Which processor is better?

[forrestcupp]

Is an Athlon 64 X2 3800 that clocks at 2.0 GHz better than an Athlon 64 3500+ that clocks at 2.21 GHz?

You don't have to tell me they're both low-end and your proc is way better. I just want to know if the dual core is really a proc even though it clocks lower.

 

[KSoD]

Yes Dual Core is better. I dont know much about the AMD line up but all Dual Core are better cause even though many apps are not SMP the 2 cores will still act as 1 and therefor it will make some tasks such as movie conversions go faster.

Give you a example. I have a P4 3.4GHz. Use Nero Vision to encode a .avi to a DVD. This tkaes roughly a hour and a half.

Now just got my new setup with a Core 2 Quad at 2.2GHz. Same thing. Take a .avi and convert it. Takes roughly 25 minutes.

See how things can gewt cut down even though the applicaitons isnt SMP. Win RAR with a Dual Core will be great for you. The 2 cores will split the duties and works nicely for you.

 

[Yek]

Dual core

 

[forrestcupp]

I just found a very informative site with lots of benchmarks. AMD's Athlon 64 X2 3800+ processor - The Tech Report - Page 1

It looks like for single threaded processes the 3500+ almost always outperforms the X2 3800 by a noticeable amount. But for dual threaded processes, the X2 3800 beats the pants off of the 3500+.

So I guess the question is do I do enough things that are smp for it to be worth it? I doubt it.

 

[Yek]

Hit the nail on the head. Do you want it so you can say " i have a xx" or do you want it becuase you actully NEED it ?

 

[EricB]

I just found a very informative site with lots of benchmarks. AMD's Athlon 64 X2 3800+ processor - The Tech Report - Page 1

It looks like for single threaded processes the 3500+ almost always outperforms the X2 3800 by a noticeable amount. But for dual threaded processes, the X2 3800 beats the pants off of the 3500+.

So I guess the question is do I do enough things that are smp for it to be worth it? I doubt it.

Yes Dual Core is better. I dont know much about the AMD line up but all Dual Core are better cause even though many apps are not SMP the 2 cores will still act as 1 and therefor it will make some tasks such as movie conversions go faster.

Give you a example. I have a P4 3.4GHz. Use Nero Vision to encode a .avi to a DVD. This tkaes roughly a hour and a half.

Now just got my new setup with a Core 2 Quad at 2.2GHz. Same thing. Take a .avi and convert it. Takes roughly 25 minutes.

See how things can gewt cut down even though the applicaitons isnt SMP. Win RAR with a Dual Core will be great for you. The 2 cores will split the duties and works nicely for you.

both fo you are right. don't expect a dual core that's around the same number to outperform it's single core cousin for a single chore unless the app was design to use both cores at once. it will multi task better. to see the difference you would need to step up to an amd 4400 0r 4600 processor.

 

[forrestcupp]

But I did find out that the X2 3800 is pretty sweet to overclock. So if I can overclock it to get at least as good of single thread performance as my 3500+, it might be worth it. My 3500+ is 2.2GHz, and I have heard of people taking the X2 3800 from 2.0 GHz to 2.5 GHz without any issues. One guy even got it to run 2.7 GHz.