AMD 64 3800x2 or AMD 64 4000+
- Thread starter edgarb
- Start date
bigsaucybob
New Member
it really depends on wat ur doing more of. if ur doin a lot of gaming right now and want the top of the line processor gaming right now then go for the 4000. but the x2 3800 is newer technology and is good at both.
I was also going nuts over my personal decision, of
AMD X2 4200, X2 4400, or the 4000 San Diego.
I finally went with the 4400. It has the most cache of the X2 models, and can be overclocked past the 4800(2.4Ghz) easily.
I also went with the X2 because its the future... not really that I need that much, the overclocked 4000SanD probably could handle everything im doing now.
Music, messengers, photoediting, gaming, downloading, browsing, and webdesign.
It helps having X2 if im doing a few of those at once. Hope this helped you as someone who struggled the same decision.
AMD X2 4200, X2 4400, or the 4000 San Diego.
I finally went with the 4400. It has the most cache of the X2 models, and can be overclocked past the 4800(2.4Ghz) easily.
I also went with the X2 because its the future... not really that I need that much, the overclocked 4000SanD probably could handle everything im doing now.
Music, messengers, photoediting, gaming, downloading, browsing, and webdesign.
It helps having X2 if im doing a few of those at once. Hope this helped you as someone who struggled the same decision.
Archangel
VIP Member
go for the 3800+ X2.
simply because you cant overclock the 4000+ much further ( and you can get the same clock frequenty with quite much 3000+ venice CPU's
however, the 3800+ can be pushed quite a bit, wich would make him perform much better as the 4000+
also, the 2nd core gives an advantage
says who? ( reviews and comparisons plz ) and, because 1 2GHz is Oc'd to 2,9GHz doesnt mean every processor can do that.
simply because you cant overclock the 4000+ much further ( and you can get the same clock frequenty with quite much 3000+ venice CPU's
however, the 3800+ can be pushed quite a bit, wich would make him perform much better as the 4000+
also, the 2nd core gives an advantage
pbsk8er03 said:
says who? ( reviews and comparisons plz ) and, because 1 2GHz is Oc'd to 2,9GHz doesnt mean every processor can do that.
Go for the X2 3800 it can be overclocked to 2.4 GHZ which makes each core in the same speed range as a 4000+. I know people who have overclocked it to 2.6 GHZ with using quality memory. The point is that you can make it just about as fast as the single core chip but when multi threaded apps and games come out it'll be the champ of the two.
The opterons are only better when you have two of them but one at a time they're no faster than a single die Toledo. Get the X2 4400 Toledo core, they've also hit 2.8 GHZ and some have even hit 3.2 GHZ, but I would say that 2.7 GHZ is about right. They also have 2 times 1 meg of L2 cache.
Sophocles said:
Yea the 4400 can hit 2.7 stable on AIR cooling like a slice of cake. Can go on liquid/water cooling 3.2 pretty nicely, above that.... your a pro OC-er.
I think were the smartest people on the whoooooooooole thread
. j/kAnyway... yea I heard the opterons for regular use computers on the motherboards was bad? Some thing that if you break it they wont offer you anything.... not sure what I heard.
fade2green514
Active Member
the question of wether a processor can handle what you need to do isnt the question. ANY athlon 64 processor can handle what you need to do... the real question is how fast.. 
go with the 4400+ and o/c it. its that simple. with a nice heatsink you can easily get rid of the heat the burning in your processor would cause. try getting it to 2.6ghz and if you can do that you have one of the fastest processors in the world.
either that, or the 3800+. dont go single core its outdated, and the 4000+ single core uses more power than even the dual core 4800+ meaning more heat and less overclockability.
go with the 4400+ and o/c it. its that simple. with a nice heatsink you can easily get rid of the heat the burning in your processor would cause. try getting it to 2.6ghz and if you can do that you have one of the fastest processors in the world.either that, or the 3800+. dont go single core its outdated, and the 4000+ single core uses more power than even the dual core 4800+ meaning more heat and less overclockability.
Mr.Suave
New Member
wat? no they arent havent you heard of the FX-57?? its single core and is way better than a x2 4800fade2green514 said:
also read somewhere that the price jump from the 4200+ to the 4400+ isnt worth it, the 4200+ can be easily overclocked to 2.7ghz and best bang for your buck.
i found this out in another thread where praetor gave me a link
ah here i found it
Praetor said: