AMD Athlon X2 3800+ Windsor 2.0Ghz, 65W or 89W

J

JoeTom93

New Member
I am thinking of purchasing an AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Windsor 2.0Ghz Dual-Core.
There are two different models and I'm not sure which one to get
The 65W or 89W versions. There is a $10 difference which is big for their price
65W http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103066
89W http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103735
Should I get the 89w or should I invest in an Athlon 64 4200+ Windsor 2.2GHz 65W Dual Core
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103740
 
P

PC eye

banned
The 4200+ X2 is one of the better models for a gaming/ocing rig as well as seeing the faster stock clock speed there. The two reasons for seeing the higher price between the two 3800+ models are 1) 65w and 89w difference 2) OEM and retail including stock hsf.
 
ThatGuy16

ThatGuy16

VIP Member
Retail comes with a cooler. Otherwise they are the same. If you want to use the "stock" heatsink then you will need the retail.
 
MixedLogik

MixedLogik

New Member
The only difference between the 65w and 89w is that the 65w is the one that is "Energy Efficient" Edition. I have it, and It is harder to overclock because of this. The only thing the 65w will provide you is the less usuage of power, which I like because you don;t have to buy a high wattage power supply.

Also you probably should invest on the 4200+ (Higher Speed, More Overclocking Ability, Heatsink and thermal pad included)

Not saying the 3600+ is a bad processor, it is cheap and energy efficient, and runs great. This is coming from someone who is using one right now as im typing.
 
P

PC eye

banned
Presently the model in use here is the 6000+ X2 3ghz 125w model for more of a work horse/multi tasking build. While the ocing potential is somewhat like 3.7 to 3.9ghz I generally run stock for a period of time.

The decision should be based more on the type of build for the most part. For a basic system and low power needs the 65w model would work well. For a mid ranged type build if not high end gamiing type which is not the case there going with a faster stock model with occasional gaming and multitasking in mind sees a faster cpu.
 
P

PC eye

banned
When working with the older single core models simply going from 2ghz upto 2.2ghz made a noticable improvement. No gain was really seen when going from the old Socket A board to the last build's 939 board since both saw a matched 2.2ghz with the older seeing 2.205 while the Atholon 3500+ saw 2.22ghz.

Both ran the same 2gb of DDR400 memory since that was simply moved along with the 939 board first used in the old case then new case to see lower temps with increased air flow. The 939 version of the 4200+ X2 is described as a good ocing for the older socket type there.
 
StrangleHold

StrangleHold

Moderator
Staff member
PC eye said:
Presently the model in use here is the 6000+ X2 3ghz 125w model for more of a work horse/multi tasking build. While the ocing potential is somewhat like 3.7 to 3.9ghz I generally run stock for a period of time.
Click to expand...

You have to be joking, the 6000 will (not) clock to 3.7 to 3.9 in general. I,ve installed and overclocked 5400-5600-6000-6400 and the 6000 is the worse of the 4 overclocking. The best you will get on air is 3.4 mabe 3.45 and thats really cracking up the voltage. The 5600 will overclock better than the 6000.
 
P

PC eye

banned
That information was provided by Asus as far as what the current board here will support. In real world terms I wouldn't expect any AMD model to see any great leaps in clock speed since they have always been directed at seeing more work done per clock cycle while Intel focused on clock speed alone until the Core 2s came on the scene. That' as you already well know was when AMD lost the edge as the gaming cpu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top