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.