August 13th, 2007, 12:34 AM
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800 -vs- Athlon 64 4000
Which one would be "better" in the most basic definition?
- 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
 Heh, it's a regular 64 4000 instead, not an FX
Last edited by requinix; August 13th, 2007 at 04:47 PM.
August 13th, 2007, 03:27 PM
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.
August 13th, 2007, 07:30 PM
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.
X2 is newer than FX, so IMHO I would prefer X2.
I have a AMD 3800 64 X2 Energy Efficient 65w chip and I am very happy with its performance. I know you said you did not want to OC but if you did, the 3800 OC'ed very nicely for me.
i too use AMD x2 3800 its working fine i play big offline games never gives up..