PDA

View Full Version : Go Dual Core now or wait for M2?


Pages : [1] 2

dsgreen30
01-24-06, 02:49 PM
Ok, here is my question/dilemma...looking for y'alls opinion...

I was thinking of going to the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Dual-Core (I currently have an FX-55) to get the future (and some current) benefits of running a dual core CPU.

Not to mention I am worried about the fan on my ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe MB, which has failed twice. I would upgrade this to the new ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe.

So...question is should I? Would it be worth it? Or should I wait for the new Socket M2 MBs and CPUs?

Thanks,
DaveG

darkrider01
01-24-06, 03:31 PM
I guess that since I'm an Intel :lame: user, you may want to take my opinion with a grain of salt......

I'd say wait for the M2. You already have a super fast processor that will dog most of the X2's out there in most any game. If you upgrade now, you will not be able to take advantage of the DDR2 that the M2 is supposed offer.

superklye
01-24-06, 03:41 PM
And in the same vein, I say go for it now. If you wait for AM2 to come out, you not only have to buy a new processor, but a new motherboard AND new RAM. And the fact that DDR667 isn’t really that much faster than PC3200 (because of the high latencies), it’s not worth it. When DDR2 800 and/or 1066 become widely available with lower latencies, I’d say then is a good time to upgrade.

As it is, the socket 939 X2s are very fast and a very good value for the money…especially because all you have to buy is a processor.

However, since you already are getting a new mobo maybe it is better to wait. It depends on your RAM. If you’ve got some good stuff that was really expensive, then go with the 939 X2. If you’ve got some cheapo stuff, then maybe wait for the AM2. Just makes sure you don’t get DDR2 533. That stuff is as fast as PC3200 RAM at best and quite a bit slower at worst.

dsgreen30
01-24-06, 03:51 PM
Wow, now I am conflicted! :p

TierMann
01-24-06, 04:22 PM
Instead of going with the new mobo, personally I would just throw a 3rd party chipset hs/fan on the old one if that's all that's giving you trouble. If you've allready got your eye on the 4800 X2, then I say go for it. The first set of procs coming out for M2 don't seem to be that much of an improvement and you'd probably be waiting for about the same performance that's allready available. When the second set of procs come out for M2 you'd probably be ready for the upgrade, right? (and then you can give the 4800 to me because I'll probably still have my 4400 :P)

superklye
01-24-06, 04:47 PM
To be honest, I think that the 4200, 4600 and 4800 X2s are all rip-offs. The 3800 is the exact same thing as the 4200/4600, just 200/400MHz slower. Spend about half and get the 3800 and just OC to 4600 levels. Same thing for the 4400 and 4800. Spend about half and OC 200MHz to get the 4800.

I understand that people are leery about OCing and whatnot, but with those speeds, its doubtful you’d even have to mess with the core voltage at all. I dunno…that’s just me. I’d rather spend less and get the same or more than the more expensive version of the same chip, but that’s me. :)

OWA
01-24-06, 05:08 PM
But the 4800+ will usually overclock very easily as well so the lower model cpus would need to reach 2.7 or 2.8ghz instead of 2.4 to reach the level of the 4800+.

Strahd
01-24-06, 05:13 PM
I'm in the same predicament you are. I want to go dual core since I'm running with an single core now (specs in sig). Do I wait for the new socket or upgrade now? I am seriously considering going dual opteron instead of an FX-60. I want to see how 10gb/s memory transfer speeds are like with NUMA.

I'm sure that the new socket will be available for the opteron too so I'm still up in the air if I want to wait or upgrade now.

Superfly
01-24-06, 05:16 PM
And in the same vein, I say go for it now. If you wait for AM2 to come out, you not only have to buy a new processor, but a new motherboard AND new RAM. And the fact that DDR667 isn’t really that much faster than PC3200 (because of the high latencies), it’s not worth it. When DDR2 800 and/or 1066 become widely available with lower latencies, I’d say then is a good time to upgrade.

As it is, the socket 939 X2s are very fast and a very good value for the money…especially because all you have to buy is a processor.

However, since you already are getting a new mobo maybe it is better to wait. It depends on your RAM. If you’ve got some good stuff that was really expensive, then go with the 939 X2. If you’ve got some cheapo stuff, then maybe wait for the AM2. Just makes sure you don’t get DDR2 533. That stuff is as fast as PC3200 RAM at best and quite a bit slower at worst.

Im on the 939 DDR1 bus for the next year/18 months myself - a PCIe mobo and a new NV50 are more important to me than DDR2 support and I can pick up a cheap 939 X2 later this year to carry me through.......

superklye
01-24-06, 06:31 PM
But the 4800+ will usually overclock very easily as well so the lower model cpus would need to reach 2.7 or 2.8ghz instead of 2.4 to reach the level of the 4800+.
I don't follow you...L2 cache aside (since the impact on gaming performance is pretty minimal for the most part), why would the lower-end models have to clock higher. Doesn't 2.4Ghz = 2.4GHz regardless of what version of the core it is (Manchester vs. Toledo)?

keith33
01-24-06, 09:12 PM
I'm in same position as OP :).

I'm holding off until AM2 because not having the latest socket would make me feel cheap and inadequate. :p

Not to mention I'm sure there will be some sort of chipset innovations with NF5 and I wouldn't want to kick myself as a result of premature upgradation.

Wait till AM2, if you want to upgrade your mobo and ram too then do so, otherwise get a 939 at that time for piss cheap. :)

Q
01-24-06, 10:21 PM
I don't follow you...L2 cache aside (since the impact on gaming performance is pretty minimal for the most part), why would the lower-end models have to clock higher. Doesn't 2.4Ghz = 2.4GHz regardless of what version of the core it is (Manchester vs. Toledo)?

According to AMD's performance rating numbers, the extra cache is equivelent to another 200mhz of clock speed. So, in theory, you would need to clock your Manchester at 2.6Ghz to be equivelent to an 4800+ Toledo instead of 2.4Ghz.

Higher than 2.6Ghz wouldn't be necessary.

superklye
01-24-06, 10:52 PM
According to AMD's performance rating numbers, the extra cache is equivelent to another 200mhz of clock speed. So, in theory, you would need to clock your Manchester at 2.6Ghz to be equivelent to an 4800+ Toledo instead of 2.4Ghz.

Higher than 2.6Ghz wouldn't be necessary.
Hmm...somehow I don't think what AMD says and what benchmarks show really adds up... heh.

OWA
01-24-06, 11:40 PM
I don't follow you...L2 cache aside (since the impact on gaming performance is pretty minimal for the most part), why would the lower-end models have to clock higher. Doesn't 2.4Ghz = 2.4GHz regardless of what version of the core it is (Manchester vs. Toledo)?

I was basically just nit-picking :) on the comments like buy a lower-end cpu, overclock it and you essentially have a higher-end cpu for less money. There most likely will still be a performance gap between them unless the lower-end CPU can overclock to the max overclock of the higher-end CPU. So, while some may not think it's worth it, the extra money does at least buy you higher performance.

That's part of the reason I'm looking at the FX-60 currently. I'm running my 4800+ at 2.7 (2.8 is my max), which is higher than the FX-60s spec of 2.6, but I'm still wanting the FX-60 because I've seen several users running the FX-60 at 3+ ghz.

superklye
01-24-06, 11:59 PM
Ah, okay. I gotcha. I suppose the higher multiplier has a major impact on the clock results and such. That's understandable. I guess if you're all about insane overclocking, it's worth the money...but me? I'd rather pay $300 for a 3800 and OC it to 2.4GHz than pay $500 or so for a 4600. :)

KickAssCop
01-25-06, 01:01 AM
I am also in the same boat as OP, but granted I just got a 3500+ which is running at 2.6 GHz, will I be a fool to upgrade to an X2 3800+ (since that is maximum I can afford right now). Secondly, I don't multi task much on my gaming rig. I have an Intel server for that (which runs all of my applications -- messengers, downloaders, anti viruses, firewall etc etc and I am always connected to it via Remote Desktop). So will I see any real world gaming performance improvements in going for A64 3500+ @ 2.6 Ghz to A64 X2 3800+?

SH64
01-25-06, 01:06 AM
IMO dont wait .. just go ahead & get the 4800+
even when socket M2 comes out , i believe it wont offer that much performance over the M1 (or 939 socket) .

Mr Fujisawa
01-25-06, 08:23 AM
dont get either.

wait until a game comes out that properly makes use of dual core, oblivion or ut2007. that should be around march. if your performabnce isnt too good, or u see from benchies that dual core would make a difference, then go for a X2 as they will be even cheaper around march. M2 doesnt really seem too good until ddr2 latenceies get lower

ViN86
01-25-06, 11:10 AM
To be honest, I think that the 4200, 4600 and 4800 X2s are all rip-offs. The 3800 is the exact same thing as the 4200/4600, just 200/400MHz slower. Spend about half and get the 3800 and just OC to 4600 levels. Same thing for the 4400 and 4800. Spend about half and OC 200MHz to get the 4800.

I understand that people are leery about OCing and whatnot, but with those speeds, its doubtful you’d even have to mess with the core voltage at all. I dunno…that’s just me. I’d rather spend less and get the same or more than the more expensive version of the same chip, but that’s me. :)
so true, i increased my voltage .125V over stock and im rock stable at 2.4GHz and idle temps are in the mid 30's :D

nutball
01-25-06, 03:29 PM
I'm also in the position of waiting for AM2 to come out ... so I can buy 939! Solid, dependable, debugged motherboards and CPUs that are a known quantity? Avoiding the heartache+pain and price gouging of the early adopter? Can't argue with that. :p

dsgreen30
01-25-06, 08:55 PM
Y'all have put up good arguements both ways, but I have to tell you I am now leaning toward the upgrade.

A good point is that I know I can count on the rock solid reliability of the 939 Mobos, and wait till late this year or so to go to the new M2 Mobos once the "kinks" have been worked out......

While we are talking about this....anyone got preferences on the best cpu cooler for the 4800+ ??

Must decide....must decide!!! :POKE:

superklye
01-25-06, 09:12 PM
The stock coolers are really damn good...even for crazy overclocking.

keith33
01-25-06, 09:33 PM
Y'all have put up good arguements both ways, but I have to tell you I am now leaning toward the upgrade.

A good point is that I know I can count on the rock solid reliability of the 939 Mobos, and wait till late this year or so to go to the new M2 Mobos once the "kinks" have been worked out......

While we are talking about this....anyone got preferences on the best cpu cooler for the 4800+ ??

Must decide....must decide!!! :POKE:

Zalman 9500
Thermalright XP-120 (whatever the new model number is for the version that's compatible with all mobos)
Thermalright XP-90C

ViN86
01-25-06, 11:36 PM
Zalman 9500
Thermalright XP-120 (whatever the new model number is for the version that's compatible with all mobos)
Thermalright XP-90C
definitely thermalright. i will never buy another brand of heatsink... ever. make sure you get a panaflo if you do get a thermalright, theyre stealthy and move some serious air.

dsgreen30
01-28-06, 12:53 PM
Well...I have to be honest...

I am still on the fence....buy now or wait (since I have an FX-55 currently). I have listened to all the arguements above, and basically I am stuck on:

- Get the dual-core action now (either the FX-60 or X2 4800+)
- or wait for the M2 motherboards and cpus since "supposedly" they will be out 1st have of this year.

I think the problem is there is no way to be sure whether the M2 initial releases will be much better than the FX-60 or 4800+, and that is my problem. I don't want to be kicking myself 4 months from now....

GRRR.....dang it.