AMD 4000 vs X2 3800

[JacobyElad]

the prices are the same..
i'm going to stay with the computer i'm willing to buy for 2-3 years or even more than that..

what would be a good choise?//
I'm really not going to multy task.. a good gamer doesn't multy task...

and if I don't multy task, just in the ff, office, icq, msn, and somtimes encode.. (of course in the night..) what will be good for me?

 

[Hacp]

3000+ Venice or 3800+ X2.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

if ur a gamer go for a single core but the 3000+ imo is a lil too slow unless u are lucky and can oc it to 2.4+ or more. Regarding price/performance Id say get a 3700+ San Diego and a good hsf/cooler and do some OC.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Overall, X2 3800+ is the much better chip, especially since you said that you are going to keep the chip for 2-3 years. The 4000+ will be very slightly faster in single-threaded apps such as games, but the X2 destroys the 4000+ when it comes to multithreaded apps.

 

[suszterpatt]

If you want to keep it for 2-3 years, then I'd suggest the X2. There are already some multithreaded programs out there, games will probably support MT in a year or two.

 

[JacobyElad]

i'm not going to O.C.. just don't want to......
will the X2 3800 work like 3000+ venice?.. if it does, i'm not really sure I want it... but I don't want to multi tasks... that's my point

 

[suszterpatt]

Originally posted by: JacobyElad
i'm not going to O.C.. just don't want to......
will the X2 3800 work like 3000+ venice?.. if it does, i'm not really sure I want it... but I don't want to multi tasks... that's my point

You don't need to be multitasking to take advatage of dual core if you're running a multithreaded application. I believe the F.E.A.R. demo already supports it, I see no reason why most games 6 months from now wouldn't.

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

Yeah, definitely get the 3800+. You should try to overclock. It's not very hard, and you get a lot of free performance.

 

[JacobyElad]

ty bros..
any way, suszterpatt, what were you talking about F.E.A.R?/... what does it support?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: JacobyElad
i'm not going to O.C.. just don't want to......
will the X2 3800 work like 3000+ venice?.. if it does, i'm not really sure I want it... but I don't want to multi tasks... that's my point

The 3800+ will be better then the 3000+ venice just on commonsense it is 2ghz versus 1.8ghz.....

If you are going to keep it for 2-3 years and games may become more and more SMT then it only makes sense to go X2...It will be the hidden performance gain for you...

As for this rather lame statement....

I'm really not going to multy task.. a good gamer doesn't multy task...

That made sense when you only had one core cause it would take away from the gaming, but when you still can only run 1 core then why not multitask some of those other things you mentioned since they will have no drain on the system or game play...

 

[StrangerGuy]

Originally posted by: JacobyElad
ty bros..
any way, suszterpatt, what were you talking about F.E.A.R?/... what does it support?

F.E.A.R is a game and according to our guys here, it is multithreaded. Which means, dual core CPUs runs this game faster than single core CPUs as they can process 2 threads simultaneously. Single-core CPUs can only process 1 thread at any time regardless of whether the app is multithreaded or not.

 

[JacobyElad]

ty..
Duvie, it's not that I don't multy task right not with my 2.4GhZ intel..
it's just that I don't have nothing to run.......

any way.. i've heard it's making problems with battlefield 2..?/...

 

[Unkno]

Get the X2, it can be compared to a 3500+ since the second core would run your background programs while you game. You don't really have to multi-task to make use of the X2, many people that have dual cores say it's a better overall experience, things are a lot smoother. You can (for example) run a virus scan or encode WHILE you game with no performance drop (maybe a few fps drops).

 

[JacobyElad]

ty.. I think i'll go for the X2..
but what about BF?

 

[Hacp]

If your not overclocking, the 3500+ or the x2 3800+ are both good options. Depends if you want to spend the extra 130 bucks or not. The 3500+ will run faster on single threaded applications, but I doubt you'll notice that much of a difference.

 

[Shenkoa]

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
if ur a gamer go for a single core but the 3000+ imo is a lil too slow unless u are lucky and can oc it to 2.4+ or more. Regarding price/performance Id say get a 3700+ San Diego and a good hsf/cooler and do some OC.

Is rare to see people who cant get the Venice 3000+ above 2.4.

 

[corpseofworms]

Originally posted by: Shenkoa

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
if ur a gamer go for a single core but the 3000+ imo is a lil too slow unless u are lucky and can oc it to 2.4+ or more. Regarding price/performance Id say get a 3700+ San Diego and a good hsf/cooler and do some OC.

Is rare to see people who cant get the Venice 3000+ above 2.4.

Just don't get a crappy motherboard and expect good results. I need 1.6 volts to hit 2.4 on my 3000, and it's only Prime 95 stable for about an hour or so.

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: JacobyElad
ty.. I think i'll go for the X2..
but what about BF?

I've got zero probs playing the game.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: JacobyElad
ty..
any way.. i've heard it's making problems with battlefield 2..?/...

BF2 runs quite nicely on my X2 with no problems at all, I haven't had problems with any games yet, including BF2, farcry, HL2, splinter cell, etc..