Brisbane 3600 X2 VS Athlon 64 Venice 3200?

[dantonic]

Multitasking aside, and the fact that x2 is dual core.

Are these two processors very comparable in gaming performance?

The reason is... I own the Venice, and I am thinking of upgrading to the 3600, although that would require new mobo and ram.

Is that upgrade worth it? WIll the only advantage be the multitasking? or will my gaming experience be better?

I cannot find any benchmarks comparing these two processors.

Thanks.

 

[myocardia]

Unless you're planning on overclocking the Brisbane, your Venice 3200 is faster. And if you're planning on overclocking, those Venices usually do 2.5-2.7 Ghz pretty easily.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Unless you're planning on overclocking the Brisbane, your Venice 3200 is faster. And if you're planning on overclocking, those Venices usually do 2.5-2.7 Ghz pretty easily.

True, but the Brisbane will also overclock very well.

OP, honestly, unless the dual core aspect really means that much to you, don't upgrade yet. If anything, I would suggest a dual core 939 chip. The performance difference between an AM2 processor and its 939 counterpart is slim at best, so going through a full upgrade (ram, mobo, processor) just for a dual core version of a similar processor is silly. You should either buy nothing and overclock what you have, get a dual core 939 part, or get a 775 rig.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Yep, if you want to go dual core get the 939 x2 3800+ from newegg or $90

 

[dantonic]

Yeah,
that's what I was thinking... I figured there wouldnt be much difference really.

I think I'll keep this guy for now.

thanks for your comments.