X2 3800 vs. 4000+ single core - heavy gaming.

[imported_fictionised]

Hey guys.

Sorry about this if it's been answered before. I did google it and got a few mixed responses, but thought a bunch of you at Anandtech would know more.

I'm about to buy my mate a new system, and he rarely does anything resource-heavy besides lots and lots of gaming (all the latest games), and occassional internet surfing (i.e. firefox), so not many programs opened at once.

I'm arguing with a friend as to whether the 3800 x2 chip would be better than the 4000+ for his needs. I'm leaning towards the 4000+, but don't have enough time to research it more today. Any advice/opinions would be appreciated.

Specs so far:

ASUS Extreme N7800-GTX PCI Express MODEL : EN7800GTX/2DHTV/256M $835.00
1024MB TWINX-3200XL (400MHz) DDR RAM Corsair x 2 $578.00
LG 16X DVD Black $40.00
LG DVD16X+- Super Multi DVD Rewriter with Software(DUAL LAYER Black ) $62.00
AMD Athlon? 64 4000+ Processor Retail (939) $505.00
Powersupply Antec ATX TruePower 550W ver2 $168.00
Antec P180 Performance One ATX MidiTower(no PSU) $215.00
ASUS A8N-SLI- PREMIUM nForce 4 SLI Socket 939 Motherboard $265.00
Seagate Serial ATA NCQ 200GB 7200RPM 8mb Cache $145.00
Dell 2405FPW 24" LCD 16ms + wireless keyboard and mouse (inc. special) $1,499.30

(Aust. prices).

Cheers!

 

[biostud]

click links in sig

conclusion: Videocard is the limiting factor, not the CPU.

I would get the X2 as it's better for other stuff as well and can be overclocked.

 

[imported_fictionised]

Thanks for the reply. I know the gfx card is the factor for gaming, and the CPU doesn't these days play into it as much (since they are so fast!), but I wanted to make a wise decision. I am leaning towards the 4000+ mostly for the higher clockspeed and cache, but the 3800 x2 can be o/c and can handle multitasking more fluently, so it's a tough decision. I think I may just get the 3800+- the 4000+ won't have any noticeable edge in the gaming, and it would be nice to have dual core for some things, even though it wouldn't be that noticeable at the present day.

Cheers.

 

[Meuge]

Even in games, at the same clock speed, dual-cores are significantly faster than single-cores. Given that an x2 3800 is really an x2 4600, you should certainly go for the dual-core.

 

[imported_fictionised]

So how come the 4000+ is slightly ahead of the 3800 x2 in most benchmarks of games? Is there a more technical explanation as to why the dual core will perform faster even though none of the games are written with multiple threads, etc?

and yeah, I have heard that the 3800 o/cs quite well I've just ordered it then.

 

[anandtechrocks]

You definately made the right choice going with the X2. I've got an AMD 3700+ which is basically a 200 MHz slower 4000+, and I wish I had been a little more patient and waited for the X2. I'm sure you will not regret your decision.

In gaming situations a 2.4 GHz X2 can out perform a 2.8 GHz FX-57. With more and more drivers and software being developed with dual core in mind, I really don't see any reason to spend more than $200-250 on a single core processor anymore.

 

[imported_fictionised]

Ah yes- I heard that the drivers are good. For both the video card (Nvidia) and the X2 And even Windows has a hot patch. Nice. I'm glad I went this. I'll report back on Saturday when I build and test it for my mate

 

[VooDooAddict]

Good choice.

If you had a tighter budget for gaming I would have recomended less expensive single core with a faster video card. With that budget however he will apreciate the dual cores (even if you don't get an amazing overclock).

Speeking of the overclocking ... going with something other then the stock CPU cooler?

 

[hooflung]

Well I have a X2 3800+ and I will tell you that w. 2g of OCZ 2235 ram... it shreds.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: fictionised
So how come the 4000+ is slightly ahead of the 3800 x2 in most benchmarks of games? Is there a more technical explanation as to why the dual core will perform faster even though none of the games are written with multiple threads, etc?

and yeah, I have heard that the 3800 o/cs quite well I've just ordered it then.

The singlecore AMD64 4000+ is at 2.4ghrtz while the 3800+ is at 2ghrtz so in fully single threaded applications the 4000+ will win almost every time (except when multi-tasking of course). However, with dualcore enhanced videocard drivers coming out even single-threaded games will begin noticinig a boost on a dualcore thus the advantage swings to dualcore even with a lower percore frequency.

Edit: The magic is dualcore optimized videocard drivers that spreads the cpu load out to two cores thus gaining a boost in performance. The other magic is the ability to focus a full cpu on the task of gaming while the other core does anything else that should arise (spyware/antivirus scans) etc. Just look at what happens to a FX-57's gaming performance as soon as it is called upon to do more than game in most reviews.

 

[imported_fictionised]

Faster video card? Like what? The 7800GTX EXtreme has been doing pretty well (by pretty well, I mean topping the benchmarks in non-SLI mode usually).

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: fictionised
So how come the 4000+ is slightly ahead of the 3800 x2 in most benchmarks of games? Is there a more technical explanation as to why the dual core will perform faster even though none of the games are written with multiple threads, etc?

and yeah, I have heard that the 3800 o/cs quite well I've just ordered it then.

The singlecore AMD64 4000+ is at 2.4ghrtz while the 3800+ is at 2ghrtz so in fully single threaded applications the 4000+ will win almost every time (except when multi-tasking of course). However, with dualcore enhanced videocard drivers coming out even single-threaded games will begin noticinig a boost on a dualcore thus the advantage swings to dualcore even with a lower percore frequency.

Edit: The magic is dualcore optimized videocard drivers that spreads the cpu load out to two cores thus gaining a boost in performance. The other magic is the ability to focus a full cpu on the task of gaming while the other core does anything else that should arise (spyware/antivirus scans) etc. Just look at what happens to a FX-57's gaming performance as soon as it is called upon to do more than game in most reviews.

from the benches ive seen these "magical gpu dualcore drivers" "boost" performance like 3-4 fps. Same for the "super boosting" id q4 patch. Honestly i expected more performance gain from the gpu drivers and the patch. alot more.

 

[richardrds]

You should be able to easily OC your X2 3800 from its stock 2.0Ghz to 2.4Ghz or higher making it equivalent or better then a X2 4600 (with the included retail HSF). If you are going to shoot for higher OC's in the 2.5Ghz or higher range i would recomend getting a better HSF then the stock one.

 

[BroadbandGamer]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Given that an x2 3800 is really an x2 4600

What do you mean?

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: anandtechrocks
You definately made the right choice going with the X2. I've got an AMD 3700+ which is basically a 200 MHz slower 4000+, and I wish I had been a little more patient and waited for the X2. I'm sure you will not regret your decision.

In gaming situations a 2.4 GHz X2 can out perform a 2.8 GHz FX-57. With more and more drivers and software being developed with dual core in mind, I really don't see any reason to spend more than $200-250 on a single core processor anymore.

In gaming there is nothing that can touch a FX 57.

 

[darXoul]

I'd get a single core CPU. Reasons:

1. 4000+ is faster in games than X2 3800+, albeit by an insignificant margin.
2. Multitasking, the main strength of X2 really matters when you do some "real" multitasking but people rarely encode videos and play games at the same time.
3. X2 CPUs have problems in certain games - there is a warp effect in Painkiller, for instance.

 

[the splat in the hat]

Originally posted by: darXoul
I'd get a single core CPU. Reasons:

1. 4000+ is faster in games than X2 3800+, albeit by an insignificant margin.
2. Multitasking, the main strength of X2 really matters when you do some "real" multitasking but people rarely encode videos and play games at the same time.
3. X2 CPUs have problems in certain games - there is a warp effect in Painkiller, for instance.

Forget you , and your single core 4000 , a 3800x2 will pwn a 4000 especially online, and next year ? Dual core programs in games .............
What are people thinking for the sake of 100 odd bucks future proof yourself a little.

My fx55 has a core of 2.6 my 4400+x2 has two cores @ 2.2 , in Half life 2 OFFLINE the fx55 wins out everytime , ONLINE in ANY game the 4400+ comes home stronger.
If this person is a dedicated gamer he should be looking at 2.2 core dual cpu's or higher , and forget the cost if you want the best , but be assured it ll blow a single core away and we havent overclocked jack sh@t yet. Its all duals core cpu future , youd be mad to update and not go dual core if you have the capability.....

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: the splat in the hat

Originally posted by: darXoul
I'd get a single core CPU. Reasons:

1. 4000+ is faster in games than X2 3800+, albeit by an insignificant margin.
2. Multitasking, the main strength of X2 really matters when you do some "real" multitasking but people rarely encode videos and play games at the same time.
3. X2 CPUs have problems in certain games - there is a warp effect in Painkiller, for instance.

Forget you , and your single core 4000 , a 3800x2 will pwn a 4000 especially online, and next year ? Dual core programs in games .............
What are people thinking for the sake of 100 odd bucks future proof yourself a little.

My fx55 has a core of 2.6 my 4400+x2 has two cores @ 2.2 , in Half life 2 OFFLINE the fx55 wins out everytime , ONLINE in ANY game the 4400+ comes home stronger.
If this person is a dedicated gamer he should be looking at 2.2 core dual cpu's or higher , and forget the cost if you want the best , but be assured it ll blow a single core away and we havent overclocked jack sh@t yet. Its all duals core cpu future , youd be mad to update and not go dual core if you have the capability.....

I agree. X2 is the way to go.

 

[JohnAn2112]

Originally posted by: BroadbandGamer

Originally posted by: Meuge
Given that an x2 3800 is really an x2 4600

What do you mean?

Yeah I'm confused by that statement as well.

 

[darXoul]

Originally posted by: the splat in the hat


Forget you , and your single core 4000 , a 3800x2 will pwn a 4000 especially online, and next year ? Dual core programs in games .............
What are people thinking for the sake of 100 odd bucks future proof yourself a little.

X2's have issues which single cores do not. That's it.

Plus, I learned that in the comp business nothing is future proof. I couldn't care less about the future.

Example: I had a dilemma whether to buy a socket 754 mobo or a more "future proof" s939 one. Do you think that if I bought s939 back then, I would have a clear and attractive upgrade path now? Forget it. So much has happened since then that I wouldn't be willing to keep the old junk anyway

In other words, the "upcoming dual core games" do not convince me at all. I want a fast CPU that doesn't have problems.

If X2's didn't have these problems (you can read a ton about them on AMD boards), I would not hesitate and go purchase a dual core processor. It seems very much like unpolished, rushed tech though.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I guess you can't deny the possible problems with games that you can encounter going for dual core.

 

[Markfw]

What issues ? you mean morons that don;t install the X2 driver ? or the few times the MS hotfix needs applied ? or the one in 1000 games that needs affinity set ? I amd sick of hearing about people that can;t setup their computer properly, and MS problems, and game developers writing bad code.

Bottom line ? There are no problems with dual-core, just bad installs, and bad code from game developers, and none of these are problems once the correct "fix" is used.

 

[darXoul]

That's actually good to hear. I went to the AMD boards and was kinda scared off. Initially, I wanted an X2 4200+ but once I read the horror stories, the picture changed.

On the other hand, there are always horror stories to be found on EVERY single peace of hardware in the market, posted, as you say, by "morons".

Still, the single core San Diego 4000+ is an extremely good performer in games. I really wonder whether e.g. playing an offline game with antivirus, firewall, P2P and the usual stuff running in the background, the X2 can show its muscle compared to single core. Otherwise, if it's only relevant in case of "heavy" multitasking (encoding, etc.), I don't really care about the second core.

 

[Markfw]

Also remember that games and drivers are becoming dual-core oriented. It won't be long before you can use all that power. At the rate I see things happening, a year out there may be a lot of use for it.

 

[Dribble]

Can the 3800 X2 play all of today?s games at high fps? - yes, particularly with a little o/c. So no reason not to get one for today?s games. Whats more there will never be a single core oriented game that runs slow on a 3800 X2 as game makers won't develop games that require faster single core processors because there are no faster single core processors coming.

Can the 4000 play all of tomorrows games at a high fps? - no, you'll need dual core for that. All games that require more grunt will be multi-core oriented and in that situation 2 * 2 ghz pwns 1 * 2.4 ghz.

Hence unless you are a benchmark junky there is no good reason to buy a A64 4000.

 

[lopri]

I have an X2 @2760MHz and Opteron 148 @3003MHz. Opteron wins hands down in gaming. (Yes, you can *feel* it. You just have to play a *right* game at a *right* setting.)

Will I take the Opteron over the X2? Hell, no. X2 is better for everything else. (even for simple PDF/Web browsing)