Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X2 Manchester vs. Athlon 64 4000+ HELP

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 6, 2006 4:16:44 AM

people, i'm in need of some advice. I was looking at the x2 manchester for my dual-core needs basiclly for gaming and for college. I was dead set on getting this processor and then i looked on tomshardware and looked at one of the charts comparing the 2. I from what i gathered from the X2 3800 is really meant for multi-tasking. And the 4000 is for running one program really well. Gaming is my goal for this comp.

1. which is better/ which should i get?
2. is one more easier to shop for mainboards for?

Thank you in advance

More about : manchester athlon 4000

April 6, 2006 4:19:10 AM

Quote:
people, i'm in need of some advice. I was looking at the x2 manchester for my dual-core needs basiclly for gaming and for college. I was dead set on getting this processor and then i looked on tomshardware and looked at one of the charts comparing the 2. I from what i gathered from the X2 3800 is really meant for multi-tasking. And the 4000 is for running one program really well. Gaming is my goal for this comp.

1. which is better/ which should i get?
2. is one more easier to shop for mainboards for?

Thank you in advance


You really shouldn't listen to places like Toms or others that say "Single-Core is best for blah blah and Dual-Core is best for Multi-tasking", because the way they all word it, it's like they think you NEED Dual-Core for Multi-Tasking and Single-Core for gaming or other, and that's complete BS. At best, the 4000+ will be minimally better than the 3800+ X2 in ANYTHING, how do I know this? Because I happen to have both of those CPU's 8O.

Get the 3800+ X2, things are much snappier and smoother than the 4000+.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 4:22:34 AM

omg thanks so much, i'll go with my initial notion. Unless anyother suggestions???
Related resources
April 6, 2006 4:27:13 AM

Quote:
omg thanks so much, i'll go with my initial notion. Unless anyother suggestions???


Depends on the budget, if you can fork it over, go for a 4200+ X2 (if you don't want to overclock) or grab the 3800+ X2 and a nice $30-$40 Aftermarket heatsink/fan and overclock to 2.2-2.4 and you'll be damned happy.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 4:59:15 AM

Three or four threads can make a Veince or San Diago rather slugish!
April 6, 2006 5:00:50 AM

Quote:
Three or four threads can make a venince or san diago rather slugish!


1 or 2 threads can make a Conroe unstable.

But no, actually Conroe, since you obviously never used an AMD64 in your life, you wouldn't know anything about it.....do you even know what a thread IS????

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 5:01:44 AM

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/01/10/amd_athlon_...
Quote:
We experienced extreme lag during video playback on the single core Athlon 64's, and generally the CPU did not want to handle more than one process at a time. If you leave the process priority at its default, the DVD shrink will take more than 10 hours to complete - we'd go so far as to say this is not possible on the single core Athlon 64s.

Even the FX57 -FAILD- ths multitasking test!
April 6, 2006 5:03:29 AM

Quote:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/01/10/amd_athlon_...

Even the FX57 -FAILD- ths multitasking test!


Wow...that article is even more BS than Conroe SuperPI....what'd they have those A64's clocked @, 1GHz? I can do all those with a AthlonXP 3000+ faster than their "testing".

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 5:04:10 AM

I own two A64's BTW.
April 6, 2006 5:04:39 AM

Quote:
I own two A64's BTW.


No, you don't.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 5:04:51 AM

Quote:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/01/10/amd_athlon_...

Even the FX57 -FAILD- ths multitasking test!


Wow...that article is even more BS than Conroe SuperPI....what'd they have those A64's clocked @, 1GHz? I can do all those with a AthlonXP 3000+ faster than their "testing".

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

I smell BS, But it's yours.
April 6, 2006 5:05:34 AM

Quote:
Three or four threads can make a venince or san diago rather slugish!


lol
April 6, 2006 5:32:25 AM

Quote:
:lol:  My 3200+ (faster than yours?) :lol: 
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=84611

My winchester and dualSATA2 are in the closet needing a PSU.

:D 


Don't make me whip out my Quad Opteron 64 850 Server and pwn your Intel Fanboy @$$.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 5:36:09 AM

I'm not a IDIOT, I like cpus, not manufactures.

I'm a Jeff Gordon FAN!
April 6, 2006 5:43:10 AM

Quote:
I'm not a IDIOT


That's debatable.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 5:48:22 AM

Quote:
I own two A64's BTW.


No, you don't.

~~Mad Mod Mike, popin' the world 1 zit at a time

Who looks stupid here?
April 6, 2006 5:51:28 AM

Quote:
I own two A64's BTW.


No, you don't.

~~Mad Mod Mike, popin' the world 1 zit at a time

Who looks stupid here?

Idk, let me ask my Worker Monkeys. (You don't get this joke, so don't try to understand it)

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 5:55:12 AM

Quote:
Three or four threads can make a venince or san diago rather slugish!


1 or 2 threads can make a Conroe unstable.

But no, actually Conroe, since you obviously never used an AMD64 in your life, you wouldn't know anything about it.....do you even know what a thread IS????

~~Mad Mod Mike, popin' the world 1 zit at a time

You don't have a Conore! Must be a personal problem. :wink:
April 6, 2006 5:56:09 AM

Quote:
Three or four threads can make a venince or san diago rather slugish!


1 or 2 threads can make a Conroe unstable.

But no, actually Conroe, since you obviously never used an AMD64 in your life, you wouldn't know anything about it.....do you even know what a thread IS????

~~Mad Mod Mike, popin' the world 1 zit at a time

You don't have a Conore! Must be a personal problem. :wink:

How do you know I'm not the one who bought that Conroe on eBay? Exactly... :twisted:

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 6:10:00 AM

You really can't go wrong with the x2 processor what small things you lose now you will gain back in the future as games, apps, and Vista will really start to take advantage of dual processors.

I would suggest the 4200-4400 ideal. On a budget get the 3800 and worst case overclock it a little to get the 2.2ghz.
April 6, 2006 2:27:02 PM

You are a a fanboy, you are the one person that will still buy a X2 this year after Conroe. Also, to pay $600(ebay) for a $200 cpu just to have it months before it's released (and no mobo even) is something only a Intel fanboy or rich overclocker would do.

I'm not real smart, just whole lot smarter than you. :lol: 

Me, I'm a conroe fan. I'm getting a E6700 as soon as I can retail. for $530 I can have more power and efficency than the $1236 FX-62. Were talking 10% faster, 50% less power consuption, and 60% of the cost. That is a no brainer. Sure I will see many more benchmarks in the next months, but you call Intel liers, three review web sites fools and Victor Wang a lier to. Your looking foolish. This is no hokes, wait and see. You realy should change your tone before you eat another dinner of crow!!!!
April 6, 2006 3:14:25 PM

Quote:
people, i'm in need of some advice. I was looking at the x2 manchester for my dual-core needs basiclly for gaming and for college. I was dead set on getting this processor and then i looked on tomshardware and looked at one of the charts comparing the 2. I from what i gathered from the X2 3800 is really meant for multi-tasking. And the 4000 is for running one program really well. Gaming is my goal for this comp.

1. which is better/ which should i get?
2. is one more easier to shop for mainboards for?

Thank you in advance


You really shouldn't listen to places like Toms or others that say "Single-Core is best for blah blah and Dual-Core is best for Multi-tasking", because the way they all word it, it's like they think you NEED Dual-Core for Multi-Tasking and Single-Core for gaming or other, and that's complete BS. At best, the 4000+ will be minimally better than the 3800+ X2 in ANYTHING, how do I know this? Because I happen to have both of those CPU's 8O.

Get the 3800+ X2, things are much snappier and smoother than the 4000+.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Depends. A 4000 will get its ASS HANDED TO IT in any multi-threaded application. The only reason it's slightly better is because of the fact that few current applications support & benifit from dual-core. Soon, with Vista and with development, this will change (even with games), and single core as a performance solution will die.
By the way, iceman845, you will need to flash a motherboard BIOS for any 939 board to expect a dual core as the X2 to run.
April 6, 2006 3:33:27 PM

Quote:
people, i'm in need of some advice. I was looking at the x2 manchester for my dual-core needs basiclly for gaming and for college. I was dead set on getting this processor and then i looked on tomshardware and looked at one of the charts comparing the 2. I from what i gathered from the X2 3800 is really meant for multi-tasking. And the 4000 is for running one program really well. Gaming is my goal for this comp.

1. which is better/ which should i get?
2. is one more easier to shop for mainboards for?

Thank you in advance


I have to agree with Mr Mike on this. Dual core is ALWAYS better than single core. No one only opens one program at a time and almost all apps do SOMETHING int he background, especially browsers and systray stuff. I have had both single and dual core AMD and the dual core allows me to have things operating in the background and still get EXCELLENT perf in Q4. I don't htink they should even make single core anymore since you CAN justify more money for it with the right marketing approach.

The 3800+ is a great starter and there is the FX 60 upgrade path, though both chips use 939 so both have the same upgrade path. I can say that when I had a single core chip I HAD TO turn off my browser so that Flash like that whch runs on Tom's wouldn't suck up CPU at the wrong time during a firefight.
April 6, 2006 3:45:49 PM

Quote:
You are a a fanboy, you are the one person that will still buy a X2 this year after Conroe. Also, to pay $600(ebay) for a $200 cpu just to have it months before it's released (and no mobo even) is something only a Intel fanboy or rich overclocker would do.

I'm not real smart, just whole lot smarter than you. :lol: 

Me, I'm a conroe fan. I'm getting a E6700 as soon as I can retail. for $530 I can have more power and efficency than the $1236 FX-62. Were talking 10% faster, 50% less power consuption, and 60% of the cost. That is a no brainer. Sure I will see many more benchmarks in the next months, but you call Intel liers, three review web sites fools and Victor Wang a lier to. Your looking foolish. This is no hokes, wait and see. You realy should change your tone before you eat another dinner of crow!!!!



I don't mean to come between you two, but the guy asked a simple question abotu choosing between a single core and dual core chip and you bring all this noise about a chip that hasn't been released yet?

Also, it's spelled liAr and it's change your tUne and hoAX. We all here hope that Intel climbs out of the basement but i don't think and AMD "fanboys" will name their children after a CPU, so maybe YOU should change your TUNE. Both the FX62 and Conroe will be worth the money since most apps only need an Sempron or Celeron to run well. I own an X2 4400+ and have NEVER seen lag for what I want to do and that includes SQL server 2k5 and Visual Studio 2K5, not to mention Falcon, D3, Q4 NFS underground and AutoCAD. In soem cases I have several open at once and my computer scares me sometimes because it reminds me of the Alphas I used to use - except without having to have an air conditioner running in the room. I'm at work on a crappy P4 right now and I hate it.

I'll reserve judgement about Conroe until I see a Dell with it. Hopefully it own't come with a CRAPPY video card, cause that will make it worthless to folks who need to run at 1600x1200. Thsi crappy Optiplex only does 1024x768 and it's so annoying after using a 19" LCD at 1280 at home.

Damn you Dell. DEMAND BETTER VIDEO. You are making Intel rich. At least they could pretend that people know how to adjust their monitor resolution. They are as bad as MS with their bundling CRAP.


SORRY FOR THE EXTENDED RANT.
April 6, 2006 3:49:58 PM

I can't put 2cent in with out getting flamed by some Ahole.

Fuuny, we all agree. Get a X2. I say a 3800+ and overclock it.
April 6, 2006 4:14:50 PM

with minimal effort you can push an x2 3800 to the speeds of the 4600-4800. granted you're not going to have the same amount of l2 cache as say the 4800, but you can at least have the same speed.
April 6, 2006 4:58:57 PM

Quote:
I can't put 2cent in with out getting flamed by some Ahole.

Fuuny, we all agree. Get a X2. I say a 3800+ and overclock it.



I wasn't flaming you, but you went all off topic to to be Intel's bitch. I mean I didn't tell you to name yourself after a CPU.
At any rate I apologize it I hurt em wittle feewings.
April 6, 2006 5:12:23 PM

Quote:
Your looking foolish. This is no hokes, wait and see. You realy should change your tone before you eat another dinner of crow!!!!


Did I just hear someone say "eat a dinner of crow?" What, is that some old, middle-eastern epigram? Seriously, if you want to insult someone, stick to "your mama" jokes and clean up your spelling and grammar.
April 6, 2006 5:21:28 PM

Quote:
Your looking foolish. This is no hokes, wait and see. You realy should change your tone before you eat another dinner of crow!!!!


Did I just hear someone say "eat a dinner of crow?" What, is that some old, middle-eastern epigram? Seriously, if you want to insult someone, stick to "your mama" jokes and clean up your spelling and grammar.
Chuck Norris used that metaphor when battling 16 lions outside Siberia.
April 6, 2006 6:51:40 PM

Quote:
people, i'm in need of some advice. I was looking at the x2 manchester for my dual-core needs basiclly for gaming and for college. I was dead set on getting this processor and then i looked on tomshardware and looked at one of the charts comparing the 2. I from what i gathered from the X2 3800 is really meant for multi-tasking. And the 4000 is for running one program really well. Gaming is my goal for this comp.

1. which is better/ which should i get?
2. is one more easier to shop for mainboards for?

Thank you in advance


You really shouldn't listen to places like Toms or others that say "Single-Core is best for blah blah and Dual-Core is best for Multi-tasking", because the way they all word it, it's like they think you NEED Dual-Core for Multi-Tasking and Single-Core for gaming or other, and that's complete BS. At best, the 4000+ will be minimally better than the 3800+ X2 in ANYTHING, how do I know this? Because I happen to have both of those CPU's 8O.

Get the 3800+ X2, things are much snappier and smoother than the 4000+.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Depends. A 4000 will get its ASS HANDED TO IT in any multi-threaded application. The only reason it's slightly better is because of the fact that few current applications support & benifit from dual-core. Soon, with Vista and with development, this will change (even with games), and single core as a performance solution will die.
By the way, iceman845, you will need to flash a motherboard BIOS for any 939 board to expect a dual core as the X2 to run.

Did you forget the part where I said I own both of those CPU's? I think you did.... Benchmarks != RealWorld Performance

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 6:55:52 PM

Quote:
Your looking foolish. This is no hokes, wait and see. You realy should change your tone before you eat another dinner of crow!!!!


Did I just hear someone say "eat a dinner of crow?" What, is that some old, middle-eastern epigram? Seriously, if you want to insult someone, stick to "your mama" jokes and clean up your spelling and grammar.
Chuck Norris used that metaphor when battling 16 lions outside Siberia.

Wrong. There were at least 40, and you forgot to mention the dirty hydrogen nuclear missle laser bomb torpedo that failed to defeat him after he killed all of the lions while single-handedly planning the downfall of society as we know it.
April 6, 2006 7:01:08 PM

Quote:
people, i'm in need of some advice. I was looking at the x2 manchester for my dual-core needs basiclly for gaming and for college. I was dead set on getting this processor and then i looked on tomshardware and looked at one of the charts comparing the 2. I from what i gathered from the X2 3800 is really meant for multi-tasking. And the 4000 is for running one program really well. Gaming is my goal for this comp.

1. which is better/ which should i get?
2. is one more easier to shop for mainboards for?

Thank you in advance


You really shouldn't listen to places like Toms or others that say "Single-Core is best for blah blah and Dual-Core is best for Multi-tasking", because the way they all word it, it's like they think you NEED Dual-Core for Multi-Tasking and Single-Core for gaming or other, and that's complete BS. At best, the 4000+ will be minimally better than the 3800+ X2 in ANYTHING, how do I know this? Because I happen to have both of those CPU's 8O.

Get the 3800+ X2, things are much snappier and smoother than the 4000+.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Depends. A 4000 will get its ASS HANDED TO IT in any multi-threaded application. The only reason it's slightly better is because of the fact that few current applications support & benifit from dual-core. Soon, with Vista and with development, this will change (even with games), and single core as a performance solution will die.
By the way, iceman845, you will need to flash a motherboard BIOS for any 939 board to expect a dual core as the X2 to run.

Did you forget the part where I said I own both of those CPU's? I think you did.... Benchmarks != RealWorld Performance

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Quote:
The only reason it's slightly better is because of the fact that few current applications support & benifit from dual-core.

Understand?
April 6, 2006 7:05:22 PM

Quote:
people, i'm in need of some advice. I was looking at the x2 manchester for my dual-core needs basiclly for gaming and for college. I was dead set on getting this processor and then i looked on tomshardware and looked at one of the charts comparing the 2. I from what i gathered from the X2 3800 is really meant for multi-tasking. And the 4000 is for running one program really well. Gaming is my goal for this comp.

1. which is better/ which should i get?
2. is one more easier to shop for mainboards for?

Thank you in advance


You really shouldn't listen to places like Toms or others that say "Single-Core is best for blah blah and Dual-Core is best for Multi-tasking", because the way they all word it, it's like they think you NEED Dual-Core for Multi-Tasking and Single-Core for gaming or other, and that's complete BS. At best, the 4000+ will be minimally better than the 3800+ X2 in ANYTHING, how do I know this? Because I happen to have both of those CPU's 8O.

Get the 3800+ X2, things are much snappier and smoother than the 4000+.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Depends. A 4000 will get its ASS HANDED TO IT in any multi-threaded application. The only reason it's slightly better is because of the fact that few current applications support & benifit from dual-core. Soon, with Vista and with development, this will change (even with games), and single core as a performance solution will die.
By the way, iceman845, you will need to flash a motherboard BIOS for any 939 board to expect a dual core as the X2 to run.

Did you forget the part where I said I own both of those CPU's? I think you did.... Benchmarks != RealWorld Performance

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Quote:
The only reason it's slightly better is because of the fact that few current applications support & benifit from dual-core.

Understand?

No, because you're saying the 4000+ is slightly better, and you're absolutely WRONG. EVERYBODY multi-tasks, do you do just ONE thing at once? You don't listen to Tunez and open TaskManager at once? Or use Iexplore.exe and open a folder at the same time? Exactly, 3800+ X2 > 4000+. I have the chips, you don't, and Tom's is only benchmarks.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 7:10:55 PM

Quote:
people, i'm in need of some advice. I was looking at the x2 manchester for my dual-core needs basiclly for gaming and for college. I was dead set on getting this processor and then i looked on tomshardware and looked at one of the charts comparing the 2. I from what i gathered from the X2 3800 is really meant for multi-tasking. And the 4000 is for running one program really well. Gaming is my goal for this comp.

1. which is better/ which should i get?
2. is one more easier to shop for mainboards for?

Thank you in advance


You really shouldn't listen to places like Toms or others that say "Single-Core is best for blah blah and Dual-Core is best for Multi-tasking", because the way they all word it, it's like they think you NEED Dual-Core for Multi-Tasking and Single-Core for gaming or other, and that's complete BS. At best, the 4000+ will be minimally better than the 3800+ X2 in ANYTHING, how do I know this? Because I happen to have both of those CPU's 8O.

Get the 3800+ X2, things are much snappier and smoother than the 4000+.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Depends. A 4000 will get its ASS HANDED TO IT in any multi-threaded application. The only reason it's slightly better is because of the fact that few current applications support & benifit from dual-core. Soon, with Vista and with development, this will change (even with games), and single core as a performance solution will die.
By the way, iceman845, you will need to flash a motherboard BIOS for any 939 board to expect a dual core as the X2 to run.

Did you forget the part where I said I own both of those CPU's? I think you did.... Benchmarks != RealWorld Performance

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Quote:
The only reason it's slightly better is because of the fact that few current applications support & benifit from dual-core.

Understand?

No, because you're saying the 4000+ is slightly better, and you're absolutely WRONG. EVERYBODY multi-tasks, do you do just ONE thing at once? You don't listen to Tunez and open TaskManager at once? Or use Iexplore.exe and open a folder at the same time? Exactly, 3800+ X2 > 4000+. I have the chips, you don't, and Tom's is only benchmarks.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

Actually I do. Whenever I'm vrum'ing down the road of internet browsing and discovery, and I suddenly think - WAIT... I think I'll listen to some music, I always close firefox, open foobar, and listen to a couple of songs before closing foobar, and opening firefox again =D

/sarcasm
April 6, 2006 7:28:55 PM

These people are foolish for thinking the 4000+ could compete with the 3800+.
April 6, 2006 7:32:11 PM

Quote:
Were talking 10% faster, 50% less power consuption, and 60% of the cost.


We're talking proof.
We're talking a chip that isnt at retail.
We're talking about a mobo that doesnt exist yet.
We're talking who in their right minds buys an FX-62 and doesnt have lots of $$$$?

:p 

Oh X2 for teh win! My X2 4400 is easily OC'ed to X2 4800
April 6, 2006 7:33:10 PM

Quote:
Were talking 10% faster, 50% less power consuption, and 60% of the cost.


We're talking proof.
We're talking a chip that isnt at retail.
We're talking about a mobo that doesnt exist yet.
We're talking who in their right minds buys an FX-62 and doesnt have lots of $$$$?

:p 

Oh X2 for teh win! My X2 4400 is easily OC'ed to X2 4800

My Opty 165 is easily OC'd to FX-60 & FX-62 ;) .

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 7:36:56 PM

LoL if I'd known about optys before I blew my student scholarship I'd be right there with ya.
April 6, 2006 7:37:53 PM

Quote:
I can't put 2cent in with out getting flamed by some Ahole.

Fuuny, we all agree. Get a X2. I say a 3800+ and overclock it.



I wasn't flaming you, but you went all off topic to to be Intel's bitch. I mean I didn't tell you to name yourself after a CPU.
At any rate I apologize it I hurt em wittle feewings.


Be nice to that waskily wabbit!
April 6, 2006 7:59:04 PM

Quote:
people, i'm in need of some advice. I was looking at the x2 manchester for my dual-core needs basiclly for gaming and for college. I was dead set on getting this processor and then i looked on tomshardware and looked at one of the charts comparing the 2. I from what i gathered from the X2 3800 is really meant for multi-tasking. And the 4000 is for running one program really well. Gaming is my goal for this comp.

1. which is better/ which should i get?
2. is one more easier to shop for mainboards for?

Thank you in advance


You really shouldn't listen to places like Toms or others that say "Single-Core is best for blah blah and Dual-Core is best for Multi-tasking", because the way they all word it, it's like they think you NEED Dual-Core for Multi-Tasking and Single-Core for gaming or other, and that's complete BS. At best, the 4000+ will be minimally better than the 3800+ X2 in ANYTHING, how do I know this? Because I happen to have both of those CPU's 8O.

Get the 3800+ X2, things are much snappier and smoother than the 4000+.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Depends. A 4000 will get its ASS HANDED TO IT in any multi-threaded application. The only reason it's slightly better is because of the fact that few current applications support & benifit from dual-core. Soon, with Vista and with development, this will change (even with games), and single core as a performance solution will die.
By the way, iceman845, you will need to flash a motherboard BIOS for any 939 board to expect a dual core as the X2 to run.

Did you forget the part where I said I own both of those CPU's? I think you did.... Benchmarks != RealWorld Performance

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Quote:
The only reason it's slightly better is because of the fact that few current applications support & benifit from dual-core.

Understand?

No, because you're saying the 4000+ is slightly better, and you're absolutely WRONG. EVERYBODY multi-tasks, do you do just ONE thing at once? You don't listen to Tunez and open TaskManager at once? Or use Iexplore.exe and open a folder at the same time? Exactly, 3800+ X2 > 4000+. I have the chips, you don't, and Tom's is only benchmarks.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Sorry asshole, he said he wanted it for GAMING. Most games don't support the extra core very heavily. And, by the way, I have the next best thing for comparing the two chips, a 3200 and a 165, so don't give me "i own the chips therefore im right no matter what" bullcrap
April 6, 2006 8:00:48 PM

I have a 3200+, 165, 3800+ X2, 4000+, and a host of others...so yea, I am right no matter what.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 8:35:40 PM

With so much around the corner in the way of games utilising dual cores, would you want this guy to get a 4000+, maybe save some $$$ - or an X2, which will mean he can play the games of the future when they come out?

I do a bit of everything - including 20hrs week CSS/BF2. I got my X2 for future-proofness, so I dont have to upgrade because a single core just wont cut it.

I'd rather spend the small $$$ extra so I dont have to fork out down the road when I want to play HL3/4/5.
April 6, 2006 9:02:04 PM

Quote:
With so much around the corner in the way of games utilising dual cores, would you want this guy to get a 4000+, maybe save some $$$ - or an X2, which will mean he can play the games of the future when they come out?

I do a bit of everything - including 20hrs week CSS/BF2. I got my X2 for future-proofness, so I dont have to upgrade because a single core just wont cut it.

I'd rather spend the small $$$ extra so I dont have to fork out down the road when I want to play HL3/4/5.

Are you RETARDED? I wanted him to get the X2 because the 4000 is only marginally better and will only get worse.
Quote:
The only reason it's slightly better is because of the fact that few current applications support & benifit from dual-core.
April 6, 2006 9:11:37 PM

Quote:
With so much around the corner in the way of games utilising dual cores, would you want this guy to get a 4000+, maybe save some $$$ - or an X2, which will mean he can play the games of the future when they come out?

I do a bit of everything - including 20hrs week CSS/BF2. I got my X2 for future-proofness, so I dont have to upgrade because a single core just wont cut it.

I'd rather spend the small $$$ extra so I dont have to fork out down the road when I want to play HL3/4/5.

Are you RETARDED? I wanted him to get the X2 because the 4000 is only marginally better and will only get worse.
Quote:
The only reason it's slightly better is because of the fact that few current applications support & benifit from dual-core.


No but you must be, because it's not marginally better.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 9:36:32 PM

Quote:
With so much around the corner in the way of games utilising dual cores, would you want this guy to get a 4000+, maybe save some $$$ - or an X2, which will mean he can play the games of the future when they come out?

I do a bit of everything - including 20hrs week CSS/BF2. I got my X2 for future-proofness, so I dont have to upgrade because a single core just wont cut it.

I'd rather spend the small $$$ extra so I dont have to fork out down the road when I want to play HL3/4/5.

Are you RETARDED? I wanted him to get the X2 because the 4000 is only marginally better and will only get worse.
Quote:
The only reason it's slightly better is because of the fact that few current applications support & benifit from dual-core.


No but you must be, because it's not marginally better.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
In gaming it is.
April 6, 2006 9:38:39 PM

Quote:
With so much around the corner in the way of games utilising dual cores, would you want this guy to get a 4000+, maybe save some $$$ - or an X2, which will mean he can play the games of the future when they come out?

I do a bit of everything - including 20hrs week CSS/BF2. I got my X2 for future-proofness, so I dont have to upgrade because a single core just wont cut it.

I'd rather spend the small $$$ extra so I dont have to fork out down the road when I want to play HL3/4/5.

Are you RETARDED? I wanted him to get the X2 because the 4000 is only marginally better and will only get worse.
Quote:
The only reason it's slightly better is because of the fact that few current applications support & benifit from dual-core.


No but you must be, because it's not marginally better.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
In gaming it is.

MmmHmm.....okay....w/e you say.... :roll:

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 6, 2006 10:07:53 PM

Quote:
Are you RETARDED?


Yes - I've had a mental defect since birth.

The 4000+ is worse because of games that can utilise dual core. You say 4000+ is marginally better.. so 4 years down the line its still better than that X2 3800, when games are multi-thread compatible?

Whens the last time you ran your fully loaded gaming rig with an X2 3800 side by side an identical copy (spyware, adware, pr0n and all) with a 4000+?

Benchies are a good indication when you're looking around, but you have to think of the future.

Your first link is to UT2k4... is is multi thread compitable? Wouldnt you rather play the upcoming Unreal Tournament 2007 which (should) be? I'd much rather think of the benchies of what I'm going to play vs what I'll only be playing for another few months.
!