4000+ San Diego vs. 3800+ dual core

Sui_Fenris · 01-16-2006, 10:07 PM

Hi, soon I'm going to be building a new computer and I'm stuck between the Athlon 4000+ San Diego and the dual core 3800+. I'm mostly concenrned with playing games, and while I do often multi-task, I never do really intensive things like gamiing and encoding video at the same time. I'm aslo slightly concerned with what I've heard about the dual core setup nto working with some games.

If it helps this was the system that I was planning on:

Asrock 939 dual SATA (so I can use my old agp card)
1 gb corsair xms
ati radeon x800xl agp
hitachi deskstar 160gb SATA

ice52 · 01-16-2006, 10:35 PM

nice setup, probably better than mine actually:

AMD 64 4000+ (San Diego)
DFI Lanparty nf4-dr mobo
1gig corsair memory (2*512mb)
Geforce 7800 GT
hiper 580W PSU

I'll tell you from the research I did beforehand, that the 4000+ scores a lot higher on the benchmarks (for gaming etc) than ANY of the dual cores and especially than the equivelant ones in rating (i.e 4000+x2) because they are scored in capability rather than speed (afaik). The 4000+ san diego was placed very high on the benchmarks that mattered to me...

eg: http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/...05/page24.html

I have to say its not dissapointed me, and i've managed to overclock it to 2.64mhz, as oppose to 2.4, without putting the voltage up so I could probably go higher.... so... if you are looking for brute force, I would recommend that, of the two...

Bear in mind though, that when the revolution comes (i.e when vista and the like, and the games that begin to really use the power of dual cores.. they will take over, and so its more of a long term investment...)

If you are looking for a one time investment, I would probably go dual core, but I think its going to be a couple of years at least before the dual cores will start to catch up, and i am hoping to have more money to burn by then

.

Sui_Fenris · 01-17-2006, 12:51 AM

Thanks for the input, I'll definately take that into consideration. I'm pretty much leaning toward the 4000+ now.

34erd · 01-17-2006, 12:52 AM

I strongly recomend the X2 3800+. The 4000+ may beat some benchmarks now, but most new games are multithreaded now.

[-0MEGA-] · 01-17-2006, 12:54 AM

The 4000+ is better now, but within a year most games will be multi-threaded (UT2007 for example), and when that happens, the X2 series will outperform the single core cpus. Also with the arrival of 3DMark06, im sure it's optimized for dual-cores so the X2 may actually get a higher score on it.

If you ask me, i'd go with X2 3800+ if you want to get the most out of your pc.

i.Angel · 01-18-2006, 01:18 AM

I'd go with the 3800+. It's an investment for the future that way you won't have to upgrade as soon. Also I advise that you get a PCI-E mobo and spend a little more money for another GPU. I know there isn't much of a performance difference, but it is nice to have something that is more presently used in case if something were to go wrong.

Sui_Fenris · 01-18-2006, 02:20 AM

I just realized that I'd have to get a new motherboard anyway as the Asrock mobo doesn't support X2 processors. Has anybody here overclocked a 3800 X2 before? If I could push it far enough I think it would definately be better than the 4000+ and cheaper as well.

mgoldb2 · 01-18-2006, 02:26 AM

Here is QUAKE 4 with the SMP 1.05 patch

You can expect a similar breakdown for most muti-thread games and notice how the best single core cpu is at the buttom even below a pentium-d.

ReturnToEmpire · 01-18-2006, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sui_Fenris

I just realized that I'd have to get a new motherboard anyway as the Asrock mobo doesn't support X2 processors. Has anybody here overclocked a 3800 X2 before? If I could push it far enough I think it would definately be better than the 4000+ and cheaper as well.

one forum member stated that he raised his 3800 + to 2.4 ghz without raising the vcore so im sure it will be pretty nice. i also suggest the 3800 over the 4000, and whats the difference in 20 fps in games when ur already playing them over 150 FPS, thats crazy good anyway, ias long as u have a nice gfx card ur games will be fine with either processor, but the 3800 is definitely going to make you happier.

i.Angel · 01-18-2006, 03:10 AM

Pretty good CPU (the 3800 that is) for the price, considering it beat Intel's most expensive dual-core CPU... but hearing that really isn't that suprising

How much do you think the AM2 X2 5000+ will cost when it debuts?

01-16-2006, 10:07 PM	#1 (permalink)
Sui_Fenris New Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4	4000+ San Diego vs. 3800+ dual core Hi, soon I'm going to be building a new computer and I'm stuck between the Athlon 4000+ San Diego and the dual core 3800+. I'm mostly concenrned with playing games, and while I do often multi-task, I never do really intensive things like gamiing and encoding video at the same time. I'm aslo slightly concerned with what I've heard about the dual core setup nto working with some games. If it helps this was the system that I was planning on: Asrock 939 dual SATA (so I can use my old agp card) 1 gb corsair xms ati radeon x800xl agp hitachi deskstar 160gb SATA

01-16-2006, 10:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
ice52 New Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Age: 23 Posts: 5	nice setup, probably better than mine actually: AMD 64 4000+ (San Diego) DFI Lanparty nf4-dr mobo 1gig corsair memory (2*512mb) Geforce 7800 GT hiper 580W PSU I'll tell you from the research I did beforehand, that the 4000+ scores a lot higher on the benchmarks (for gaming etc) than ANY of the dual cores and especially than the equivelant ones in rating (i.e 4000+x2) because they are scored in capability rather than speed (afaik). The 4000+ san diego was placed very high on the benchmarks that mattered to me... eg: http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/...05/page24.html I have to say its not dissapointed me, and i've managed to overclock it to 2.64mhz, as oppose to 2.4, without putting the voltage up so I could probably go higher.... so... if you are looking for brute force, I would recommend that, of the two... Bear in mind though, that when the revolution comes (i.e when vista and the like, and the games that begin to really use the power of dual cores.. they will take over, and so its more of a long term investment...) If you are looking for a one time investment, I would probably go dual core, but I think its going to be a couple of years at least before the dual cores will start to catch up, and i am hoping to have more money to burn by then . __________________ www.ice52.co.uk

01-17-2006, 12:52 AM	#4 (permalink)
34erd Diamond Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Age: 15 Posts: 2,842	I strongly recomend the X2 3800+. The 4000+ may beat some benchmarks now, but most new games are multithreaded now. __________________ DFI Lanparty UT nF4 SLI DR Athlon 64 3500+ Venice 1 Gig OCZ VX DDR500 DDR BFG GeForce 7800GT 160 Gig SATA HDD CD-RW DVD-ROM Antec NeoPower 480 Thermaltake Tsunami

01-17-2006, 12:54 AM	#5 (permalink)
[-0MEGA-] Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Concord, NH Age: 19 Posts: 27,069	The 4000+ is better now, but within a year most games will be multi-threaded (UT2007 for example), and when that happens, the X2 series will outperform the single core cpus. Also with the arrival of 3DMark06, im sure it's optimized for dual-cores so the X2 may actually get a higher score on it. If you ask me, i'd go with X2 3800+ if you want to get the most out of your pc. __________________ Desktop // Laptop Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.0GHz // Core 2 Duo P8400 2.26GHz Asus Rampage Formula X48 // Intel PM45 ATI 4870X2 2GB GDDR5 // 512MB GDDR3 9800M GTS 4GB (2x 2GB) DDR2 940 // 4GB DDR3 800 750GB SATAII w/32MB // 200GB SATAII 7200RPM Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty SilverStone 750W +12V@60A 3DMark06: 21391 // 9179

01-18-2006, 01:18 AM	#6 (permalink)
i.Angel Diamond Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Texas Age: 17 Posts: 1,200	I'd go with the 3800+. It's an investment for the future that way you won't have to upgrade as soon. Also I advise that you get a PCI-E mobo and spend a little more money for another GPU. I know there isn't much of a performance difference, but it is nice to have something that is more presently used in case if something were to go wrong. __________________ XPS M1530

01-17-2006, 12:51 AM	#3 (permalink)
Sui_Fenris New Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4	Thanks for the input, I'll definately take that into consideration. I'm pretty much leaning toward the 4000+ now.

01-18-2006, 02:20 AM	#7 (permalink)
Sui_Fenris New Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4	I just realized that I'd have to get a new motherboard anyway as the Asrock mobo doesn't support X2 processors. Has anybody here overclocked a 3800 X2 before? If I could push it far enough I think it would definately be better than the 4000+ and cheaper as well.

01-18-2006, 02:26 AM	#8 (permalink)
mgoldb2 VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Age: 25 Posts: 1,259	Here is QUAKE 4 with the SMP 1.05 patch You can expect a similar breakdown for most muti-thread games and notice how the best single core cpu is at the buttom even below a pentium-d. __________________ Acer A11912B 19"montior Aspire x-superalien case Asus k8t800 pro motherboard athlon 64 fx-55 2GB(2 of 1GB) of Geil DDR ram Geforce 6800 ultra 2 Seagate 200GB 7200RPM Model ST3200822A configure as RAID 0 1 DVDRW and 1 CDRW 3.5 drive sound blaster audigey2 zs logitech 2300 thx certified 2.1 speakers Last edited by mgoldb2; 01-18-2006 at 02:28 AM.

01-18-2006, 03:10 AM	#10 (permalink)
i.Angel Diamond Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Texas Age: 17 Posts: 1,200	Pretty good CPU (the 3800 that is) for the price, considering it beat Intel's most expensive dual-core CPU... but hearing that really isn't that suprising How much do you think the AM2 X2 5000+ will cost when it debuts? __________________ XPS M1530

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode