really glad i bought a venice with dual core coming out in a month

[politenessman]

boy do i feel stupid after seeing this at hardocp. dual core 4200+ = 2200mhz
128k l1 each core 512k l2 each core socket 939 for $500 plus. my question is why did i buy a 3700 now when i could have bought one of these in a month?
yea i know paper launch etc, etc

very truly yours,
politenessman

[metro.cl]

amd is doing this the wrong way almost 3-4 sockets in 2 years?? thats insane i dont like it see if you can rma you cpu.

[z-design]

could always ebay your processor and then buy dual core

[webbyboy]

could always ebay your processor and then buy dual core


But can't really get good price, + paypal + seller's fee. :eek:

[politenessman]

i lucked out and offed the 3200 oem at hardforums for $190 shipped for about a $25 loss. rma no good for the 3700, they will end up taking either 15 or 25 percent and i am out the shipping to me and to them. have to try ebay or one of the forums. quickly.

very truly yours,
politenessman

[Nubius]

link to the hardocp article you read please? :D

[XtremepH]

just finished reading anands review on the dual core processor really awesome results when they recreate real life multitasking usage. The Athlon X2 just completely beats out the FX-55 this makes me reconsider my recent purchase of an hr ago of a venice from monarch. Price is a little steep on these though.

[$a1Ty]

on the price, X2's are less than 2 single core cpu's which is fair enough, they just look expensive compared to intels which is a first lol

for a long time intel has offered an inferior product at a higher price, amd has offered a superiou product at a lower price, now its intel offering a crap dual core (be honest it is) at cheap price, and X2 being sweet at a higher price

so basically you get what you pay for

[lv_88]

on the price, X2's are less than 2 single core cpu's which is fair enough, they just look expensive compared to intels which is a first lol

for a long time intel has offered an inferior product at a higher price, amd has offered a superiou product at a lower price, now its intel offering a crap dual core (be honest it is) at cheap price, and X2 being sweet at a higher price

so basically you get what you pay for

so far it sure looks like it :D
x2 will be mine soon moahaha

[[timko]]

link to the hardocp article you read please? :D

Most likely this one...

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY2

...which is currently right at the top of their homepage...

http://www.hardocp.com/

:stick:

[One_Hertz]

Why do you want a dual core so bad do you run servers or something cause they are worse in games than a single core...

[Ref]

no, not worse ... just the same :slapass:

[Hombre]

True... And will get better and better in the future...
X2 will dominate every other CPU on earth when DC games and apps will hit. Just wait for U3.
BTW, did you ever tried multitasking? Running a game with Winamp in the backround while downloading something in BiTtorrent is fun and will get even nicer with X2.

[Ailleur]

Heh, u3 is stated for late 2006.
Those performances are "okay". And those multitaking scenarios are retarded but i guess theyre the only thing that a dual core cpu will win hands down. I guess its new and from AMD so people have to say its the greatest thing since sliced bread though.
Show me who encodes a dvd while playing doom3 and ill stick a retardes sticker on his forehead.

[drunkenmaster]

i've said it a million times and i'll say it again, the 2.8Ghz P4 is slow, crap, at stock a 2.8Ghz is pretty crappy in gaming. their other models aren't all cheap and thats how everyone seems to be looking at it. their 840 EE, which gets trounced by the 4200+ half its cost cpu in more than half the benchmarks, isn't exactly cheap.

Do we know the 2.8Ghz is that great or will overclock far? probably will, but the 4200+ is far faster. also look at the percentages, a 2.8Ghz is like what, i can get one here for £80, to get a 2.2Ghz 3500+ its £200, the 2.8Ghz dual core is still roughly a 85% price hike for the 2nd core, its just using the bottom end core. it would be similar to amd making a dual core either sempron or 2800+ and it being the same price. difference is single or dual core, i won't buy a 2800+ or a sempron.

as for slow in gaming, most sites put, in gaming a 3500+ on par with a 3.4Ghz P4 EE, or the 3.73prescott EE , in single gaming performance at stock or average overclocks a 2.2Ghz ath 64 core will spank most P4's you can buy anyway. overclocked, assuming the 2.7Ghz was that easy to hit, i think an overclocked ath x2 will spank anything intel has for gaming(average overclocks, not talking 5/6Ghz p4's, but then if you want to we'll talk about 3.5Ghz x2's just for the sake of it.

the only thing the x2's lose to in games is the fx55, look at the numbers, its by slim margins, and thats because of the slower clocks.

[[XC] leviathan18]

unreal 3 comes out in june :D

why you are a retarded if you encode a dvd while you are playing a game??? i think is boring having to wait until the dvd encoding finish to play a game if i can do at the same time is nice :D

[Ailleur]

http://pc.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3140119&did=11


Many Milestones To Go
The finished product is still well over a year away (there are 13 "milestones" in the creation process, and we're visiting just after the completion of No. 3), but that suits everyone at Epic just fine. Long before the entire game world gets prettied up, Steve and company plan to have put together a gameplay framework that's tweaked to within an inch of perfection.

Read it, they clearly say theyre more than a year and a half away from release.

Now.
You can say whatever you want, ill stand by my its from amd so everyones gotta love it statement.
Intel showed the same improvement over its own single line cpus and it was branded as crap.

[[XC] leviathan18]

q3 is the time everybody says they are going to be in the stores june in major oems and pc builders like alienware i guess

[Jamo]

unreal 3 comes out in june :D

have i missed something :stick: last i heard it was set for a december release to co-inside with the physics card crap they plan on introducing

edit: are you getting confused with quake 4???

[politenessman]

Why do you want a dual core so bad do you run servers or something cause they are worse in games than a single core...

no, but i have been doing a lot of dig vid stuff, encode, decode, editing, and it would be nice to use my machine for other stuff while i do this. with winny @2700 plus, 1 gig ram, raid 0 on opsys and apps, raid 0 on data, when i am converting divx back up to a dvd i can barely call up web pages.

very truly yours,
politenessman

[Ailleur]

q3 is the time everybody says they are going to be in the stores june in major oems and pc builders like alienware i guess

Im talking about unreal 2006 running the unreal 3 engine, not dual core cpus since you said unreal 3 engine would be available in game in june. Now, unless you meant june 2006, which is also wrong but less wrong, this is dead wrong!

[Filter]

an fx 55 will still beat any dual core in games.

[dpadmore]

Don't sweat it about the X2. Enjoy your Venice or better still San Diego for 8-12 months while we wait for the software to catch up and only then once the X2 is properly established and running decent core speeds ie 2.8Ghz+ get one. As of now and the immediate to mid-term future the fastest gaming cpu will be a San Diego or an FX chip based on it, no amount of extra cores can make up for the raw clock speed advantage these have on single threaded applications such as every single existing main stream game. Nothing else can beat a SD core running at near to or above 3 Ghz with single thread apps.

[saaya]

yeah, no need to go dual core now unless your a heavy multitasking freak or encode and decode media all the time. and with heavy multitasking freak i dont mean playing a game and letting winamp and bittorrent and a firewall running in the background, thats not what i would call multitasking even :P :D

[Holst]

I think that the standard A64 range (and the FX) will still stay ahead of the dual cores clock speed wize.

Although some games in a year or two might gain some advantage of dual core, im pretty sure that a higher clock speed single core CPU will claw back most of those gains.

I dont think ill be getting a dual core CPU for some considerable time, maybe never.

As the only high end things I do are games and a litte encoding (MP3, and some video) dual core does not look attractive at all unless there is a very significant price drop.

[Soulburner]

If you are like me and like to run 2 games at once (example, 2x clients of an MMORPG) then dual core should be really nice.

[drunkenmaster]

errm, people are acting like the fx is 50% ahead of the x2's. i'm sorry, but very very VERY rarely, at 1600x1200 will you notice the difference between 2.6 and 2.4Ghz, or on air overclocks maybe 3ghz on a san diego fx 55/7 and a dual core say at 2.7/2.8Ghz. you'll get maybe 5fps more, in game you won't notice this. tbh unless you are benchmarking a system its very hard to tell between a 3200 and an fx55, i mean you play most games with the same video card and you'll get fast enough fps with either cpu that it will simply be too fast for your eyes to tell which is faster.

the difference is, i can leave grabit downloading from newsgroups and as it decodes stuff i won't get any slow down, i can leave a dvd ripping if i want, or a dvd burning. quite a few times i'll be burning a dvd and realise i want to play a game or whatever.

the difference between the ath 64 dual cores and the intel dual cores is, there seems to be far larger performance jumps from 2 cores over a single core on the ath 64's. its done more effectively and properly multithreaded apps are taking absolutely huge gains in speed. the HT effect of p4's allowing for faster switching between threads is something that is marginally missing from ath 64's, this will fix that and basically, we will see very very few speed bumps in the next year. the fx might just launch a 3Ghz sometime next year, might not(before jumping to 0.65). but a dual core cpu will continue to essentially gain speed over that time as more and more applications become multithreaded. buy a x2 4400+ for $500 now and it will be marginally slower in general gaming than on the $1000 fx55/57. but in 1years time that fx55/57 will still be the same speed but the 2.2Ghz of the X2 4400+ will be far better utilised and will be the MUCH faster cpu in a lot/most apps. its not like in 1 years time everything will suddenly be multithreaded, apps will gradually change over that period and many games out before then will probably take advantage. everyone keeps talking about u3 engine and late 2006 introduction, just because they are the only ones to announce it will be multithreaded, doesn't mean that it will be the first.

[[XC] leviathan18]

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/unreal-iii-working-title/ so far says june 2005 working title engine unreal 3 made by epic and is a shooter maybe is not unreal 2006 but is going to use the unreal engine 3.....

so you are going to have a multithreaded game in june and more at the end of the year when we are going to see the dual core cpus so to that date i hope to have the cheapest dual core

[3rd-Dimension]

Show me who encodes a dvd while playing doom3 and ill stick a retardes sticker on his forehead.

when will it get here?

[politenessman]

when will it get here?

the sticker?


very truly yours,
politenessman

[politenessman]

Don't sweat it about the X2. Enjoy your Venice or better still San Diego for 8-12 months while we wait for the software to catch up and only then once the X2 is properly established and running decent core speeds ie 2.8Ghz+ get one. As of now and the immediate to mid-term future the fastest gaming cpu will be a San Diego or an FX chip based on it, no amount of extra cores can make up for the raw clock speed advantage these have on single threaded applications such as every single existing main stream game. Nothing else can beat a SD core running at near to or above 3 Ghz with single thread apps.

you are right man i am letting the same disease that made me jump on nc, winny, venice, sandy get me all nuts about the x2. if i were less single minded i could have looked at an amd roadmap and skipped a couple of those, waited and get a decent stepping x2 in the fall. which is what i will probably do anyway.

very truly yours,
politenessman

[[XC] leviathan18]

im going to buy a 3000 venice and wait until december then buy athlon x2 4400

[kiwi]

I just read the review on anandtech
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=1

I'd say not bad but no need for it yet if you have SD, FX55 or good overclocking winny/venice.

I am waiting till my SD 4000+ arrives.

[3rd-Dimension]

the sticker?


yeah! wheres my sticker. my foreheads cold.

[Filter]

[url]so you are going to have a multithreaded game in june and more at the end of the year when we are going to see the dual core cpus so to that date i hope to have the cheapest dual core


you already have one now. called quake 3

[[XC] leviathan18]

really???? i didnt knew that the quake III engine is multithreaded

[dippyskoodlez]

amd is doing this the wrong way almost 3-4 sockets in 2 years?? thats insane i dont like it see if you can rma you cpu.

754, for budget, and always been budget, 940 aside. 939 for performance.. 2 mainstream sockets.. M2 coming next... Id say it isnt too bad, as long as its not like intel, where they hyped up 423, then moved to 478, and now LGA. Neither company is innocent, but atleast they arent forcing us to jump to 754 and suddenly change. :)


really???? i didnt knew that the quake III engine is multithreaded

Yup. It wasnt origionally, I dont think, but at some point, I think they re-did it, but I dont think all of the games based on it have it supporting it.

[[XC] leviathan18]

thx for the info dippy

[cantankerous]

Heh, u3 is stated for late 2006.
Those performances are "okay". And those multitaking scenarios are retarded but i guess theyre the only thing that a dual core cpu will win hands down. I guess its new and from AMD so people have to say its the greatest thing since sliced bread though.
Show me who encodes a dvd while playing doom3 and ill stick a retardes sticker on his forehead.

well here I am stick em on. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to do more than one thing at a time. If you have the power or option to do so why not? You ever tried encoding a DVD with CCE? It takes at least 8 hours. I would like to do something else in that time besides look at the screen. If this cpu will allow me to do other things with sacrificing cpu cycles to other stuff than im all for it. This cpu sounds right up my alley. With the core speed being more than some stock single core cpus I see no reason why it couldn't be the same for games even if one core is simply idling.