Which AMD?

[pbsk8er03]

Okay, well I am building a new computer, and want this thing to be incredible but not too expensive. It will be used for mostly gaming, some photoshop, and other programs.

QUESTION

Okay, would I be better off with this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103562

OR this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103529

Thanks in advance,

Alex

 

[XHotxEx791]

THe dual-core will help for photoshop. But the 4000+ would be better for gaming.

Roger

 

[pbsk8er03]

Okay, so the 4000+ is faster even thought the 3800+ is dual core?

 

[skidude]

Okay, so the 4000+ is faster even thought the 3800+ is dual core?

For certain things, like gaming, yes it is.

But, I would go with an AMD FX-57 (best gaming CPU out now) over both of those.

 

[pbsk8er03]

For certain things, like gaming, yes it is.

But, I would go with an AMD FX-57 (best gaming CPU out now) over both of those.

Yeah because I have a grand to spend on a CPU. Im just going to get the 4000+ I think.

 

[skidude]

Since you said its for gaming mostly, that would be the best choice.

 

[Filip]

an overclocked athlon 64 3000+ with venice core is better than fx-55

check it out: http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?t=20919

 

[pbsk8er03]

an overclocked athlon 64 3000+ with venice core is better than fx-55

check it out: http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?t=20919

Wow, thats pretty ****ing insane. So I'd be better of saving cash and getting a 3200 or 3500+ and ocing it?

 

[Ku-sama]

but then again, a 4000+ could overclock to higher speeds, so id think it would match the fx-57.... if im wrong, then ill just get a 3800+ venice insted of a 4000+ san deigo...

 

[Filip]

but then again, a 4000+ could overclock to higher speeds, so id think it would match the fx-57.... if im wrong, then ill just get a 3800+ venice insted of a 4000+ san deigo...

4000+ san diego has 1MB cache you could oc it to 2.8GHz easily, multiplier is 12 and fsb 233MHz

 

[Ku-sama]

so then the 4000+ is a hell of alot better, right?

 

[Filip]

it is of course, but also a lot more money u have to spend on it, and i think it's not worth it, i'm planning to buy a 3000+ venice

 

[Ku-sama]

well, to buy a 3800+ venice compared to a 4000+ san deigo, theres not that much diffrence... and besides, i can make it a FX-57 as they use the same core

 

[skidude]

an overclocked athlon 64 3000+ with venice core is better than fx-55

check it out: http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?t=20919

Hmmmm..... I have a AMD 64 3000+ venice..... makes me think....

 

[Praetor]

But the 4000+ would be better for gaming.

Not that you would notice of course.

But, I would go with an AMD FX-57 (best gaming CPU out now) over both of those.

Wanna try my X2-4800 against it in Perimeter? Or even a PentiumM-780 @ 2.9Ghz+?

an overclocked athlon 64 3000+ with venice core is better than fx-55

And an overclocked FX55 regardless of core is gonna run circles around any overclocked a64-3000

so then the 4000+ is a hell of alot better, right?

If you think you'll notice the performance difference than yes although i bet the answer is still no.

well, to buy a 3800+ venice compared to a 4000+ san deigo, theres not that much diffrence... and besides, i can make it a FX-57 as they use the same core

Well the price difference between K8-3800 and K9-3800 is something like 50CAD so theres not much reason not to get the X2 as that makes general life much better