Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 64 VS AMD X2

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 2, 2006 8:29:53 AM

THE AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0GHz / 1MB Cache / 2000MHz FSB / Socket 939 / Dual-Core (Manchester) / Processor with Fan COST $329 (dual ) While the AMD Athlon 64 4000+ / 1MB Cache / 2000MHz FSB / Socket 939 / San Diego Core / Processor with Fan cost $363. (single ) I am in the process of trying to build a "fast" pc ,not for gaming or movie editing etc...
I mainly surf the web and burn cd's. I am interested in burning dvd's
but can't decide what "amd 939 socket" cpu to buy. From what I have read, "AMD" is the way to go.. please give your input.
sincerely,clueless!

More about : amd amd

February 2, 2006 8:38:21 AM

im glad you added clueless to the end of your post cause you info shows it... let me try to clear things up.

a) either will be overkill for just surfing the web...

b) neither of them has a 2000mhz FSB, they have a HTT (lovely and technical so dont worry to much ;) )

c) dual dore will mean you can do more "stuff" at once before you pc gets slow. i.e. virus scan and burn a dvd.

d) with the prices you quoted the dual is cheaper, and will be more future proof than the single. (i.e windows vista.)

e) the dual core acctully has 2x 512 kb cache not a single 1mb... not that you will notice.

d) take your pick bacced on the following. do you like to do sevral things at once? if yes buy dual core, if no buy single... easy.
February 2, 2006 3:58:53 PM

Are you shrinking DVD's or transcoding DVD's and then burning them? If so, dual core would be your best bet.

-mpjesse
Related resources
February 2, 2006 4:13:30 PM

Quote:
Are you shrinking DVD's or transcoding DVD's and then burning them? If so, dual core would be your best bet.

-mpjesse



Jesse is right, philderbeast is cocky. Go dual core, even if your not transcoding, you probably will find yourself doing so at some point if your "burining" intrests keep up.

Try bulding your rig around the dual core, 2gigs of ram, and a sata burner.

Cheers!
February 2, 2006 10:11:59 PM

philderbeast isent cocky... just trying to correct some simple mistakes in a way he will understand rather than give a heap of technical information he neiter whants and may not understand.

and realisticly for simply burning dvds (even if he is srinking etc) and surfing the web there wont be much diffrenance that he will notice

hence the last peice of advice. if your muilt tasking then you will see advantage of the dual core over the single but if he isent he wont see much diffrence (a few seconds to a minute or 2 burning a dvd isent realy an issue here)
February 2, 2006 10:59:11 PM

Quote:
Are you shrinking DVD's or transcoding DVD's and then burning them? If so, dual core would be your best bet.

-mpjesse
The deal with DVDs is that most Hollywood DVDs are dual layer so they have more info on them than you can burn on a single layer DVD blank. Therefore if you want to copy a movie you must either buy dual layer blanks which are expensive and burn slow or you must shrink (transcode) the DVD to fit on a single layer blank. Single layer blanks are cheaper and burn faster. Transcoding is the ONLY thing you might need a fast CPU for.

Otherwise I agree with philderbeast. The OP would be better off spending the money on a faster internet connection (if one is available). Getting a faster computer will not speed up the internet. A faster CPU of any kind will not help burn cds or dvds any faster. Basically the OP does not need a fast computer for any of the reasons he mentioned.

Things you can do with a slow computer (within reason):

Word
surfing
burning
2d games
chat
email
single photo conversion


Things you need a fast computer and/or fast video card for:

3d games
video editing
video compresson/transcoding
audio compression
doing 100 things at the same time
3d modeling
large batch photo conversion
!