AMD 3800x2 Socket 939

[Eluros]

Hey, all!

So, I've done a bit of research on this, and am still somewhat unsure about the issue. However, I'm pretty confident that someone can help me out with this.

I am 100% satisfied with my AMD Athlon 3800 x2, Socket 939, which has never been overclocked in terms of performance while at the desktop. I'd rather spend money upgrading other components such as my video card, for my processor can't be upgraded without a new motherboard, which runs off DDR so would thus require all new RAM as well.

Here's what I would like to know:

Assume I was playing current games on the Ultra-Powerful System from many years in the future, with an infinitely powerful Video Card. If I still had my Socket 939 AMD Athlon 3800x2, would I be able to gain any FPS by upgrading my processor to, say, an e8400?

Let's say I'm using a 24" Monitor, and playing at minimum 1400x900.

While the current Intel processors are all the trend, even Crysis lists only an Athlon X2 as the recommended processor. Thus, I imagine that I wouldn't receive much if any FPS improvement by upgrading my processor. If we're talking 10 FPS, I'm fine. Much more than that and I think I may need to bite the bullet and upgrade.

Thanks for any comments or feedback you have. While I respect your authoraitay (as Cartman might say), I'd also appreciate benchmarks I might have missed to back up any points you may make. I'll certainly take what I can get, though.

Again, thanks for your feedback!

 

[MarcVenice]

Overclock it to 2.6ghz and I'd say you might be fine for a little while longer, at 1400*900. At it's stock speed of 2.0ghz you're probably asking for a CPU bottleneck, in more games then just Crysis. Realize that your cpu is equal to a e2160 or so, which is the uber budget dualcore CPU from intel. Doesn't really get much slower then that. In comparion, I'm running a x2 3800+ @ 2.6ghz, with a 8800gts 320mb @ 1680*1050. Sometimes when games run like crap, I downclock my CPU to see how it affects performance, but most of the time it's negligible.

 

[heyheybooboo]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...quad-core-processors/1

I believe most 24-inch monitors have a native resolution of 1920 x 1200.

If your s939 cpu is clocked around 2.4GHz I'd say the X2 4850e would be a good comparison

And though the e8400 is a great processor an X2 5400+ or e2200 (or e5200) would give you great performance and save some cash toward that HD4850 video card

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...quad-core-processors/1

I believe most 24-inch monitors have a native resolution of 1920 x 1200.

If your s939 cpu is clocked around 2.4GHz I'd say the X2 4850e would be a good comparison

And though the e8400 is a great processor an X2 5400+ or e2200 (or e5200) would give you great performance and save some cash toward that HD4850 video card

why would he get an X2 for AM2+ instead of an Intel build ? AMD has nothing competitive, unless you don;t OC.

 

[Somniferum]

That Guru3d article kinda says it all. Obviously the Intel C2Ds are the best value if you're starting from scratch, but the old x2 they tested really held its own. There's just not much incentive to upgrade right now. So, might as well upgrade the video card and save your CPU/mobo upgrade for Nehalem, which will require DDR3 anyway. Just skip DDR2 altogether. That's my plan anyway.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I upgraded from my FX60 which i had a 1900XTX to an 8400 with the 1900XTX and what I noticed was that even though UT3 felt a little snappier, i'd still get 60 fps in this one spot on Ocrimon Dawn a ctf map. I switched out my 1900XTX and put in my 3870 on my 8400 machine; in that same spot, I see 100's

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...quad-core-processors/1

I believe most 24-inch monitors have a native resolution of 1920 x 1200.

If your s939 cpu is clocked around 2.4GHz I'd say the X2 4850e would be a good comparison

And though the e8400 is a great processor an X2 5400+ or e2200 (or e5200) would give you great performance and save some cash toward that HD4850 video card

why would he get an X2 for AM2+ instead of an Intel build ? AMD has nothing competitive, unless you don;t OC.

With the X2s and the 21xx's (each with 1mb L2) a good rule of thumb is 400MHz or so for 'equal performance' between the two across various benchies. It's rather consistent from my charting - with the typical few exceptions which always seem to either favor either Intel or AMD (and are quite minor anyway).

So an X2 5400+ at 3.1-3.2GHz is roughly equivalent to an e2200 at 2.7-2.8GHz. Each OC is easily obtainable with a stock fan and a slight bump in voltage , and more importantly each processor is more than capable of driving most any video card you pair them with (and most importantly they each cost $80 - $90).

It's a little less general for the X2s compared to C2Ds with 2mb L2 but 500-550MHz is reasonable for a quick measuring stick. It's not quite as consistent as above but it's close. I think it's a bit more application and task specific in this case, and it seems the 2 mb L2 on the AMD 6000 or 6400 only closes the gap 50MHz or so ...

It's really weird with the C2Ds going from 2mb to 4mb L2. It may give Intel a little boost in gaming but otherwise across the desktop improvements in performance seem to be quite marginal.

I think this may be one reason the e7200 only has 3mb of L2 - the extra 1mb of cache just ain't worth it.

why would he get an X2 for AM2+ instead of an Intel build ? AMD has nothing competitive, unless you don;t OC.

This is why:

Total w/shipping: $494 ($434 after rebates)

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+ Brisbane 2.8GHz 65W: $87
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103235

MSI K9A2 CF-F V2 AM2+/AM2 AMD 790X ATX: $104
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16813130172

MSI R4850-T2D512 Radeon HD 4850 512MB 256-bit GDDR3: $198 ($168 AR)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814127359

Antec earthwatts EA430 430W Power Supply: $60 ($30 AR)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16817371006

G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800: $45
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231098


I think that's pretty competitive.

And as noted in the Guru3d tests, above 1600x1200 the differences are hard to measure. With decent 60-70 fps your gameplay will be as enjoyable as ever. I'm not disputing the quality and performance of Intel products. Why are you claiming that AMD is not competitive when clearly they offer excellent and affordable alternatives?

 

[imported_Woody]

My recommendation:

Get the AMD Radeon HD 4850 video card. Great card, very powerful, very inexpensive.

Go crazy and run all your games and see how you like it. Worst case scenario is you still feel compelled to upgrade and you can then get a whole new mobo/CPU/RAM combo. Now is a good time to buy the other components anyway and you can get stuff cheap but if you do that I strongly recommend an inexpensive Intel based system rather than AMD. You can get a highly overclockable E7200 Core 2 Duo for about $130.

 

[harpoon84]

Actually the Guru3D article shows a glaring weakness in the X2 in certain games, at least at the 2.5GHz level. Overclocking to 3GHz or more will help of course, but if you're getting under 40fps on a 2.5GHz X2 you're not going to be getting a smooth 60fps unless you overclock to 4GHz, which of course is impossible on air.

There is no E21x0 chip for comparison in that article but from numerous benchmarks and reviews we know that the it takes a big performance hit in certain games due to the small cache. Its only marginally quicker than an X2 per clock in gaming so it too could have problems with the more demanding games like World in Conflict or Crysis.

TBH I wouldn't pair a HD4850 with an X2 or E21x0, at the very least I would suggest an E7200, or if the budget is really right, to wait for the E5200 to come out in a few weeks time. Even if it doesn't overclock consistently to 4GHz, 3.6 - 3.8GHz should not be a problem since its essentially based on the 45nm Wolfdale core, and with 2MB of L2 plus the sheer clockspeed advantage it will put any overclocked X2 or E21x0 chip to shame in gaming performance, for roughly the same price.

 

[Somniferum]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
This is why:

Total w/shipping: $494 ($434 after rebates)

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+ Brisbane 2.8GHz 65W: $87
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103235

MSI K9A2 CF-F V2 AM2+/AM2 AMD 790X ATX: $104
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16813130172

MSI R4850-T2D512 Radeon HD 4850 512MB 256-bit GDDR3: $198 ($168 AR)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814127359

Antec earthwatts EA430 430W Power Supply: $60 ($30 AR)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16817371006

G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800: $45
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231098

I think that's pretty competitive.

The performance he would get with his current system and the 4850, playing @ 1600x1200, would be nearly identical to the system you're suggesting he build. The difference between DDR and DDR2 by itself is negligible, and the 5400+ doesn't even represent a cache upgrade compared to his current chip (both have 2 x 512Kb L2 cache). It's basically the same chip running a few hundred MHz faster after both are overclocked. So what's the big difference?

Spend $168 on a nice upgrade, or spend $434 on a system that will offer little or no additional performance? Sounds like a $266 mistake to me. Not to mention that DDR3 is right around the corner.

 

[Somniferum]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Actually the Guru3D article shows a glaring weakness in the X2 in certain games, at least at the 2.5GHz level.

I have to ask: Where exactly is this "glaring weakness"? The X2 performed respectably in virtually every game they threw at it. Not bad for a chip that's supposedly obsolete.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Somniferum

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
This is why:

Total w/shipping: $494 ($434 after rebates)

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+ Brisbane 2.8GHz 65W: $87
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103235

MSI K9A2 CF-F V2 AM2+/AM2 AMD 790X ATX: $104
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16813130172

MSI R4850-T2D512 Radeon HD 4850 512MB 256-bit GDDR3: $198 ($168 AR)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814127359

Antec earthwatts EA430 430W Power Supply: $60 ($30 AR)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16817371006

G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800: $45
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231098

I think that's pretty competitive.

The performance he would get with his current system and the 4850, playing @ 1600x1200, would be nearly identical to the system you're suggesting he build. The difference between DDR and DDR2 by itself is negligible, and the 5400+ doesn't even represent a cache upgrade compared to his current chip (both have 2 x 512Kb L2 cache). It's basically the same chip running a few hundred MHz faster after both are overclocked. So what's the big difference?

Spend $168 on a nice upgrade, or spend $434 on a system that will offer little or no additional performance? Sounds like a $266 mistake to me. Not to mention that DDR3 is right around the corner.

My thoughts exactly. I do NOT see that as competitive...Intel just rules now, and they said that in the link.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Somniferum
Spend $168 on a nice upgrade, or spend $434 on a system that will offer little or no additional performance? Sounds like a $266 mistake to me. Not to mention that DDR3 is right around the corner.

The OP is running a stock X2 3800+, and you're suggesting he upgrade to a HD4850? You mentioned a $266 mistake, well, that would be a $168 mistake then.

Please, check out the Guru3D article, it shows clearly a X2 @ 2.5GHz is a big bottleneck in many of the latest games when paired with a 8800 Ultra. How would you expect a 2GHz X2 to keep up with a HD4850, which is an even faster GPU than the 8800 Ultra?!

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Somniferum

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Actually the Guru3D article shows a glaring weakness in the X2 in certain games, at least at the 2.5GHz level.

I have to ask: Where exactly is this "glaring weakness"? The X2 performed respectably in virtually every game they threw at it. Not bad for a chip that's supposedly obsolete.

Are we reading the same article?

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...quad-core-processors/4
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...quad-core-processors/5
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...quad-core-processors/8
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...quad-core-processors/9

 

[Somniferum]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
The OP is running a stock X2 3800+, and you're suggesting he upgrade to a HD4850? You mentioned a $266 mistake, well, that would be a $168 mistake then.

Please, check out the Guru3D article, it shows clearly a X2 @ 2.5GHz is a big bottleneck in many of the latest games when paired with a 8800 Ultra. How would you expect a 2GHz X2 to keep up with a HD4850, which is an even faster GPU than the 8800 Ultra?!

It's only a bottleneck at lower resolutions. I upgraded from a 6600GS to an 8800GT on my x2 3800+ about 6 months ago, and the difference was HUGE. I spent more than $168 on it, and I wouldn't call it a mistake by any means. It's allowed me to put off upgrading my mobo, CPU and RAM by another year or more, and basically skip DDR2 entirely.

Granted, if he keeps his x2 at stock he won't see quite as dramatic an improvement, but I got the impression he might be open to overclocking if it keeps him from having to upgrade. I may have misjudged that though.

 

[Somniferum]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: Somniferum

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Actually the Guru3D article shows a glaring weakness in the X2 in certain games, at least at the 2.5GHz level.

I have to ask: Where exactly is this "glaring weakness"? The X2 performed respectably in virtually every game they threw at it. Not bad for a chip that's supposedly obsolete.

Are we reading the same article?

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...quad-core-processors/4
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...quad-core-processors/5
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...quad-core-processors/8
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...quad-core-processors/9

Indeed we are. I just don't see 45 fps @ 1600x1200 as a "glaring weakness", in fact that's quite playable in my book. Obviously it's slower than CPUs that are 2 years younger and 3 times the price, but that's technology for you.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Somniferum
Indeed we are. I just don't see 45 fps @ 1600x1200 as a "glaring weakness", in fact that's quite playable in my book. Obviously it's slower than CPUs that are 2 years younger and 3 times the price, but that's technology for you.

45fps is indeed 'playable' but keep in mind that is the average framerate, what really matters is the minimum framerate. With a 45fps avg you'll inevitably get many spikes below 30fps during intense scenes (firefights, explosions etc), which is when the gaming experience starts to deteriorate into a choppy mess. Of course everybody has different tolerance levels in regards to framerates, but personally I can easily tell the difference between 60fps and 45fps.

 

[Somniferum]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: Somniferum
Indeed we are. I just don't see 45 fps @ 1600x1200 as a "glaring weakness", in fact that's quite playable in my book. Obviously it's slower than CPUs that are 2 years younger and 3 times the price, but that's technology for you.

45fps is indeed 'playable' but keep in mind that is the average framerate, what really matters is the minimum framerate. With a 45fps avg you'll inevitably get many spikes below 30fps during intense scenes (firefights, explosions etc), which is when the gaming experience starts to deteriorate into a choppy mess. Of course everybody has different tolerance levels in regards to framerates, but personally I can easily tell the difference between 60fps and 45fps.

I agree with you about minimum framerate. I've found it can often be kept at an acceptable level with a little bit of tweaking, even with average framerates on the lower side. For example, I was able to play Crysis on my system with an acceptable framerate about 99% of the time, after tweaking a few settings here and there. Not sure if that would work with the other 3 games that challenged the X2 or not, since I haven't played them.

Back to the OP, I agree with Woody: Buy the 4850 and try it out, and in the unlikely event you find the X2 still doesn't perform acceptably in the games you want to play, you can still go ahead and upgrade the other components and you've lost nothing. But in that case I'd definitely go with a C2D build over AM2, hands down no questions asked.

 

[RussianSensation]

For crysis you are much more gpu limited than cpu limited. Although you neve mentioned what videocard you have.

If you overclock your cpu to 2.6-2.7ghz, you should be in good shape with 4850 on a 24 inch monitor since gpu will still be the more likely bottleneck in the majority of games (although your minimum framerates will be lower than a similar 2.7ghz core 2 duo system).

You might want to wait for E5200 2.5ghz 45nm core 2 duo processor for $80.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Your X2 will run the 4850 at a lower FPS than a faster CPU, but it will still be a much better gaming combination than say, the X2 with a nv 6800 or 7800.

If you can only do one upgrade right now, do the video card. You should be able to go up 1-2 steps in resolution and turn on eye candy features that depend on the GPU more than the CPU.

Then when you can afford another $400, get a new motherboard, CPU and 4 GB of DDR 2. The 4850 will instantly run a bit faster and you can go up one more resolution step and turn on more eye candy.

 

[Eluros]

I want to thank you all for the guidance; I definitely feel a lot more knowledgeable with what's going on, and a much better equipped to make a wise decision.

I know it's somewhat off topic, but how would you feel about this PSU running a 4870?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16817148001

500W, 70% efficiency under full load. I'm confused, because Newegg says it has 2 12v Rails, but the manufacturer's site says it only has 1.

Again, major kudos to everyone. Thanks!

 

[SlowSpyder]

Your 3800+ will probably do better then most people on this site will give it credit for, but I'm sure it'll hold back frame rates in some games and there will probably be choppiness in some situations. My suggestion would be to overclock your 3800+ (most seem to hit 2.5GHz+ without a sweat) and see how that does for you. You are gaming on a 24" monitor, your GPU is going to be more important then your CPU. It seems that a lot of people on this site can't grasp the idea of not buying an Intel processor. Don't get me wrong, the C2D's ARE faster. They bench much higher. But even a middle of the road A64 is going to be enough to game on 99% of the time.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Your 3800+ will probably do better then most people on this site will give it credit for, but I'm sure it'll hold back frame rates in some games and there will probably be choppiness in some situations. My suggestion would be to overclock your 3800+ (most seem to hit 2.5GHz+ without a sweat) and see how that does for you. You are gaming on a 24" monitor, your GPU is going to be more important then your CPU. It seems that a lot of people on this site can't grasp the idea of not buying an Intel processor. Don't get me wrong, the C2D's ARE faster. They bench much higher. But even a middle of the road A64 is going to be enough to game on 99% of the time.

I dunno, I still think an X2 3800+ / HD4850 is a bad idea, *unless* the OP is willing to heavily overclock the CPU, in which case it'd do OK (but not great) for the time being at least.

I'm sure an X2 3800+ / mobo / 2GB DDR can fetch $100+ easily on Ebay, for some reason people love buying antique hardware . The OP can put that money towards a modern platform, which really aren't that expensive nowadays.

 

[RussianSensation]

I dont like that power supply at all. I'd look at these:

Antec earthwatts EA430 430W ATX12V v2.0 - $30 (Budget)

CORSAIR CMPSU-450VX 450W ATX12V V2.2 - $56

OCZ StealthXStream OCZ600SXS 600W ATX12V - $60

 

[Marty502]

My CPU (check sig) definitely gets choppy sometimes, particularly in Assassin's Creed and Crysis. Dropping AA or the resolution doesn't solve the issue.

However, it's very playable. It's not a slideshow under any terms!