AMD64 4000+ San Diego vs X2 3800+ Manchester

[kingofhearts951]

Which one of the is the better processor. Cost wise and proformance

AMD64 4000+ San Diego vs X2 3800+ Manchester

 

[n7]

It depends what you will be using the PC for.

When multitasking, the X2 3800+ will be much better.

For games & video encoding (while doing nothing else, though), the 4000+ will be faster.

However, overall, i think it's easy to say the X2 3800+ is the best choice, since it still performs very well w/o multitasking, & when multitasking, it will pull far ahead.

 

[Shimmishim]

true n7...

but if you're not a multitasker at all... like me... then there is no need for a dual core chip... but to each his own...

i'm happily satisfied with my single core san diego at 2.85

 

[entropy1982]

The thing is, i think that it's one of those things where "once you have it, you will use it" .... kinda like a cell phone... remember when you said "comon do i really need a cell phone?"

 

[StrangerGuy]

X2 3800+ all the way. Get a cheap Venice 3000+/3200+ and overclock if you are unwilling to buy a X2.

 

[AkumaX]

just try dual core, you have the opportunity. you should try it. also, run a lot of apps. multiple ones. you should see how seamless it is. look at everyone else. once you go dual core, you don't go back...

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: n7
It depends what you will be using the PC for.

When multitasking, the X2 3800+ will be much better.

For games & video encoding (while doing nothing else, though), the 4000+ will be faster.

However, overall, i think it's easy to say the X2 3800+ is the best choice, since it still performs very well w/o multitasking, & when multitasking, it will pull far ahead.

4000+ will be MARGINALLY faster at best.

Also remember, we are still awaiting multi-threaded drivers, and games (etc...). When those come out the dual cores should walk all over the single cores.

-Kevin