Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 64 4000+ vs. AMD 64x2 3800+

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 21, 2006 4:57:04 AM

Currently -- both are priced about the same, and I'm about to upgrade:

CPU -- either 3800 dual core or 4000
PSU -- 520 watt Aspire
Case - Chenming!
Mobo - ASrock Dual-SATA-II (dual purpose AGP/PCI-e)

Currently owned/will switch:
Vid -- MSI 6600GT
Aud - SBAudigy 2ZS gamer
Opt - 2x DVD drives
HDD - 200 gig + 15gig windows drive
RAM - 1 gig DDR ram ... don't know if its new enough to switch, oh well its what 80$ to get a gig of good corsair. ((had to be PC2100/PC1600 DDR SDRAM to fit the old mobo))

The Upgrades should be massive... my old gear:
AMD ATHLON XP2400+
Ancient ASUS mobo -- A7V266-E -- 266/200 MHz FSB... >< and only 4x agp... I've compaired 3dmark scores with other exact config comps with a diff. mobo -- I score a quarter of what others do ><
450 watt generic came/w/case psu


I'm under the impression that its a real 'duh' .. go with the 4000+ -- I am a heavy gamer, do a bit of modelling on the side, and I don't care if my computer slows down when I install... so really im just wondering why they're priced the same.. just that dual core is used for different purposes (purist) than a single core?

More about : amd 4000 amd 64x2 3800

June 21, 2006 5:11:49 AM

Well, at this point not many applications or games are optimized for multi-core processors. BUT, as more dual cores (even quad cores next year) sell you will see more games and applications take advantage of both cores. Right now the single core 4000 would probably run your games faster but within the year you'll start seeing games run faster on dual cores (which is why 3dMark06 puts heavy emphasis on dual core).
June 21, 2006 5:26:50 AM

According to the benchmarks, the single core is only really much better in OpenGL games, and the X2 performs quite well there. I'd go the x2 3800 and some good DDR2 until something better comes along.
Related resources
June 21, 2006 5:51:54 AM

4000+ is much faster because since everything mostly is still single core software. The clock on the 4000 is much higher then the 3800x2. If you play games the 4000 is the best for the money. And if you play games think about 2 gigs of ram, it will last you longer. Being games are now sucking up lots more ram then ever b4. only get a duel core if you really need it and would use apps that can use it. Otherwise it's useless. Games wont be duel core friendly for some time. At this point they really havent a idea on how to make it work. Partly cause they dont even try.
June 21, 2006 5:56:10 AM

Hopefully you are considering going AM2... I would actually buy a cheaper processor then either of those... actually,come to think of it, i cant recall seeing a 4000+ for AM2 that is single core... I know they have plans for an X2 4000+ so they may not release a 4000+ single to minimize confusion between the two... I dont know for sure though... ANYWAY...

I would actually buy just like a 3500 or even a 3200 in AM2 right now because if the rumors are true that the day of or after that Intel releases Conroe, AMD is going to cut the X2's prices in half and the single cores by like 30%, that would be the time to buy a higher dollar CPU. Even if its just like 25% for the X2's, losing $75 in a month is a harsh thing, even in the computer world, for the same product. I say go for a slightly cheaper CPU like the 3500+, 2.2GHZ single core, and hold out until the X2 prices drop and maybe consider upgrading to one of them at that time. The 3500+ is $110 on newegg, Click here for the link.

But hey, if you dont care that in a month, AMD is going to cut prices even more to slash as Intel's Conroe design, which is almost a guarentee that they will to some extent, then by all means, out of those two, I say the X2 3800+. True the 4000 (if the AM2 4000 even exists) runs at 2.4Ghz compared to the X2 3800 at 2.0, but dual core is starting to become very useful in today's world. FYI, I looked on NewEgg and the highest single CPU for AM2 I can find is a 3800 for $150 Link

Also, again a rumor, but if AMD did secretly program all X2 AM2 cpus for Reverse-Threading (basically take two cores and have windows see it as one core with double the hz), even the X2 3800 will leave the 4000 in the dust on single thread apps. I have a feeling that is not true but hey, AMD keeps saying they have some card up their sleeve and that would be pretty close to a royal flush of a move.

I guess if you are going socket 939, I would still go for the X2 but the price difference between the 939 and AM2 sockets are only in the Mobo. The CPU's are nearly the same and the ram, although faster and new tech for the AM2, its rarely more then $10 for the same amount. Also, be sure to buy two sticks or a pack of two ram for either one. The old Socket A doesnt use Dual channel, both 939 and AM2 do, I have made that mistake before.
June 21, 2006 6:45:57 AM

If you're a very heavy gamer i'd ditch the 6600gt if you want to play any modern games. It'll be a HUGE bottleneck in a system with a dual core cpu. My advice is:

A. Go AM2 get 2GB DDR2 (AMD Chips like the expensive stuff with low timings) and a 3200/3500+ and a 7600gt

or

B. Get an Intel D930 (Brilliant Chip, less than $200), 2GB Cheap DDR2 and a 7600gt.

Just my 2 Cents.
June 21, 2006 9:23:01 AM

I cannot afford switching to a higher video card, I'm not here to discuss the finer points of socket AM2 or that my video card will bottleneck -- just interested in which processor performs better ;)  Loving the split reply.

I've always always always gamed with low general settings -- im not looking to build an omgwtfbbq rig that can max out 24x AA and 512xAntriscrotal filter running at 8000x6000 pixels getting 99FP/s -- Hell I've never run a game at the max settings, I've always been 1 or 2 steps behind modern tech -- Maybe when im not putting all my money into college I'll have the time to build an SLi/SATA/AM2 power rig.. but for now..

Hell -- I'm content running oblivion at 640x480 with all the settings pretty low -- If I can run it, post upgrade, with viewing distances maxed without slowdowns (hell even if its still 640x480) I'll be happy :p 

so <bonk> I'm between 2 options, unless you can find me an AM2 motherboard that'll take AGP8x and PCI-E -- or somehow find me a deal where I can get a new PCI-E video card, an AM2 motherboard, and a good AM2 chip... :p 

Thanks for the replies so far... though :) 

[edit] That being said -- Most likely I will toss in some RAM on my own (this is a commulatative gift from my father for my past b-day and x-mas) about a gig.. or 2.. :p  but once I'm working (full time college student that doesn't want to work at McDonalds :'( ) I will probably get myself a PCI-E 7600GT Video card (or 7800GT assuming prices have dropped) and then I could see a new audio card maybe,.. later on piece together a liquid cooling system, and later possibly just save save save and build the aforementioned SLI/SATA/AM2 rig or whatever is currently the top tech. :) 
June 21, 2006 10:06:02 AM

Quote:

Hell -- I'm content running oblivion at 640x480 with all the settings pretty low -- If I can run it, post upgrade, with viewing distances maxed without slowdowns (hell even if its still 640x480) I'll be happy :p 

so <bonk> I'm between 2 options, unless you can find me an AM2 motherboard that'll take AGP8x and PCI-E -- or somehow find me a deal where I can get a new PCI-E video card, an AM2 motherboard, and a good AM2 chip... :p 


well, unless this has been changed since i last knew of, i think the ULi M1695 s939 Motherboard, is upgradable to sAM2, plus it has both AGP 8x and PCIe support (DDR2 support im not sure of, so youd have to check)

its only $68 too, you can check out other features it has here:


---------------------------------------
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...
---------------------------------------

as far as running Oblivion like you mentioned, i *think* it gets additional benefit from a dual core cpu, moreso than a single core, especially at less gpu intensive settings like youre running at (youd have to check on dual core support in Oblivion too, but i think it does support dual core)
June 21, 2006 10:14:01 AM

My advice is go AM2 (if AMD at all, because 939 will be a dying breed), and if you do go Intel make sure your board is Conroe-compatible. You could always get an 805D and overclock to tie you over until Conroe comes round, with the saved money you could get more RAM, or just keep it to get Conroe later.

Oh, and if you were to get a 7-series GeForce, make it only the 7600GT (cheaper end) or 7900GT, avoid the 7800 series as they are slower and barely cheaper than the 7900s but with a big performance deficit.
June 21, 2006 12:19:05 PM

I honestly think the best for your system WOULD be a Intel D920/930. You can get a D920 for around $170. That is MUCH cheaper than the x2 3800+ (around $300?). This way you could also get a conroe compatible mobo for future upgrades, and afford a x800GTO/6800GS. This would tide you over for a fair while (about a year?).

QuantumSheep
June 21, 2006 5:28:32 PM

When you say its "upgradable" to sAM2 what does that mean =/ <confused> if its socket 939 its socket 939..right?
June 21, 2006 5:51:09 PM

AM2 really does have 939 pins, true, but its not the same design as what is called Socket 939. AMD re-organized the PIN design. AMD did this because AM2 CPU's use DDR2 RAM when 939's use DDR1 RAM which each takes a unique DIMM Slot design. So 939 mobo's cant support AM2 CPU's RAM requirement and vice versa.

AM2 is considered more "upgrade-able" because AMD intends to keep AM2 going with new CPU's for atleast another year, most likely 2, where Socket 939 is at it's end. AMD has said they will no longer be making advances in 939. They will be producing 939 CPU's yes but not putting money into developing any new CPU's for that socket. AMD is committed to using AM2 for the near future and will be focusing on that for their desktop (and possibly notebook) CPU solutions instead of splitting their resources between 939 and AM2.

If you are considering upgrading, dont buy Socket 939, the price difference between 939 and AM2 is only in the RAM (no moreand a tiny bit on the mobo's. The CPU's cost nearly the same for 939 and AM2 but AM2 has DDR2 support, newer technology. Although people are not reporting any significant gains with DDR2 over DDR1, the advantage is having the ability to have the extra head room of DDR2 bandwidth where DDR1 is now near it's limits.

Its pretty much the same as people discussing which is better, an Nvidia 7600GT or a 6800GT/Ultra (NOT the GS or XT), they perform about the same and cost the same too but the 7600GT is newer technology.
June 21, 2006 5:55:56 PM

What that means is it has a card that sits approximately where a normal video card slot is. On that card is an AM2 socket and some DDR2 slots. You could get that board OR save yourself a little money and get a single core AM2-3800 (Monarch has them for less than 150, check pricewatch.com) and upgrade it later. A 4000 won't perform that much better than a 3800 anyway (same clock, double the cache). Then you could put that 150 to a mid-range PCI-E card (170 for a 7600GT on monarch). And now you've only spent ~20 more than your budget for a CPU and you've got a new vid card out of it. Then you're set for the future!
June 22, 2006 12:24:59 AM

This is all nice and good -- but would my harddrives still x-fer over, would my ancient RAM still x-fer over? I'd like it if I didn't have to upgrade to newer ram, because I would like to pay less than 100$ for a gig or so so I couldn't get the performance type.

But basically -- you're all agreeing that -- my choice to get this motherboard so I could upgrade my video card in the future is a bad one, because I could isntead get an AM2 board *now*, get an AM2 3800+ *now* as well as upgrade to PCI-E video card *now!*?

And therefore I wouldn't, in a year, be upgrading a video card... then in another year... getting ANOTHER mobo and cpu because socket 939 is dying...

Heres a question though -- considering i've been using a 2400XP+ since they were pretty darn new (what, 3 years perhaps?!) (my dad got a 2600+ at the time and it was substantially more expensive) -- If I did upgrade like I originally planned, but went with the single core 4000+, Couldn't I, in the future, get a new video card (pci-e)... and... in a year... wont the Athlon 64x2 4800s or whatever behemoths they have in socket 939 be pretty darn cheap or something? Like I could have a potentially huge power gain without the cost? Thats what I'm thinking could happen... and then once I *need* to upgrade again, I would just get an ASUS AM2 board, a new processor and maybe a new vid card?..

I am jobless like i've mentioned, and if I got a job I'd be putting all my cash into a comp... really im wondering:

Is it worth it.

I can see that AM2 has a lot of upgradability.. but wouldn't the AM2 3800 be weaker than the 4000? I know ANYTHING would be a boost from a 2400 on a 233FSB mobo.

Thanks
June 22, 2006 12:54:01 AM

if u can wait, u should just get the 3800 july 24th because its gonna have a price cut, if u dont wanna wait, go for the 4000 now
June 22, 2006 1:05:55 AM

Back to the original question -- how does dual core fare for CURRENT games -- I play WOW DAOC Oblivion and even Operation Flashpoint, Half Life 2, F.E.A.R. and Far Cry... Due to how many freaking hours I put into morrowind, I think that oblivion will be my main game for *months*.

Would a dual core fare better for the aforementioned games. I don't care about AM2 anymore because this upgrade should be seen as temporary, and also like I said, in the future the higher end current 939s will price-drop and I could upgrade to that before AM2.

it is just to my understanding that traditionally -- dual core has issues with games, and that a single core will in the end be better.

thanks.
June 22, 2006 1:19:26 AM

That depends on what RAM you have now, if it is not PC3200, 400MHZ DDR, you are pretty much wasting your time keeping it. I can promise that no matter what RAM you have now for your Athlon XP, it will not transfer to the AM2 Socket. The reason being is ALL AM2 CPU's are DDR2, all 939's are DDR. DDR2=240 pins on the RAM, DDR=180 (something like that, not sure the number but it is different) pins. You cant physically put DDR in a DDR2 slot and vice versa.

Also, if you do stay with 939 so you can keep your RAM, I would doubt that in a year, the X2 4800+ Socket 939 will still be around. AMD is phasing out 939 with AM2 across the board. All of AMD's CPU's except the Opterons are moving to AM2, Semperons, Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2's and Athlon FX's.

And, if you do keep your current RAM, if it is not atleast 2 gig, I would atleast buy enough to have 2 gig (ei, if you have 1gb, buy another gig). 1GB is just not enough for today's hardware w/o having a bottle neck.

How many DIMMs of RAM do you have now? If it is not 2 or 4 of the EXACT same size, speed and brand (brand is not required to be the same but highly recommended), you CANT use it even on 939. 939's and AM2 requires something called Dual Channel RAM setup. You have to have an even number of Dimms (2 or 4) and each pair MUST be the same size and speed or the system will not boot.

I doubt your RAM is PC3200 DDR (400MHz) as having a fsb of 233 MHz, you really are wasting your time even with PC2700 DDR (333MHz) as the FSB on non-dual channel systems just cant use any RAM faster then the FSB will go. And if your current mobo is dual-channel, i would be VERY surprised as I dont think Dual Channel existed for DDR at that time, i think it was only on what was called RAMBUS RAM (an Intel invention that flopped) around that time period.

Dual Channel basically doubles the RAM's connection speed to the CPU by kind of doing the same idea as RAID0 does for hard drives, takes 2 drives/dimms and makes the system write to them as though they were one so you use both drives/dimms' bandwidth at the same time.

Maybe, if you would like help on deciding what you can keep and what you cant, list everything you can about what devices you have now, RAM, CPU, Hard Drives, the works... Then we could get a better idea of what can move over to what socket number and provide better insight ;) 
June 22, 2006 1:31:48 AM

Quote:
Back to the original question -- how does dual core fare for CURRENT games -- I play WOW DAOC Oblivion and even Operation Flashpoint, Half Life 2, F.E.A.R. and Far Cry... Due to how many freaking hours I put into morrowind, I think that oblivion will be my main game for *months*.

Would a dual core fare better for the aforementioned games. I don't care about AM2 anymore because this upgrade should be seen as temporary, and also like I said, in the future the higher end current 939s will price-drop and I could upgrade to that before AM2.

it is just to my understanding that traditionally -- dual core has issues with games, and that a single core will in the end be better.

thanks.


Dual Core is a pretty new thing for games to take advantage of... Games that take advantage of this is what is called Multi-Threaded games. The majority of current games is single-thread, meaning it can only use one core, even if you have a dual- or multi-core system. Out of the games you listed, the only one I know of that is capable of Multi-Threading is Oblivion. You will have to do some special editing to a game file to turn it on but it is there and ready for use. I can probably find a guide somewhere on how to do that if you want.

The only other game I can think of that can use the power of a Dual Core is Quake 4 but there is probably others that I just dont know about.

So, unless its a game that is Multi-Threaded, you will lose a tiny tiny bit of performance from say a X2 3800+ running at 2GHz vs a non-X2 3800+ running at 2.4GHz but the gain in games like oblivion from having Dual Core is considerable, not fully double like you may think but the difference is definitly there and worthy of getting a Dual Core, IMO.

If you feel like you want 939 over AM2, thats cool, go for it, as the difference in performance between the 939 vs their AM2 cousins is extremely minor right now but, dont be fooled, that difference will grow. AMD will probably make 939 CPU's for some time, a year maybe, heck, they are still producing 754 CPU's, the original Athlon 64 socket. But they will not gain any ground in performance unless you go with the next step up of CPU, say X2 3800 to a X2 4200, both 939, AMD just does not have the resources or need to continue to develop new 939's. 939's have now pretty much reached their end of gaining ground but that does not take them out as a viable option, atleast for the time being.
June 22, 2006 1:44:28 AM

SO overall -- I can just do a mod to a game file (or multiple) to enable dual core support, which would in turn run the game *better* than a 2.4?

In other words -- considering that Oblivion is my main game -- dual core is better... considering I can "hack" far cry or fear or HL2 to utilize both cores -- dual core is better...?
June 22, 2006 1:57:46 AM

Quote:
SO overall -- I can just do a mod to a game file (or multiple) to enable dual core support, which would in turn run the game *better* than a 2.4?

In other words -- considering that Oblivion is my main game -- dual core is better... considering I can "hack" far cry or fear or HL2 to utilize both cores -- dual core is better...?


I have personally never heard of this hack for Far Cry, FEAR or HL2 but if it's out there, yes, Dual-Core will give you an advantage over single. Any game or program that can use Dual Core AND single core will gain considerable performance when using Dual Core.

As far as Oblivion, its not really a hack, its built right into the game. From what I understand, Oblivion detects Intels' Dual Cores and turns on the Dual Core option for you but it does not see the AMD Dual Core's but it can be turned on manually to get the gain. People seem to be getting anywhere between 40-60% performance gain by turning on multi-thread for Oblivion using AMD X2's. This is where the GFX card you buy comes into play, turning on Dual Core would help, yes, but if you have a Gfx card that cant handle the CPU/Game relationship gain, you will get a bottleneck from the gfx card and not gain as much as you could. With the x1600XT (ATI) or 7600GT (Nvidia) or better, you probably wont run into this problem though.
June 22, 2006 2:05:52 AM

If you are curious to see what kind of gains you can expect from using dual core capable programs on a dual-core over a single, check Tom's Hardware's CPU Chart and select like an X2 3800 and a non-X2 3800, and make sure the program that is benchmarked is a multi-thread capable program or there will actually be a loss on the X2, slight but there.

Example from that very chart...

An Athlon 64 4000 @ 2.4ghz vs the Athlon 64 X2 3800 @ 2ghz

Test A) Sandra - CPU Dhrystone benchmark, a multi-thread test...

The 64 4000 scores 10.2k where the X2 3800 gets 17.1k

Test B) FarCry benchmark, a single-thread test...

The 64 4000 gets 199.4 where the X2 gets 169.1

So you do lose some minor performance on the Single-Thread apps/games when you buy an X2 3800 vs the non-X2 3800 (or 4000) but you gain considerable amounts on the multi-thread apps/games on the Dual-Cores that you cant possibly get from a Single-Core CPU.
June 22, 2006 2:30:21 AM

I will be making the order in a few mintues, for the 64x2 3800+ socket 939. I have to figure, currently the CPU and mobo on my current system is the bottleneck.. with this upgrade I will also purchase a gig of ram to replace my ancient RAM -- any game will look good on the dual core, even if its slightly less than the single core can do, but considering up and coming games will be using dual core tech and that oblivion utilizes it, I think the choice is clear.
June 22, 2006 2:53:57 AM

Quote:
This is all nice and good -- but would my harddrives still x-fer over, would my ancient RAM still x-fer over? I'd like it if I didn't have to upgrade to newer ram, because I would like to pay less than 100$ for a gig or so so I couldn't get the performance type.


You will almost certainly have to upgrade your ram, even if you go with skt 939. IIRC, the only Athlon XP processor that supported DDR-400 ram was the XP 3200+, you are probably using DDR-266 or 333, which would cripple any Athlon 64 (nevermind the faster models), and probably even the Semprons.

Your HHD's should work fine in a skt 939 system. If you bought a skt AM2 system, you would likely have to buy new HDD's or dvd players, as most skt AM2 boards only have 1 PATA controller (enough to run 2 of your 4 HDD's/dvd's). Since there are very few SATA dvd players, you would likely have to invest in new SATA HDD's (which I would recommend anyway, but its not in your budget now, so AM2 is out).

Quote:

But basically -- you're all agreeing that -- my choice to get this motherboard so I could upgrade my video card in the future is a bad one, because I could isntead get an AM2 board *now*, get an AM2 3800+ *now* as well as upgrade to PCI-E video card *now!*?

And therefore I wouldn't, in a year, be upgrading a video card... then in another year... getting ANOTHER mobo and cpu because socket 939 is dying...

Heres a question though -- considering i've been using a 2400XP+ since they were pretty darn new (what, 3 years perhaps?!) (my dad got a 2600+ at the time and it was substantially more expensive) -- If I did upgrade like I originally planned, but went with the single core 4000+, Couldn't I, in the future, get a new video card (pci-e)... and... in a year... wont the Athlon 64x2 4800s or whatever behemoths they have in socket 939 be pretty darn cheap or something? Like I could have a potentially huge power gain without the cost? Thats what I'm thinking could happen... and then once I *need* to upgrade again, I would just get an ASUS AM2 board, a new processor and maybe a new vid card?..


I wouldn't count on any skt 939 processors being left on the market next year. By then, K8L will be on the scene, and the K8 AM2 cpu's will be the low end stuff; skt 939 cpu's will disappear. Your best bet (if you want to get the most out of skt 939 for the lowest price) is to buy a midrange single core (like the 3500 - available for about $110) now and upgrade to a higher end dual core right before skt 939 phases out completely (I'd guess sometime around December '06 to Feb '07).
Quote:

I am jobless like i've mentioned, and if I got a job I'd be putting all my cash into a comp... really im wondering:

Is it worth it.

I can see that AM2 has a lot of upgradability.. but wouldn't the AM2 3800 be weaker than the 4000? I know ANYTHING would be a boost from a 2400 on a 233FSB mobo.

Thanks


Try for the most bang for your buck. That 4000 won't perform much better than a single core 3800, and the dual core cpu's are priced too high right now. Try a 3500 ($110), with a good non-sli skt 939 board (for example an ASUS A8N-E - $90), an EVGA GeForce 7600GT ($140 after rebate), and 1 gig (2x512meg) Corsair ValueSelect DDR-400 CAS 2.5 ram kit ($85). Rings in at $445 plus shipping (unless you can get it all from a supplier like ZipZoomFly that ships free). Considering that you would have paid $300 just for the CPU, and another $70 for the MB, and the same for ram, you would end up *saving* money by going this route. You can save an additional $15-20 by going from the 3500 to the 3000 (not recommended), or by getting a mid range non-sli board (like my GA-K8NF-9), which should work just as well (as long as you aren't an overclocker).

If you still have cash to spare, then get another gig of ram (either upgrade to a 2x1gig kit, or get 2 2x512 kits - 2 1 gig sticks are better performance wise, and will allow you to upgrade to 4 gig in the future), or upgrade to the 3800+ single core ($140).
June 22, 2006 2:56:47 AM

Quote:
I will be making the order in a few mintues, for the 64x2 3800+ socket 939. I have to figure, currently the CPU and mobo on my current system is the bottleneck.. with this upgrade I will also purchase a gig of ram to replace my ancient RAM -- any game will look good on the dual core, even if its slightly less than the single core can do, but considering up and coming games will be using dual core tech and that oblivion utilizes it, I think the choice is clear.


Right now is a bad time to buy dual core. AMD is slashing prices on the dual cores in a month. That X2 3800 should be about $150-170 on July 24th. If you have your heart set on dual core, but have to upgrade now, get a (cheap) low end cpu to tide you over for a month, then get a dual core when the prices drop. You can hawk the low end cpu on ebay to recoup the costs.
June 22, 2006 3:10:45 AM

((ppsssst my dads paying for it all .. so I don't really care :p ))

Orders placed already so :p  I'm happy with it... he even bought me the new RAM so I can spend more on books and stuff.
June 22, 2006 3:21:45 AM

Well, then in that case, splurge! >;o)
June 22, 2006 3:57:14 AM

lol nice
!