AMD 64 4000+ vs. 64 x2 4400+?

[jgbishop]

I'm looking at building a brand new system (upgrading from AGP to PCI Express), and I want to move away from Intel processors. I currently have a Pentium 4 2.8GHz processor (with HT). I'm currently looking at two AMD solutions:

AMD Athlon 64 4000+
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+

The first is $334, while the second one is $460 (both as of this writing). There aren't a ton of applications these days (games especially) that are multi-threaded, although that's bound to change over time. I've also read a few complaints about the dual core chips.

So I was wondering, which is recommended? Is there a clear winner here? Or would either be a good processor for my new rig?

 

[Duvie]

What is your MAIN use??? Will you be running any particular apps that are multithreaded that you know of??? Do you do heavy multitasking or that matter even take advantage of the HT now???


Dual core has plenty of uses now...

A lot of the top video encoding programs are multithreaded to some extent

A lot of CAD apps are multithreaded to some degree

Not many games, but games could be ran in conjunction with another apps and have no effect on the game....It does take some understanding of setting processor affinity tp have perfct synch....Sometimes there can be issues with certain game titles and running them with both cpu0 and cpu1...eventhough the app is singlethreaded....

All the games I play are fine except an issue with Star wars BF2...I just have to make 3 clicks to set affinity to just one core and I can play fine and even run other apps on the other core and in the background....


NO clear winner cause ppls use vary greatly....


I recommend dual core if you dont tend to upgrade very frequently...cause I think more and more apps and new OSes will take advanatge of it, and then a more clear winner will be defined...

 

[darkdemyze]

No brainer, go for the 4400

Even if you're not running multi-threaded apps, if you multi-task at all, which I'm sure just about everyone does, it helps a great deal.

 

[stevty2889]

Like Duvie said, depends a lot on what programs you are running. I haven't had any issues with games with any of my dual cores, and plan to replace all of my single core systems with dual cores.

 

[jgbishop]

The system I'm planning on upgrading is mostly used for games. I do some development work on it (Visual Studio) as well as some web design (Dreamweaver), but nothing super major. I also do the occasional Photoshopping on it.

General usage breakdown:
80% gaming
10% web development
5% general development
5% miscellaneous (Photoshop, web surfing, etc)

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: jgbishop
The system I'm planning on upgrading is mostly used for games. I do some development work on it (Visual Studio) as well as some web design (Dreamweaver), but nothing super major. I also do the occasional Photoshopping on it.

General usage breakdown:
80% gaming
10% web development
5% general development
5% miscellaneous (Photoshop, web surfing, etc)

Id say get the best single core you want to afford, and by getting a good sckt939 (with confirmed DC support) you have an easy upgrade path when you need the multithreading....

 

[tallman45]

You would be surprised what an X2 can make fater. The Sync of my Palm used to slow down my other work on a 3500+ now with a X2 4200+ no delays on anything else I try to do. Downloading images from a flash card, same thing

 

[chef24]

In gaming, single core is still king-
The AMD 4000+ is the best bang for the buck at ~$335 via Newegg and you can OC it to stock FX-57 speeds with minimal effort.

A stock dual core at the same price point can't touch the stock 4000+ at the same price point.

 

[freethrowtommy]

Get the 4400+... OC 200 mhz... wola... 2 4000+ in one core...

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: freethrowtommy
Get the 4400+... OC 200 mhz... wola... 2 4000+ in one core...

Winnar!

(or the Opty 165, or even the X2 3800+ and OC that)

 

[Centoros]

Dual core is the way to go. Even though there aren't that many applications currently that handle dual core, they will be soon enough. The other nice thing about having a dual core is, you won't notice things running in the background such as virus scan, firewalls etc. and you might with a single core.

 

[CP5670]

For most games there isn't going to be much of a difference either way during actual gameplay, unless you're running a lot of stuff in the background. Video cards are where the major performance gains are to be had for games, so the bulk of your money should go into that rather than the processor. Also, if you're willing to overclock, the lower end Opterons are better deals for the money than either of those.

 

[RussianSensation]

For dual core processors I'd go with X2 3800+ or Opteron 165 and overlock them to 2.6ghz.

As far as best bang for the buck for gaming without overclocking, A64 3700+ = $206 is a much better choice than the 4000+.

Benchmarks