Alright, I have a question.

Will a x2 3600 (2.0 ghz) work better with ddr2-800 memory than an x2 4000 (2.1 ghz) with ddr2-800 since the 2.0 ghz x2 3600 is divisible by 4 so it works better with the memory? or am I wrong?

thanks

no!

Umm, their both divisible by 4, which is irrelevant anyway.. :S

Actually, it has to be divisible by 400, so in memory-intensive tasks the 3600 would be slightly faster, but the overall the higher clock speed of the 4000 would offset the slightly slower memory.

The 3600 is 1.9GHz, not 2.0. Seeing as both chips would be using a .5 multiplier, neither would have the "ram advantage".

The x2 3600 windsor is 2.0 ghz, the brisbane is 1.9 ghz, I was talking about the Windsor.

When did that come out? I thought the lowest Windsor was the 3800+ x2. Oh well, I stand corrected.

I'm not sure of what the memory frequency would be for both chips. I know the half multipliers won't run the ram at the highest speed, it drops down a bit. Seeing as there is only 100MHz between the two, the 4000+ might be slower at tasks that require lots of memory access. (depending on how much slower then DDR2-800 it runs. I know I saw a chart somewhere, but I can't find it.) The 4000+ does have a bit more L2 cache, I'm not sure how much of an impact that has.

I'm not sure why you ask the question. I'm guessing you are thinking that if it "works better" with DDR2-800 ram, it would be the faster chip. This is why AMD uses the naming scheme that they do. 4000+ is higher then 3600+, so the 4000+ is faster.