CPU, which is better?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Silent-Blade

Solid State Member
Messages
9
Ok reffering back to my system on the post I made last night, http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=93554s=&threadid=93554which processor would you say is better for general and gaming?

AMD Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego Core 64 bit 1MB L2 Cache (2.4Ghz)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200 512k Cache per core (2.2GHz)

Both will cost me about the same, will be mostly using the computer for gaming, although burning DVD's/Photoes will be done once in a while.
 
Get the amd dual core hands down. u can get ur gameing needs and also ur burning needs with both and u can over clock it to be 2.4 easy i suggest dual core over a single core most of the time but but maybe i am wrong.. but i would suggest hte dual core since they kick ***:)
 
schulz269 said:
Get the amd dual core hands down. u can get ur gameing needs and also ur burning needs with both and u can over clock it to be 2.4 easy i suggest dual core over a single core most of the time but but maybe i am wrong.. but i would suggest hte dual core since they kick ***:)

Thanks, if I was to go down the duel core route, would the core only having 512kb cache per a core, effect it greatly than having the same clock speed but 1mb a core?

Ie is it worth speeding alot of extra £££ to get the same core speed but with a larger cache?
 
with the regualer single core amd 64s they realy can't handle more then 1 intense program runnign at one time which is a down fall to amd but now that dual core is out u can run programs and game at the same itme which in hte long run would make it more user freindly and be an awsome gameing machine about hte cache i am unsure. read on some reviews about that cache question unless someone else on here posts the answer to it:)
 
schulz269 said:
with the regualer single core amd 64s they realy can't handle more then 1 intense program runnign at one time which is a down fall to amd but now that dual core is out u can run programs and game at the same itme which in hte long run would make it more user freindly and be an awsome gameing machine about hte cache i am unsure. read on some reviews about that cache question unless someone else on here posts the answer to it:)

Looking into it now bud, although from the benchmarks there only seems to be around 2-4% if that in the scores :)

Looks like I'll begetting a 4200 X2 :cool:

Another question to throw into the open then...

If current games dont use the 2nd core, does that core do all the windows backround tasks, while the 1st core plays the game?

Also is the 4200 X2 good for OC? and will the 512kb cache effect yeild results?
 
You should get either the 3800 or 4400 X2. The only difference between the 3800 and 4200 is 200mhz. The differences between 4200 and 4400 is 200mhz and a 1mb L2 cache. So, go for the 4400 or just get a 3800 and save money imo.
 
If current games dont use the 2nd core, does that core do all the windows backround tasks, while the 1st core plays the game?

its not like that, but it will run faster with more apps. since the processor speed still won't bottleneck, definitely get the x2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom