|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
 Posted: Tue, 6th Dec 2005 07:05 Post subject: Athlon 64 X2 3800+ vs. Athlon 64 4000+ for gaming |
|
 |
I'm thinking of building a new PC soon, so I'm trying to get the best performance for the money in my chips. In my opinion, $300 is the current sweet spot for CPUs. Forgetting Intel for a minute (their chips seem to lag far behind AMD for gaming purposes,) I'd like to hear your opinion on which chip I should go with, the X2 3800+ or the 4000+.
On one hand, the X2 is dual-core, so once games begin to take advantage of both cores, it will have a definite advantage over single-core chips. On the other hand, single-core performance seems to be more than marginally better in the 4000+. The chips are priced similarly. I'd love to hear your opinions on this.
The prices as of today are:
Athlon 64 4000+ $334 shipped
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ $321 shipped
And here's the fps data on the 2 chips:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nerrd
Posts: 3607
Location: Poland / USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Dec 2005 07:52 Post subject: |
|
|
I just put a dual core system together for a buddy with a x2, and we made that choice just "because". To me it's really a coin coss type of decision at this point. Not helping you much, but since you asked... =).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pancake
Posts: 1091
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Dec 2005 09:45 Post subject: |
|
|
you might aswell go dual core for the money as new games will start utilising 2 cores soon and then youll see a definite boost over single core , serious sam 2 supports dual core and im sure theres 1 or 2 other games out that do to.
but for the money i would get a opteron 165 dual core as it has 2mb l2 cahe compared to the x3800 which only has 1mb and there about the same price
also the 3800 is only 2g and the 4000 is 2.4 so the single will be quicker , the opteron 165 is only 1.8 but they overclock well you should get 2.4 easy ( but dont quote me on it)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist
Posts: 8374
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Dec 2005 10:00 Post subject: |
|
|
My advise would be, that if you plan on buying a new PC again in a year or so, don't go dual core yet, its still new technology and will improve over the next year by a large margin. However, if this will be your "pc to last" then go dual core, you will in time notice the difference over a single core chip.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phluxed
VIP Member
Posts: 4911
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue, 6th Dec 2005 14:08 Post subject: |
|
|
Or if you upgrade machines every 18 months, and love to have the newest tech for bragging rights, get dual core.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 7th Dec 2005 08:08 Post subject: |
|
|
I got myself an Athlon x2 Dual core 4600 last week, and I dont regret it at all I wanted to go for an FX-55 but I changed my mind cos the X2 was 400$ less(In canadian $)
I also plan to keep this computer for over 2years so I wanted something good and I found it.This is the best computer I bought in my life, considering the cost and the performance I get.
PS: sorry for my bad english
mmm weed...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 7th Dec 2005 20:13 Post subject: |
|
|
| [sYn] wrote: | | My advise would be, that if you plan on buying a new PC again in a year or so, don't go dual core yet, its still new technology and will improve over the next year by a large margin. However, if this will be your "pc to last" then go dual core, you will in time notice the difference over a single core chip. |
I got this PC about 2-3 years ago, don't really have cash to buy a new pc every 12 months |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 7th Dec 2005 20:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, in single threaded applications, the X2 3800+ will perform similarly to a single core 3200+, but if you think you'd like to do other things like encoding while you play games or that you'd like more "pep" in windows operation, I'd definitely recommend the dual core.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 7th Dec 2005 23:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Well I voted for the Single core for 'as of right now games'. I didnt read the post and look into future games utilising the two cores. Since there's not actually much hype on this though and you only want raw power the 4000+ is better. But if you do encoding, and gaming for example then of course dual core is the way forward.
P4C05 why did you go for the 4600+? The 4400+ is so much better. Twice the L2 cache but .2ghz less? I know which i'd rather have even if they were the same price!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
qrdel
Posts: 38
Location: Tokyo-3
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Dec 2005 19:16 Post subject: |
|
|
I see you're looking for real hardcore gaming experience... nowadays amd64 3500 is good enougn for all games, I mean we still don't have 64 aplications so there is nothing able to test current hardware... and buying x2 is for me personally waste of money, just imagine having 3ghz rig and 512 ram and let's say 6600... It' still better to buy cheaper CPU, very good motherboard, good enough amount of ram (current about 1gb, 512 is not that much nowadays) and powerfull graphics because this is the reason of all game scratching and lagging (I know cause I have a360le as you see I was stupid year ago...). You should be able to but more powerfull CPU even after a year after buying PC but I doubt it would be usefull...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phluxed
VIP Member
Posts: 4911
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Dec 2005 21:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Dual Core > Single Core.
My opteron 170 is now equivilant to the unreleased AthlonFX-60. It rapes shit @2.8ghz.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
