Trying to decide between a x2 3800+ or San Diego 4000+

[Accipiter22]

OK, so I have a S939 3500+, which is good, but with the prices on both the X2 3800+ and the 4000+ being low, I thought I might go for a cheap upgrade, and extend the life of my computer by a couple of years.

Here's what I use the computer for: Gaming (Civ 4, BF2, etc), watching movies, school work, burning cds/dvds, listening to music, surfing the intarweb, and I also do a fair bit of database consulting so I'm frequently working in MS Office.


Which processor do you think I should purchase based on these activities?

 

[secretanchitman]

X2 3800+.

dual core will help you multitask and you'll appreciate that extra core.

 

[myocardia]

You'll get considerably better performance in any single-threaded app with the 4000; it's not only 400 Mhz faster, it has twice the L2 cache. Single core A64's multitask fairly well, as long as it doesn't consist of heavy multitasking. So, if you're considering buying a different processor because your 3500 doesn't multitask well enough, get the X2 3800. But, if you're gonna be expecting better single-threaded performance (e.g., in gaming), you'll be highly disappointed, since each core is slower than your 3500.

 

[cubeless]

if u don't oc u will probably e disappointed in the perf for either chip from a 3500...

 

[dguy6789]

I have said it before, and I shall say it again. If one is able to afford a dual core, there is no reason what so ever to get a single core. With the exception of benchmarks, you will not see any difference at all in anything you listed going from a 2Ghz 512k AMD64(Let alone 2.2Ghz) to a 2.4Ghz 1MB AMD64.

Definitely get the dual core if you are going to upgrade at all. With a faster single core, your performance will go in games from 100fps to around 110 or so. Definitely not noticeable or even worth anything. In games that take a ton of graphical power, your cpu upgrade will have done nothing at all. With a dual core, you gain the ability to truly multi task.

With a single core, if you try and run an anti virus, or burn a disc, while playing a game, your game will slow to a crawl. For this reason, many people neglect their scanning of viruses simply because they do not want their pc to be relatively unusable for a period of time. With a dual core, if you burn a disc and play a game at the same time, the game will run just as fast running in parallel with the disc burning as it would if the game was the only program running. Disc burning and gaming are just examples. You can pick any type of system intensive task and swap it in and get the same analogy.

You also gain the benefit of being able to run multi threaded applications to their full potential.

Go for the dual core.

* One thing though. This only speaks for processor intensive scenarios. If a program is using your hard disks to the fullest, your game load times will suffer as a result. However, the in-game performance itself will remain excellent.

I have used dual processor systems and dual core systems for a long time now. If I was given the choice, I would take a dual core 1.8Ghz AMD64 system over a 3Ghz single core one. Dual core machines are just so snappy and responsive.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Dual core machines are just so snappy and responsive.

It really depends on usage patterns. My primary LAN party computer is a single core San Diego (at 3.12GHz). I pretty much am only single-tasking at LAN parties, and that is playing games. My home computer (that I'm typing this on) is a dual core 3800+ at 2.4GHz. I tend to do more stuff on it all at once. Also, this particular chip doesn't get much higher than just over 2.5GHz, so I feel that 3GHz+ with double the cache wins out in a strict single-tasking environment. Of course some games can take advantage of dual core. I'll go that route eventually with a Core 2 Duo setup (better performance AND dual core).

 

[dguy6789]

I am just saying that in general usage, with a decent number of programs open of varying intensities, just randomly doing something will be smoother on a dual core than not.

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I have said it before, and I shall say it again. If one is able to afford a dual core, there is no reason what so ever to get a single core. With the exception of benchmarks, you will not see any difference at all in anything you listed going from a 2Ghz 512k AMD64(Let alone 2.2Ghz) to a 2.4Ghz 1MB AMD64.

Definitely get the dual core if you are going to upgrade at all. With a faster single core, your performance will go in games from 100fps to around 110 or so. Definitely not noticeable or even worth anything. In games that take a ton of graphical power, your cpu upgrade will have done nothing at all. With a dual core, you gain the ability to truly multi task.

With a single core, if you try and run an anti virus, or burn a disc, while playing a game, your game will slow to a crawl. For this reason, many people neglect their scanning of viruses simply because they do not want their pc to be relatively unusable for a period of time. With a dual core, if you burn a disc and play a game at the same time, the game will run just as fast running in parallel with the disc burning as it would if the game was the only program running. Disc burning and gaming are just examples. You can pick any type of system intensive task and swap it in and get the same analogy.

You also gain the benefit of being able to run multi threaded applications to their full potential.

Go for the dual core.

* One thing though. This only speaks for processor intensive scenarios. If a program is using your hard disks to the fullest, your game load times will suffer as a result. However, the in-game performance itself will remain excellent.

I have used dual processor systems and dual core systems for a long time now. If I was given the choice, I would take a dual core 1.8Ghz AMD64 system over a 3Ghz single core one. Dual core machines are just so snappy and responsive.

Thank you very much!