Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 3800 x2 VS 4000

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 11, 2005 4:16:48 AM

Been gathering info to build 3 systems, and ive got most of it down. Theyll be used for diff things, 1 will be primarily gaming, but all will use Photoshop CS2, and other 2 will prob do alot of pic/video editing an the like. So they can make use of the dual core pretty well.
Question is, as i price these out, why would the 3800 dual core be almost same price as 4000 ? I would think dual core would give a huge advantage. I realize that the cache on the 4000 is double (as i recall, correct if im wrong about which model has the double cache, i think its the 4k)
Is dual core all its cracked up to be ? Im thinking of it in terms as dual processors, in a single chip, am i not only ovesimplifying it, but also greatly over estimating it..?
Chime in please as id love to build these 3 for Xmas, and im pretty well decided on all other aspects. I already got talked out of going Pent for the idea of dual core AMD, but im hesitating a bit before actually buying, and wanna be as sure as i can.
Muchos gracias

More about : amd 3800 4000

December 11, 2005 4:20:56 AM

From what ive heard the x2's are slower for gaming but id do this.
Get the x2 for the photoshop pcs and the 4000+ for the gaming rig.
Atleast thats how i would do it.
December 11, 2005 8:32:01 PM

I ran into the same problem as you. I was looking at both the 3800+ x2 and single core 4000+. My machine is primarly for gaming though, and after some research I went with the 4000+. It recieves much higher bench marking scores in the realm of games.

Check out The Mother of All CPU Charts. It Compares a wide variety of processors including the 3800x2 and 4000+. Should help you make a decision.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_al...
Related resources
December 11, 2005 8:56:41 PM

Quote:
I ran into the same problem as you. I was looking at both the 3800+ x2 and single core 4000+. My machine is primarly for gaming though, and after some research I went with the 4000+. It recieves much higher bench marking scores in the realm of games.

Check out The Mother of All CPU Charts. It Compares a wide variety of processors including the 3800x2 and 4000+. Should help you make a decision.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_al...


Same here. Just built a machine w/ a 4000 instead of an X2 3800. On the CPU chart, the 4000 does better than the X2 3800 in all of the gaming categories, and many of the other benchmarks, some of which (like the 3dmark05 futuremark) take advantage of dual core technology (so the dual core x2 3800 should have been performed better than the single core 4000, but it didn't). Bottom line= I went with the 4000+ because gaming is important to me and I knew I'd get better frame rates on games like HL2, FarCry, and Fear.

If I wanted to run antivirus programs at the same time as gaming, maybe dual core would've been an option, but as it stands the 4000 seems to be the better choice for games.
December 14, 2005 5:30:09 PM

Quote:
I ran into the same problem as you. I was looking at both the 3800+ x2 and single core 4000+. My machine is primarly for gaming though, and after some research I went with the 4000+. It recieves much higher bench marking scores in the realm of games.

Check out The Mother of All CPU Charts. It Compares a wide variety of processors including the 3800x2 and 4000+. Should help you make a decision.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_al...


Wow! Thanks for that link. I'd been looking for something like that. I just ordered parts for a new PC 2 nights ago. I finally decided on the 3700+ San Diego core processor on a recommendation from MercilessDeadlyRaven in my previous post. After seeing that the 3700+ outperformed several, technically faster processors, I'm feeling pretty good about my choice.

It's been a long time since I had a fast machine. Can't wait!!!
Max.
December 14, 2005 6:33:20 PM

Yea the 3700+ is an extremely good processor at a very affordable price.
December 23, 2005 8:33:01 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong guys,,,, but the 3800 X2 has both cores running at a slower clock speed than the 4000+, right?? In which case, the 4000 is still the better (faster) of the two processors since we still don't have boatloads of dual threaded programs out there,,, especially games. I saw a 3800 and 4000 san diego and both are pretty damn speedy. I would think buying an X2 anything less than the 4600 or 4800 and most people would see little to no improvement. (maybe even a loss if they're already running 3500 - 3800 single core.

MHO,, but correct me if I'm in left field on this one. To pay hundreds more for a dual core with slower or the same clock speed just doesn't sound like an "upgrade" to me. Unless they run entirely multithreaded software and htat kind of thing.
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2005 4:06:34 AM

Again, I will repost my statement. The way AMD is looking at the X2 3800+ is an entry level dual-core processor. It was designed to introduce the X2's into the main stream market. In fact, the HP a1250n uses the 3800+ and only cost $900. The way to look at the X2 3800+, in my honest opinion, is as the Sempron of dual-cores.
December 24, 2005 4:46:37 AM

I agree with the comments above, buy the Dual Cores for work and the single core for games!

You might also want to consider running Linux on those Dual Cores at least dual boot ;-)

live long and prosper
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2005 4:50:59 AM

Being somewhat a rookie with Linux, this question sticks out:

How would Linux and Windows share ALL resources (like RAM), and peripherals (such as the sound card)?
December 24, 2005 5:52:47 AM

There are several options:

0. Dual boot. You boot Linux when you want to use Linux and reboot into windows when you want to play games or something. You use a bootloader (grub) which asks you what you want to boot when the computer boots up. You partition your hard drive into 2 or more partitions Linux runs natively on one partition, windows runs natively on another partition, only one OS can run at any given time. This is the BEST solution. This is what I do on my gaming machine, I use Linux when I need to do real work and boot into windows to play games.

1. Run Linux natively and run windows and or windows applications in a virtual machine such as VMWare or something similar (works GREAT, but not so good for games).

2. Run Linux natively and run windows in WINE (wine is not an emulator) runs fine for the most part - some games run GREAT some not so great - some not at all.

3. Run Linux natively and run either a windows and or DOS emulator (DOSbox, etc), bachs, etc.

4. Hybrid config. Dual boot + VMWare or WINE + emulator. You can dual-boot and run VMWare, WINE, etc on Linux for things that work. If something does not work at all in VMWare, WINE or whatever you can reboot into native windows and play your games, then reboot back into Linux later.

5. Run an emulator or virtual machine under windows (winemu, VMWare, etc) and run Linux in the emulator or virtual machine.

6. Run a Linux LiveCD or LiveDVD like Knoppix. You can run Linux ENTIRELY off of a bootable CD or DVD without touching any of your hard drives or otherwise messing with your system. This is great for testing, debugging, fixing winblows when it breaks and for beginners looking to try Linux.

http://www.kernel.org/pub/dist/knoppix/KNOPPIX_V4.0.2CD...
http://www.kernel.org/pub/dist/knoppix/knoppix-dvd/KNOP...

The Knoppix CD is 700MB the DVD is 3.1GB. The ISOs must be recorded onto the appropriate medium and then you have to make sure you can boot from your CDROM or DVD drive.

live long and prosper
December 24, 2005 6:09:56 AM

PS

In a Dual boot situation the two or more OSes are not actually sharing resources they just sit on the same hard drive but on different hard drive partitions (typically you split the drive into 2 roughly equal partitions). Only one operating system runs at any given time so Linux can use all the RAM, all the CPU etc in the system - same for windows. If you are in windows and want to run Linux you reboot and pick Linux at the bootloader screen. If you are in Linux and want to run a windows application and you can't or do not want to use a virtual machine, WINE, or an emulator you can simply reboot and select windows at the bootloader prompt.

When running a virtual machine [VM], WINE, or an emulator under either Linux or windows then the HOST operating system running the VM, WINE, or the emulator is using resources and has to share those resources with the VM, WINE, or the emulator so the resources available to the HOST operating system are reduced when you have the GUEST operating system running on the VM or the emulator or whatever.

In MOST cases you can control how many resources you assign to the guest operating system. In VMWare for example you can tell VMWare how much RAM the GUEST OS is allowed to use and you can either create a virtual hard drive drive with a FIXED size which will take up space on the HOST operating system partition permanently OR you can use a dynamically allocated virtual hard drive drive which will GROW as you add more stuff onto the GUEST operating system.
December 24, 2005 11:31:29 AM

daaaaaaaaaaaaang that's AWESOME! :-D

Quake runs on Linux too btw ;-)
December 25, 2005 2:56:08 PM

Quote:

Quake runs on Linux too btw ;-)


Hey, quick n00b question about linux. I have been interested in Linux but have no idea where to start looking or what demo, if possible, there is to try out. What version can I run on my computer to become more comfortable with this different OS? I have always used Windows and I am trying to see the difference. Also keep in mind I am a avid gamer, so is there a specific Linux gamer friendly?

Thanks:) 
December 25, 2005 3:37:59 PM

A great distribution to get started with is Knoppix ( by Klaus Knopper [knopper.net] ). It is a Live Linux CD and DVD which does not require an install -- it simply runs entirely off of the bootable CD or DVD.

You can get it here:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/dist/knoppix/KNOPPIX_V4.0.2CD...

700MB CD

http://www.kernel.org/pub/dist/knoppix/knoppix-dvd/KNOP...

3.1GB DVD

Simply burn the ISO of your choice to CD or DVD put it in your optical drive, boot and enjoy :-)

You may have to tell your BIOS to boot from CDROM before it boots from HDD.


Knoppix does include a few games on the CD and DVD but nothing like Quake.


Popular distributions include:

Fedora Core http://fedora.redhat.com/
SuSE http://www.novell.com/linux/suse/
ubuntu http://www.ubuntu.com/

and many others... too many to list here

With tinkering you can get virtually any distribution to do anything that is technically feasible.

I use Fedora Core and Knoppix personally but I tweak both quite a bit.
!