|
|
|
| |||||||||
![]() |
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800 -vs- Athlon 64 4000
Which one would be "better" in the most basic definition?
I'm either: - On the web + running a F@H client + listening to music (local or streamed) + other miscellaneous things, or - Playing games (99% of the time either FEAR or Halo 1/2) - I've paused F@H and stopped most everything else I have running PS: I have two nVidia 6600 GT cards running one LCD in SLi mode PPS: I don't want to overclock [edit] Heh, it's a regular 64 4000 instead, not an FX
__________________
FUMOFFURU! -- PHP Manual (cURL - PCRE regex - references) error_reporting() SQL injection: and mysql_real_escape_string() PHP and cron Negative0 Have spare time? Interested in a large-scale freelance PHP project? Chance for a part-time gig? PM me for details. Last edited by requinix : August 13th, 2007 at 04:47 PM. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
not much info about the FX-series, but would guess it is better by design than the X2
for yours need the X2 should be good enough, especially for the games you posted, and isn't that expensive compared to FX. just be sure about correct sockets between cpu and motherboard ![]() Last edited by MrFujin : August 14th, 2007 at 07:34 AM. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Which core do each of the cpus have? The 4000+ can have either the San Diego or Clawhammer core (San Diego is faster), and the 3800+ x2 can have either the Windsor or the Toledo core (Windsor is faster and uses faster ram).
Either way, the 3800+ x2 is superior. The single thread performance is equal or better than the 4000+, and multitasking is no contest.
__________________
--Dave-- U2kgSG9jIExlZ2VyZSBTY2lzLCBOaW1pdW0gRXJ1ZGl0aW9uaXMgSGFiZXM= |
![]() |
| Viewing: Dev Shed Forums > Computer Hardware > CPUs > AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800 -vs- Athlon 64 FX 4200 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
|
|
|