Dual Core Desktops
So far, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Manchester has remained unchanged for the most part. The X2 3800+ is still a bit pricier than its Pentium D counterpart, the 830, but it has proven to be the better CPU in Anand’s comprehensive X2 3800+ article. The big question is if the small increase in price is worth the increase in performance. If you’re not on a super tight budget and have the $15-$30 to spend, then the X2 3800+ Manchester [RTPE: ADA3800DAA5BV] is definitely the processor to go buy.
The Intel Pentium D processors haven’t fluctuated much over the course of these past several weeks. Intel still has the ball in their court with the entry level dual core 820 being drastically cheaper than AMD’s entry dual core, the X2 3800+ (Manchester). Even though they are not on the same level of performance, they are still entry level. We are hoping to see AMD add to the entry level competition, as more competition equals lower prices.
So far, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Manchester has remained unchanged for the most part. The X2 3800+ is still a bit pricier than its Pentium D counterpart, the 830, but it has proven to be the better CPU in Anand’s comprehensive X2 3800+ article. The big question is if the small increase in price is worth the increase in performance. If you’re not on a super tight budget and have the $15-$30 to spend, then the X2 3800+ Manchester [RTPE: ADA3800DAA5BV] is definitely the processor to go buy.
AMD Athlon 64 X2 (939) 3800+ 2x512KB Manchester
The Intel Pentium D processors haven’t fluctuated much over the course of these past several weeks. Intel still has the ball in their court with the entry level dual core 820 being drastically cheaper than AMD’s entry dual core, the X2 3800+ (Manchester). Even though they are not on the same level of performance, they are still entry level. We are hoping to see AMD add to the entry level competition, as more competition equals lower prices.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
38 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - link
I think the dual-core Turions for S1 can still pull up to 65W or so, but that's still a lot less than 110W for stuff like FX/X2. I'd love to see the 754 platform disappear, but I think AMD would really piss off a lot of customers and partners, so they need to stick with it. The lack of a sub-$100 939 chip is really unfortunate.ksherman - Sunday, October 30, 2005 - link
those Opterons are goin NUTS!!! why is their price moving like crazy?!JarredWalton - Monday, October 31, 2005 - link
At least on place (Directron) clearanced a bunch of Opteron parts. I'm a little curious as to whether the prices are real or not. Why clearance a $750 CPU for $300, when you could probably still sell it for $500+? They might also be refurbs. Anyway, if you can find an Opteron that you want at such a low price and it's actually available, go for it.KeithDust2000 - Sunday, October 30, 2005 - link
You wrote: The X2 3800+ is still a bit pricier than its Pentium D counterpart, the 830, but it has proven to be the better CPU in Anand’s comprehensive X2 3800+ article. The big question is if the small increase in price is worth the increase in performance. If you’re not on a super tight budget and have the $15-$30 to spend, then the X2 3800+ Manchester [RTPE: ADA3800DAA5BV] is definitely the processor to go buy.A look at Pricewatch shows:
A64 X2 3800+ - $320 (incl. shipping)
P-D 830 - $319.40 (incl. shipping)
There is no price difference in the market, so this "super-tight budget" comment is rather pointless. It´s not "the big question" at all, rather a
no-brainer, since the CPUs already cost the same, and X2 platforms can be had for a lot
less. Don´t make it seem like the P-D 830 is somehow the choice for those with limited budgets - because that simply isn´t true.
JarredWalton - Sunday, October 30, 2005 - link
Remember that the prices can fluctuate rapidly on computer parts. When the guide was written, the X2 3800+ was more expensive than now. If you're on a budget and you want dual core, the 820 is the processor to buy, as there's simply no X2 alternative to the $247 price point. The X2 3800+ is definitely faster overall (and you'd be hard pressed to find even one application where the 820 is moderately faster), but $325 is a lot of money for a CPU.KeithDust2000 - Sunday, October 30, 2005 - link
But that is not what the part I quoted was about. It was specifically about the X2 3800+ vs. P-D 830 comparison.
rrcn - Sunday, October 30, 2005 - link
I believe Jarred answered your question here:And on our RTPE system, we are still showing a price difference of $10. At the time the article was written, there was a larger margin of about $20 or so. By the time it went went through the editing process and lastly being published, prices obviously changed to reflect a smaller margin.
And some people are on tight budgets. $10 here, $15 there...it adds up in the end. ;)
KeithDust2000 - Sunday, October 30, 2005 - link
And on our RTPE system, we are still showing a price difference of $10.If you want to nitpick, it actually shows less than $9. But that doesn´t make my point any less valid.
And some people are on tight budgets. $10 here, $15 there...it adds up in the end. ;)
If that´s true, the platform cost advantage for the X2 weighs in even more. Let´s face it, the point that in a 830 vs. X2 3800+ comparison, somehow the 830 is a cheaper buy for situations with limited budgets due to the (supposed) price advantage of the CPU is just not valid today. You can change the subject to the 820, can claim the article was already somewhat outdated at the time of posting, but that won´t change the fact that these CPUs cost the same in the market. Pricewatch shows them to be within 60 cents.
The article is still new, why not make sure it fully reflects the very recent price reductions from AMD, that happened before the article was posted. That´s what I´d do, that´s why I made my post, but it´s obviously up to you how valid you want your points to be, and how current. As a reader, I can only make suggestions. It´s a good thing for
buyers to see the X2 3800+ down to $320.
http://www.manticoreinc.com/tech/product_info.php?...">null">http://www.manticoreinc.com/tech/produc...hp?cPath...
JarredWalton - Sunday, October 30, 2005 - link
I don't get what the problem is. Okay, so the price difference isn't that much, but what does the next sentence state? "If you’re not on a super tight budget and have the $15-$30 to spend, then the X2 3800+ Manchester is definitely the processor to go buy." How can it be any clearer? Obviously, if prices change and the X2 3800+ ends up the same price or less than the 830, the "definitely the processor to go buy" becomes an even stronger statement.The "The big question" part is simply a writing style - filler if you want. Try coming up with articles for a website and you're bound to slip in some filler material at times. The charts tell the story to many people, so perhaps the text is all extraneous? All we need are tables and graphs.... ;) Anyway, we can go and rephrase that sentence in numerous ways, but the final recommendation still clearly goes to the X2 3800+.
Even with that recommendation, plenty of people are still Intel devotees, for one reason or another. If they still want to buy a Pentium D, that's fine with me - I don't get money from AMD or Intel, so it doesn't really matter.
Avalon - Sunday, October 30, 2005 - link
I think it's retarded that the authors of the article say there is no reason to get s754 over s939. Dual channel? Larger cache? Dual channel has at most a 5% effect on performance, and you can get the same ammount of cache on your processor for either socket. You can even get PCI-e s754, so upgradability is a moot point, unless you plan on getting an X2 down the road, but by then there will be better sM2 boards for you to choose from. I guess I'll go spend hundreds of dollars on a s939 4000+ (2.4ghz, 1mb L2 cache) since there's no reason to get a $178 s754 3700+ (2.4ghz, 1mb L2 cache).:roll: