AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or AMD Athlon 64 4000+

Status
Not open for further replies.

magicalfruit187

Solid State Member
Messages
8
hi everyone. im looking into making myself a new gaming pc. i was wondering which of these would be better for gaming. i hear the x2 isnt that great right now. im looking for a cpu that can hold me off for a couple of years and giv me sum good fps in games.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103497

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16819103546

can u guys help me? and i was also wondering. i dont know much about amd's but would these work better than a p4 3.8 ghz? thanks everyone

also if you guys do say the x2. do you know if this mobo will support it http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813188002
 
i would spend the extra on teh 4400 tbh, because games are soon going to become mulithreaded, so a dual core will beat out most single core computers. Im not sure about that board, TBH i didnt know eVGA made motherboards. I would stick with DFI or MSI. All socket 939 boards support dual core, but most will need a bios flash to do so.
 
If you do go dual core, besure to get one with the Toledo core. I cant remember what the other X2 core is named, but the Toledo has 1MB L2 cache compared to the other ones 512k cache.

For pure gaming the 4000 would win easy, untill they start making games that use dual core proc's. Dual core comes into play mosly when multi tasking or using intense programs that have dual core support.
 
the Toledo has 1MB (1024kb) L2 cache each core. it is a dual San Diego.
the Manchester has 512kb L2 cache each core. it is a dual Venice

keep in mind, all the cores are the same (Revision E), but the X2's just have 2, and the San Diego's/Toledo's only differ by the amount of L2 cache they have over the Venices/Manchesters.
 
there has been another thread about this...please search the forums before posting
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom