Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon 64 or dual core?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 13, 2005 5:05:00 PM

hi there, i'm building a new machine and i'm not sure if i should get the Athlon 64 4000+ 2.4 ghz L2 1mb or the Athlon dual core 4200+ / 2.2 GHz L2 1 MB. can you play games on the dual core as good as you can on the 64? is the dual core at 2.2ghz faster than a 64 at 2.4ghz?

More about : athlon dual core

December 14, 2005 10:02:31 PM

single core 4000+
December 14, 2005 10:47:33 PM

ya, the dual-core won't be faster per say but you can expect future game and applications to take advantage of dual-core.
Related resources
December 15, 2005 12:31:17 AM

Id say Dual core if you got the money if not, maybe a 3200 or 3500 a64
December 15, 2005 12:38:45 AM

Don't even think about it....get the dual.
December 15, 2005 5:53:32 AM

if it is just for gaming, then the 4000+ will do better than the dual core, but if you want future proof(unlikely) or do other mult-thread applications, then yeah
December 15, 2005 9:13:16 AM

Unless your going to render cameras in 3ds max while playing games, go for the single-core. Dual-core technology wont be used until a few years from now in games, and by then, you'll be able to get dual cores for much cheaper then they are now. Just wait it out.
December 15, 2005 10:20:23 AM

Get the dual core. They overclock real nice. Got my 4200+ up to 2.5GHz on stock voltage with the standard air cooler with only a small temperature rise. In my Koolance rig it is quite happy at 2.7GHz. Man is it fast!
December 17, 2005 5:59:52 PM

I'm having this same dilema, only its between a 643700 San Diego, and an x2 3200+. However, I look at it like this...the x2 will most likely be around the same price as the 64 is now in a couple years when more apps will actually take advantage of the technology.
December 17, 2005 6:27:18 PM

I find it ridiculous every time I hear people bickering over 200MHz. 200MHz isn't going to make or break your gaming experience. It's much more worthwhile to be concerned about the graphics card or other components when gaming as they can easily make a greater difference than 200MHz. Games are generally GPU dependent anyways, and load times are dependent on hard drive speed.

My advice is to get the dual core. Btw, the X2 4200+ actually only has 512k of L2 cache per core. If the difference in cache and speed are such a large concern, than you can easily make up the difference by overclocking. Again, other components are far more important than slight processor speed differences. As well, newer graphics card drivers from both nVidia and ATI have dual core enhancements to make the X2 more worth while. In addition, many newer games like Quake 4 are beginning to take advantage of the 2nd core as well.
December 18, 2005 4:11:36 AM

Quote:
is the dual core at 2.2ghz faster than a 64 at 2.4ghz?
No, the dual core will be slower. Games do not use two cores, only one. The extra 200 mhz will give you 10% more frames on cpu intensive progs. That means that games will on average be playable for an extra 6 months.
There seems to be a lot of people who think dual core is better, because it's newer. It just isn't so. For those apps where a two chip system was better (mostly work station stuff, and server stuff), a dual core will be almost as good.
Reality is that most systems get used way less than cpu max. The only real time most people come even close is in games. What is the point of getting a chip that will slow you down in games, just so you can use less than 25% of cpu power available?
December 18, 2005 11:22:11 AM

but i won't be using the computer just for games though. I'll probably be to busy for games. i'll just build a system that's good with games so when i do play, it will be good. i figure that if you have a machine that's good for games, its must be a fast machine. i'll also use the machine for converting video files from my cam corder to DVD.
December 18, 2005 12:50:09 PM

OK so its probably smarter to get a Athlon 64 3700+ san diego than a Athlon 64 X2 3800+ manchester because games might have problems with the dual core and you know for sure that they WILL NOT have problems with the 64 (at the present time) and that the 3700+ is actually better for games than the dual core (at the present time) so go with the 3700+ because im builing a new system and JUST decided to get the 3700+ san diego :)  1gb l2 cache wil be nice along with a Asus A8N-Sli Premium mobo , 2gig corsair xms cas lat 2 ram (2x 1gb), a evga copper 7800GT 256 mb graphic card, ocz technology 520w powerstream psu, and a thermaltake tsunami case w/ side window
December 19, 2005 12:05:13 AM

I'd say that the (gaming) difference the 4000+ and 4200+(X2) is minimal. I do own a 4000+ and a 3800+ (X2). I initially setup my gaming system with the 4000+, but since I had started to do more transcoding, I felt dual core was needed. Here are my numbers from 3DMARK05:

3800+(X2) @ 2.4ghz / 7800gtx 256mb(490/13100) = 8635
4000+ @ 2.7ghz / 7800gtx 256mb(490/13100) = 8589

Then I went SLI!!!

3800+(X2) @ 2.37ghz/ 7800gtx 256mb(490/13100) SLI = 12047
4000+ @ 2.64ghz / 7800gtx 256mb(490/13100) SLI = 12249

My memory is Corsair XMS Twinx2048-3200c2pt 2-3-3-6-1T

There's really not a big difference in the numbers when I compared the 2, but for me I felt the 3800+ was smoother although they performed about the same in my setup. Hope this helps...
December 19, 2005 12:16:36 AM

Should i worry about compatability issues with a DUAL core processor (Athlon 64 X2 3800+) and today's games?

is it likely that I'll have to change affinity (or something) for games that do not support dual core ?

Will i have to mess with settings in Windows to make games, which are not equipped to use dual core capabilities, work properly on a dual core processor system?
December 19, 2005 12:50:22 AM

I've played - on my 3800+(x2) - Doom 3, Quake 4, F.e.a.r., NFS: Most Wanted, UT2004, Serious Sam2, Call of Duty2, Prince of Persia 1&2, Serious Sam First & Second encounter, Max Payne 2,... all without incident nor did I have to mess with Windows
December 19, 2005 1:15:37 AM

The problem with running some older games on computers with dual core processors is that the games actually run too fast. To resolve this, users turn off 1 of the processors while playing these games. (sorry that should of been in reply to mthomas)
December 19, 2005 1:16:26 AM

guess ill go 3700+ then
December 19, 2005 1:31:57 AM

think I'll go with the single core 4000+
December 19, 2005 1:44:34 AM

It is my understanding that dual core gaming would be at the same speed as an Athlon 60 of the same speed, plus a little boost since os and other apps can run on other core.
There is no problem with older games running too fast with dual core, since os handles that feature, as long as comparable Athlon had no problems.
I ran older and new games fine for years when I had my dual xeon workstation, dual processors rock, and feel like a much faster same clock speed single core machine due to multithreading.
December 19, 2005 11:45:24 AM

I think os is ram dependant, not processor dependant, and having a dual core to help with running of os wouldn't make any difference. It is my understanding that for windows xp there is a a minimum ram requirement but not a minimum processor requirement and if i wanted to run windows xp on my old pc (p3-800 , 256mb ram) I would be required to upgrade the memory, not the processor.
December 19, 2005 12:54:15 PM

intel needs a 4ghz smithfield to catch up with 4800 stock. most x2s can hit 2.6, which would be around 4.4, so while the 4.6 pressler will be decent against current x2s, it will itself get trounced by an ocd fx60 which starts at 2.6, and like the dual core opterons will go to 2.8 and higher, and no 2mb of cache wont do jack shit. amd's 90nm is able to handle intel's 65nm. and check out the pressler's temp at the inquirer with stock cooling, 80c.
December 19, 2005 5:13:55 PM

Quote:
hi there, i'm building a new machine and i'm not sure if i should get the Athlon 64 4000+ 2.4 ghz L2 1mb or the Athlon dual core 4200+ / 2.2 GHz L2 1 MB. can you play games on the dual core as good as you can on the 64? is the dual core at 2.2ghz faster than a 64 at 2.4ghz?
As of now single core is better for gaming than Dual-core.
December 19, 2005 6:05:36 PM

Would not the X2 be a bit faster than a single core at same clock speed at playing single threaded games?

An X2 4200 is not going to be limited at current game play, since it is more than enough power, and the future is in dual-core so games will be written more and more for support, as are already ATI's graphic drivers, so that will give you more longevity of the hardware as it will essentially seem to improve with new supported games, and then it could really out perform even the single core that is 200mhz faster.
!