMD's process. I have a 4400+, it's not completely stable
even at the normal clock rates. I tried a 5% overclock and things seemed
to work, then I got ambitious and tried a 15% overclock (the air
conditioner in my server room was cranked up so this should have been
possible). With 15% the system was dead, no BIOS screen or anything. I had
to use the CMOS clear button to revive the system. BTW I did this to see
if there was any margin in the system, I had no plans to run it this way
normally. Currently I'm running with the DDR clock cranked down to 150MHz
to see if the kernels oops go away.

Steve wrote:

" When the 3800+ X2 becomes available mid-august I will be buying it to
place on my new Asus A8N-SLI PREMIUM motherboard. "


Just make sure the board isn't mounted upside-down, as the chipset
heatpipe won't work properly.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:05:37 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 01:00:38 +1000, No One Realy wrote:

Whats the difference to the 4200. Which was the one i wanted but to
expensive. Why is the 3800 X2 less expensive ?

It's less expensive because AMD wanted it to be. The difference is the
3800+ X2 has a 10 multiplier for 2000MHz, and the 4200+ X2 has an 11
multiplier for 2200MHz. Even though they're both capable of going higher,
this has been the way CPU's have always been marketed. The actual
manufacturing cost of all of them are basically the same.

Actually the 3800+ X2 is a new core and is only 147mm2 vs 199mm2 for
the 4200+ X2. Thus it is less costly to manufacture.

Steve

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:57:27 -0400, General Schvantzkoph
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:05:37 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 01:00:38 +1000, No One Realy wrote:

Whats the difference to the 4200. Which was the one i wanted but to
expensive. Why is the 3800 X2 less expensive ?

It's less expensive because AMD wanted it to be. The difference is the
3800+ X2 has a 10 multiplier for 2000MHz, and the 4200+ X2 has an 11
multiplier for 2200MHz. Even though they're both capable of going higher,
this has been the way CPU's have always been marketed. The actual
manufacturing cost of all of them are basically the same. It's just that
the profit margins are greater on the higher priced ones. That's why
people overclock the slower models. Although overclock is a misnomer IMO.
If you truely overclocked the cpu, it wouldn't run. Maxiclock would be a
better descripter, mxaimizing the clock speed that the core works at.

Don't count on overclocking X2s yet, they are brand new and there isn't a
lot of margin in AMD's process. I have a 4400+, it's not completely stable
even at the normal clock rates.

Something must be wrong if you can't get it running stable at normal
clock rates.

Your problems may be memory related, try running Memtest86+ for 24
hours and see if your memory isn't the cause.

Steve

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:23:04 -0500, Steve wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:57:27 -0400, General Schvantzkoph
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:05:37 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 01:00:38 +1000, No One Realy wrote:

Whats the difference to the 4200. Which was the one i wanted but to
expensive. Why is the 3800 X2 less expensive ?

It's less expensive because AMD wanted it to be. The difference is the
3800+ X2 has a 10 multiplier for 2000MHz, and the 4200+ X2 has an 11
multiplier for 2200MHz. Even though they're both capable of going higher,
this has been the way CPU's have always been marketed. The actual
manufacturing cost of all of them are basically the same. It's just that
the profit margins are greater on the higher priced ones. That's why
people overclock the slower models. Although overclock is a misnomer IMO.
If you truely overclocked the cpu, it wouldn't run. Maxiclock would be a
better descripter, mxaimizing the clock speed that the core works at.

Don't count on overclocking X2s yet, they are brand new and there isn't a
lot of margin in AMD's process. I have a 4400+, it's not completely stable
even at the normal clock rates.

Something must be wrong if you can't get it running stable at normal
clock rates.

Your problems may be memory related, try running Memtest86+ for 24
hours and see if your memory isn't the cause.

Steve

Ran Memtest86 for 10 hours, ran fine. BTW Memtest86 changes the the clock
rate to the auto rate of 167MHz.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:57:27 -0400, General Schvantzkoph wrote:

Don't count on overclocking X2s yet, they are brand new and there isn't a
lot of margin in AMD's process. I have a 4400+, it's not completely stable

Welll, the 4400+ is already at 2.4 GHz. The X2 3800+ is only at 2.0 GHz.
Shouldn't have any problem overclocking it to 2.4GHz.

--
KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:21:03 -0500, Steve wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:05:37 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 01:00:38 +1000, No One Realy wrote:

Whats the difference to the 4200. Which was the one i wanted but to
expensive. Why is the 3800 X2 less expensive ?

It's less expensive because AMD wanted it to be. The difference is the
3800+ X2 has a 10 multiplier for 2000MHz, and the 4200+ X2 has an 11
multiplier for 2200MHz. Even though they're both capable of going higher,
this has been the way CPU's have always been marketed. The actual
manufacturing cost of all of them are basically the same.

Actually the 3800+ X2 is a new core and is only 147mm2 vs 199mm2 for
the 4200+ X2. Thus it is less costly to manufacture.

And you think that only the 3800+ X2 is going to use the new manchester
core? :-) IOW's, the core doesn't matter in cost comparisons because the
other X2's will also use the manchester core.

--
KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm