The 4000+ is going to be the fastest right out of the box. There's really no contest to that since you're not multitasking.
The real decision is how "future-proof" you want it to be. The 4000+ will support 64-bit games (if they are ever created), yet the x2 4200+ will support 64-bit games and get a huge boost if programmers ever program for dual core in games (yet again, if it happens).
I'd say if you upgrade about every 6 months, go for the 4000+, but if you're a person that keeps the same computer for several years (my last one lasted 4 years ) then you'd most likely be happier with the x2 4200+ in the future.
for gaming id go with the single core the 4000 is i believe over 300$
the 3700 is just over 200$ about 220 at new egg it is the same as the
4000 only clocked at 2.2 instead of 2.4 same core and evry thing else
and you deffinatly wont see the 100$ diff between the two ihave my
3700 overclocked to 2.6 one could say it is a fx 55 but i still dont see
any diff and you can always go dual core later say the end of the year or the middle of next year that is when the dual cores will really come alive
I have to agree w/ prozac, I was looking at the 3700 w/ 1M @ just over $200 or the X2 3800 @ just under $300...
Went w/ the X2 just because I thought it would be cool to play games and burn a DVD or running virus scan or whatever without getting lag-fragged.
Dual core, no question. It is not a matter of when multithreading happens, its allready started, and once you have the ability to multitask effectively, you will multitask. Hell having a virus protection program running and doing something else could wualify as multitasking in my opinion. Get the dual core, they are at a decent price point, in a couple of months they will be even better deal. If you ever plan to OC then get the x2 3800, if not, stick with the 4200. Plopping over $300 for a single core is a waste and shows little foresight, by 2007 they want to have quadcore CPU's, you better believe that programmers will be utlizing those cores. The era of single cores is effectively dead.
In the end it comes down to how much money you want to spend. Dual core no dought are awesome, but are pricy. I mean if you were to go for the single you could overclock it nicely and wait until X2's come down in price a bit.
I'm mainly going to be using it for gaming and not too much multitasking, no CD/DVD burning really.
So it's either...
Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego
Athlon 64x2 4200+
The benchmarks seem to favor the 4000, what's your opinion?
Thanks in advance.
3 months ago i would have said singlecore. but after i used my dual core i can say without a doubt go dualcore. you allways multi task, windows runs apps constant in the backround, and nvidia drivers use thwe second core regardless of the game. also alot of games have dual core support, COD2 for one. quake 4 ECT. there will be more to come.