Ok now I should I upgrade my cpu?

[El Che]

Since I have made up my mind on a video card going with the 7900 GT by EVGA
I would like to know if I should upgrade my cpu as well? I was looking at a
A64 4000 or should I go with a A64 3800 , x2 3800?

[scottg26]

Current games don't make a lot of use of Dual Cores....unless you install the Call of Duty Dual core patch.

Whats the clockspeed on the 3800+ and what are their respective prices?

[sj_hurst]

It's not like dual cores are completely redundant. What if you wanna download files or somethin' while you're playing a game? dual core works well for this, correct?

[Thetargos]

Or if you leave a disk ripping in the background and have some time to kill :evil:

Anyway as for your original question, I believe the 3800+ X2 is clocked at 2.2 GHz.

[mellotron]

Or if you leave a disk ripping in the background and have some time to kill :evil:

Anyway as for your original question, I believe the 3800+ X2 is clocked at 2.2 GHz.

2.0GHz actually, so it would run a bit better than a 3200+

[Ailuros]

Since I have made up my mind on a video card going with the 7900 GT by EVGA
I would like to know if I should upgrade my cpu as well? I was looking at a
A64 4000 or should I go with a A64 3800 , x2 3800?

Price/performance ratio is currently overall a lot higher on the A64 4000+

[El Che]

Thanks Ailuros and everyone so would I see a big boost in games going from a
A64 3000 to A64 4000

[Lollan]

Wait for your video card to come in first, lol. If it runs games to your preferences, then don't worry about it, but I would assume jumping from a 3000+ to a 4000+ would help quite a bit.

[ArchAngelCD]

The Athlon 64 4000+ Clawhammer is $350 @2.4GHz - 130nm
The Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego is $334 @2.4GHz - 90nm
The Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Manchester is $355.40 @2.2GHz - 90nm

Why would you buy a Single-Core when the faster Dual-Core is a few dollars more? (prices from Zipzoom) You also get both SSE3 and 3DNOW Professional with the A64 X2. The Clawhammer core has only SSE2 but the San Diego core has SSE3.

If you decide to get the Single-Core A64 make sure you get the San Diego core and not the Clawhammer core.

[Ailuros]

Why would you buy a Single-Core when the faster Dual-Core is a few dollars more? (prices from Zipzoom) You also get both SSE3 and 3DNOW Professional with the A64 X2. The Clawhammer core has only SSE2 but the San Diego core has SSE3.

If you decide to get the Single-Core A64 make sure you get the San Diego core and not the Clawhammer core.

Because there are still not noticable differences in games for dual-core CPUs.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=716601&postcount=2

[Thetargos]

Because there are still not noticable differences in games for dual-core CPUs.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=716601&postcount=2
I guess the resl benefit of Dual Core is that you can leave your AV program running in the background and still be able to pull some decent framerates out of your games :evil:

[Lollan]

I guess the resl benefit of Dual Core is that you can leave your AV program running in the background and still be able to pull some decent framerates out of your games :evil:
./gets to work.


Anyone want to donate a dual core CPU? :D

[sj_hurst]

Most PC enthusiasts don't buy hardware just to meet their needs for what software's out there today. But they plan ahead and build a system that will run as good as possible (based on what they can afford) for the next 6 months or beyond.

Besides that, if you sell the PC a year from now, how much will somebody pay for a lame-arse single core when every respectable PC owner is runnin' at least dual cores? ;)

[labat]

after a couple months of personal usage with the amd x2 4400 i cant recomend anything then to go fo a dual core cpu.

sure it coast a couple of bucks more, so what? if the only thing you do is play games fine, but for usage a little bit wider then that the dual core is a fantastic cpu.:bigthumb:

seriously, why even bother with single core? :confused:

[WedgieMan]

If the dual core is $20 more and only drops the clock to 2.0 from 2.2, it's a no-brainer for me. Getting a game to tax both CPU's isn't the point. If you run more than one app at one time, dual core helps. The framerate loss (if any) from dropping 200MHz should not be noticable.

[El Che]

Are there any bench marks in gaming for the
The Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego is $334 @2.4GHz - 90nm
The Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Manchester is $355.40 @2.2GHz - 90nm?

[El Che]

Update I did a google on it and found this website dont know how much of its true but if its true about the drivers for duel core from microsoft and nv maybe going with the x2 4200 is starting to look good
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/52433/?o=0

[sj_hurst]

Dual core is hands down the way to go, imo. Even if games don't currently use it, you'll likely still see a benefit if you're running any background apps while you game. And surely, at least some games in the near future will take advantage of dual cores.

Intuition would suggest that benchmarks would give a slight edge to the 4000+ in games.. since it's clocked 200MHz faster and most current games don't use dual cores..

However, most benchmarks won't reflect real-world performance differences you'd experience on your PC, since benchmarks/professional reviews won't have other apps running in the background. That's why Lollan is askin' for a free dual core cpu. He wanted to test this. He tests anti-virus programs and games too, i guess.

[El Che]

Hmm so x2 4200 over a A64 4000 for a few xtra bucks

[Ailuros]

Most PC enthusiasts don't buy hardware just to meet their needs for what software's out there today. But they plan ahead and build a system that will run as good as possible (based on what they can afford) for the next 6 months or beyond.

Besides that, if you sell the PC a year from now, how much will somebody pay for a lame-arse single core when every respectable PC owner is runnin' at least dual cores? ;)

By that time you'll get times more efficient dual core CPUs at way lower prices. It'll be just as much worth as a single core CPU if you want to resell it.

Dual core is beyond doubt the future, but there's not going to change much in 6 months either.

[Ailuros]

If the dual core is $20 more and only drops the clock to 2.0 from 2.2, it's a no-brainer for me. Getting a game to tax both CPU's isn't the point. If you run more than one app at one time, dual core helps. The framerate loss (if any) from dropping 200MHz should not be noticable.

The 4000+ is clocked at 2.4GHz.

[sj_hurst]

what difference will 200MHz make? that's what, a 3-4% difference?

IMO, it's very possible that a 2nd core could make a pretty big difference if he has any background apps running while gaming. honestly, and no offense intended.. but Thetargos seems to be much more objective about this benefit. I'm confident that his PC knowledge level is pretty extensive too. You never adaquately responded to his ideas on the subject, so i'm tending to lean towards his POV.

But depending on perspective, i suppose either of you could be right. Because the true performance differences on any particular PC depend on some unknown factors. For instance, none of us know how El Che has his PC setup. But with most people, there's at least one or two apps running in the background. Of course, only El Che can answer that question regarding his own PC.

It's really up to him and whether or not he's gonna disable apps (if any) each & every time before he games. If so, is it worth the hassle (of disabling apps every time) to gain a few extra frames?

[Ailuros]

what difference will 200MHz make? that's what, a 3-4% difference?

I responded with a quote which I urge you to re-read. It's not a 2.0 to 2.2GHz ballpark in what Wedgie said, but 2.0 to 2.4GHz and those 400MHz are noticable.

IMO, it's very possible that a 2nd core could make a pretty big difference if he has any background apps running while gaming. honestly, and no offense intended.. but Thetargos seems to be much more objective about this benefit. I'm confident that his PC knowledge level is pretty extensive too. You never adaquately responded to his ideas on the subject, so i'm tending to lean towards his POV.

If you want to run a 3D game in parallel with other irrelevant shiznit in a OS you either need to drop off from winblows or wait for future Vista. I don't care who convinces you more or not in the end. In windows XP and with the exeption of specialized multimedia related software mostly that contain dual threading optimized code, for all other cases you'd need a X2 4800+ to match a single core A64 4000+.

But depending on perspective, i suppose either of you could be right. Because the true performance differences on any particular PC depend on some unknown factors. For instance, none of us know how El Che has his PC setup. But with most people, there's at least one or two apps running in the background. Of course, only El Che can answer that question regarding his own PC.

Look above and note specialized software applications. There are tons of reviews on X2 processors out there, a simple click and it's easy to see which applications those are. If a user should use any of them extensively then by all means a dual core is a one way street in that case.


It's really up to him and whether or not he's gonna disable apps (if any) each & every time before he games. If so, is it worth the hassle (of disabling apps every time) to gain a few extra frames?

Maybe you should ask yourself if I have real time experience with either/or or not and if I'm trying to save some of you folks a couple of bucks while making a decision. The goal is the best bang for the buck today and not some idiotic marketing cheese some get sucked into.

Just for the record be my guest to enable a gazillion of applications in the background to game, just remember that you'll tax your host memory amount first than the CPU (irrelevant what that is). How about having 30 browser windows open, recording a DVD, watching a movie, checking the system for viruses and playing Fear at the same time? Good luck with a dual core and let me know where and why the primary bottleneck would be in such a case.

[Thetargos]

The cases for multitasking shouldn't have to be so extreme, Ail. In the end it all will be down to personal preferences... I mean with the ever increasing hardware taxing applications, and the precedent we have with ATi's CCC, here a second core DOES come in handy, especially if what I've heard about the performance hog it is, and that no other application has come near in terms of profile management and stuff like that.

And, well... What can you do about XP's lousy multitasking and dirty memory management? (yes, lightyears better than 9x, but in no way flawless). Still for a lot of people dual core CPUs are better than single core ones... If all you do all day is game, then by all means, keep your single core CPU touted as the most suitable for the job at hand, but sadly that is not the case for the majority of people, and with the ever increasing Internet threats, in Windows at least, coupled with increasing Internet gaming, having an AV program in place, alongside with a nice Firewall is a must, and a scond core surely can come in handy under such conditions... Here the argument "I don't game on-line" is useless, as pretty much all other gamers do, and to be able to safely game in the Internet, despite them having a router with a nice firewall, a local firewall increases protection, but wait! what about those nasty little things called virii and worms and trojans... There's even the chance you can get one through the game's data while downloading a level or what not... Under such conditions, I'm sure a second core which would take care of such things as port scanning, routing and AV scanning will greatly be beneficial.

[scottg26]

Best thing to do with a a dual core is to run Prime 95 torture test...and 3dmark06 at the same time, and only lose 100 3dmarks :lol:

Dual Cores don't work properly in WoW....yet...the display is jittery.

My firend and I have dual/single cores, and we had call of duty running side by side

He had the dual core patch on, I didn't.

vsync was on, (same graphics, ram, audigy 2, etc), and I (single core 4000+ san diego) was getting 49/50fps, and he was getting 60fps (dual core 4200+), at this one point on that Leningrad map.

[Thetargos]

I haven't seen how do Dual Core CPUs compare to their respective single core CPUs in SMP... I *think* I read somewhere that a true 2-Way Opteron 240 system beats the crap out of a Dual Core Opteron 242 system. I'm trying to find where the heck did I read that... It may have just be a rumor or an "I did this test..." kind of posting... I'd drool to conduct the test myself, though :evil:

[sj_hurst]

Ail, Wedge had it 200MHz lower on both cpu's.. if he was following which cpu's we were last discussing. And I'm afraid you're still stuck on comparing it the 3800+, which i wasn't.

Are there any bench marks in gaming for the
The Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego is $334 @2.4GHz - 90nm
The Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Manchester is $355.40 @2.2GHz - 90nm?

correct. 200MHz is the difference.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103547

[ArchAngelCD]

Even though the A64 4000+ is 200MHz faster than the A64 X2 4200+ the latter is Dual-Core and reported to be up to 30% faster when multitasking and up to 80% faster when working with digital media than the Single-Core A64.

It's only $20 more so saying wait because you can get the Dual-Core for a lot cheaper later on is invalid.

Hey, I use Intel CPU's so I'm not pushing this out of fanboyism, I'm just trying to help. I know I saw a huge benifit from Intel's HT. My next CPU will be a Dual-Core P4 w/HT basicly giving me 4 cores.
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor Product Brief

Take multi-tasking to a whole new level with the AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor.

The AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor puts the power of dual-core technology on the desktop. Dual-core processors contain two processing cores, residing on one chip, that perform calculations on two streams of data, thereby increasing efficiency and speed while running multiple programs and the new generation of multi-threaded software.

For the end-user this means a significant increase in response and performance when running multiple applications simultaneously. The AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core processor outperforms the highest-performing AMD Athlon™ 64 4000+ single-core processor on multi-tasking benchmarks by up to 30%.

Better Multi-Tasking Means Increased Office Productivity
Productivity in today’s workplace requires smooth, efficient and seamless multi-tasking. The AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor delivers TRUE multi-tasking, allowing users to switch from one program to another without pausing for the computer to catch up and reducing annoying processing pauses. The end result is an increase in office productivity performance of 22% on average.

Setting the Pace in Digital Media
Digital media software demands simultaneous processing of data streams, the perfect use for the incredible multi-tasking power of the AMD64 dual-core technology. Dual-core technology is like having two processors working together, each one taking care of different applications, so power-users actually experience greater performance when multiple applications are running. Digital media enthusiasts can usher in the next generation of digital media software for amazing high-definition video and photo editing, content creation, and audio mixing. With the AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core processor, your PC will perform up to 80% faster than a single-core AMD Athlon™ 64 4000+ processor on the latest power-hungry digital media software applications.

Smooth and Efficient Upgrades
Additionally, the elegant design of the AMD64 architecture allowed for the planning of dual-core processors from the ground up, which means that the AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core processor is designed to fit in the same 939-pin infrastructure as single-core processors. All that is required is a BIOS update, saving our partners the costs of redesigns and obsolete inventory.

[Ailuros]

The cases for multitasking shouldn't have to be so extreme, Ail. In the end it all will be down to personal preferences... I mean with the ever increasing hardware taxing applications, and the precedent we have with ATi's CCC, here a second core DOES come in handy, especially if what I've heard about the performance hog it is, and that no other application has come near in terms of profile management and stuff like that.

And, well... What can you do about XP's lousy multitasking and dirty memory management? (yes, lightyears better than 9x, but in no way flawless). Still for a lot of people dual core CPUs are better than single core ones... If all you do all day is game, then by all means, keep your single core CPU touted as the most suitable for the job at hand, but sadly that is not the case for the majority of people, and with the ever increasing Internet threats, in Windows at least, coupled with increasing Internet gaming, having an AV program in place, alongside with a nice Firewall is a must, and a scond core surely can come in handy under such conditions... Here the argument "I don't game on-line" is useless, as pretty much all other gamers do, and to be able to safely game in the Internet, despite them having a router with a nice firewall, a local firewall increases protection, but wait! what about those nasty little things called virii and worms and trojans... There's even the chance you can get one through the game's data while downloading a level or what not... Under such conditions, I'm sure a second core which would take care of such things as port scanning, routing and AV scanning will greatly be beneficial.


So we're breaking it down to OSs and software that suck :D

Since we're at it, what is the primary bottleneck when scanning for malicious software? The CPU or the hard drive?

I am being so stubborn about it because the corner cases where dual cores make a difference is in the minority at the moment; plus in those corner cases the average difference is lower than usually claimed. It's no coincidence you get "up to" persentages and since I read in that PR snippet above about office productivity, Graphics IHVs have already recently introduced powerpoint specific extensions that can make a way bigger difference. A specialized 3D core can do times better with shiznit like that than a general purpose only CPU. And that's one of the reasons why Vista will take major shifts within, without it meaning that a dual core CPU won't be essential for it at the same time.

CPU vendors are running out of higher frequencies and performance scaling on single core CPUs and thus the next best sollution are multiple cores. When applications that are multithreading optimized become mainstream a X2 3800+ will hand a A64 3800+ it's ass in by far. For the time being it's a shitload of marketing to sell more and new CPUs.


I know I saw a huge benifit from Intel's HT. My next CPU will be a Dual-Core P4 w/HT basicly giving me 4 cores.

For one all A64 are multithreading optimized and for second you won't get 4 cores. Multi-threading on any processor increases efficiency when multitasking but it'll never reach the efficiency of two real cores. It should read 2 cores with 4 threads and nothing else.

[Ailuros]

Ail, Wedge had it 200MHz lower on both cpu's.. if he was following which cpu's we were last discussing. And I'm afraid you're still stuck on comparing it the 3800+, which i wasn't.



correct. 200MHz is the difference.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103547

Nice. Could it be that you've missed that that 4200 has only 512kb cache per core (and thus 1MB in total)? In order to get 1MB per core you'd need a X2 4400+ at the same core frequency but at a tad of a higher price.

I see at pricewatch lowest X2 4200+ being at $355, while X2 4400+ at $458.

And before you say anything about cache sizes on CPUs, I'd urge you to read around a bit about it.

As a little secret on the side the single core 4000+ is basically the same thing for mainstream use as a FX-53. First has a current entry price of $335, while the FX-55 (2.6GHz instead of 2.4 of the 53) is at $815. If one could still find a FX-53 it would be somewhere over 600 bucks, while the X2 4800+ is at $626. Now riddle me AMD's pricing policy and what's the logic behind it.

[Thetargos]

Indeed, IO is always an issue, but there are tricks present at the OS level (like read ahead) that can slowly cache data to the disks cache or a minor portion of main memory for virus scanning, plus, being the other core taking all responsibility on the HDD's IO, in theory game perofrmance should not suffer, as one CPU is running that code (it only needs its memroy space well preserved) and the other is handling all the extra IO by the scanning... Still your load times will be grater, as the AV scan may take precedence. Here task balancing through priorities will surely be much more beneficial, as the prefered application (game) takes over HDD IO, and then when it's done with it, returns IO control to the not-so-prefered application (AV) and the second core... Successfully doing that will require fine-tuning at kernel level of any OS.

And I agree 100% with you there, about HT... SMT (or HT as Intel likes to call the technology) speeds things up when two or more threads will benefit from parallell execution rather than waiting in queue. Problem is that dpending on the application and how well it has been coded, splitting threads in this way can render a serious performance hit as the two threads will be executed at half the speed of the CPU.

[Thetargos]

:grrf: got posted twice.

[Ailuros]

Indeed, IO is always an issue, but there are tricks present at the OS level (like read ahead) that can slowly cache data to the disks cache or a minor portion of main memory for virus scanning, plus, being the other core taking all responsibility on the HDD's IO, in theory game perofrmance should not suffer, as one CPU is running that code (it only needs its memroy space well preserved) and the other is handling all the extra IO by the scanning... Still your load times will be grater, as the AV scan may take precedence. Here task balancing through priorities will surely be much more beneficial, as the prefered application (game) takes over HDD IO, and then when it's done with it, returns IO control to the not-so-prefered application (AV) and the second core... Successfully doing that will require fine-tuning at kernel level of any OS.

And I agree 100% with you there, about HT... SMT (or HT as Intel likes to call the technology) speeds things up when two or more threads will benefit from parallell execution rather than waiting in queue. Problem is that dpending on the application and how well it has been coded, splitting threads in this way can render a serious performance hit as the two threads will be executed at half the speed of the CPU.


Well when Lollan is done with is little venture I'll bet good money on it that he'll show how much Norton's crap actually sucks. Hence my comment about applications and OSs that suck.

[sj_hurst]

Nice. Could it be that you've missed that that 4200 has only 512kb cache per core (and thus 1MB in total)? In order to get 1MB per core you'd need a X2 4400+ at the same core frequency but at a tad of a higher price.

I see at pricewatch lowest X2 4200+ being at $355, while X2 4400+ at $458.

And before you say anything about cache sizes on CPUs, I'd urge you to read around a bit about it.

As a little secret on the side the single core 4000+ is basically the same thing for mainstream use as a FX-53. First has a current entry price of $335, while the FX-55 (2.6GHz instead of 2.4 of the 53) is at $815. If one could still find a FX-53 it would be somewhere over 600 bucks, while the X2 4800+ is at $626. Now riddle me AMD's pricing policy and what's the logic behind it.


In fact, the X2 4200+ frequently outperforms the Pentium Extreme Edition 840, which costs nearly twice as much. Thanks to its dual-core config, the X2 4200+ also embarrasses some expensive single-core processors, like the Athlon 64 FX-55 and the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=16

FX-55 > FX-53
isn't it?

In gaming benchmarks, the two cpu's performed pretty evenly.. except in Doom3, the 4000+ led by roughly 5 or 6%.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=5

Overall tho (given a broad range of applications), seems like the 4200+ comes out on top.. at least, according to the reviewer's conclusions.

IMO, the review seems to be fairly consistent with what the people from AMD said (in the AMD ad, posted by ArchAngelCD).

[Ailuros]

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=16

FX-55 > FX-53
isn't it?

Yes by 200MHz.

In gaming benchmarks, the two cpu's performed pretty evenly.. except in Doom3, the 4000+ led by roughly 5 or 6%.

So what?

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=7

But since the focus in this conversation has been on this point here:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=13

Let's see how a single core high end CPU reacts with an AV program that doesn't suck donkey balls like Norton 2k4:

Doom3 1600*1200 4xAA/16xAF

Zone Labs Security Suite (firewall + antivirus + anti-spyware) running in the background: 60.8 fps

ZA disabled: 60.8 fps

ZA scanning drive C:\ for viruses (contains GPU driver and API) in the background: 60.0 fps

ZA scanning drive F:\ for viruses (contains Doom3 installation) in the background: 60.8 fps

ZA scanning drive F:\ for viruses in the background, downloading a 552MB file: 60.3 fps (and yes that last scenario takes a tad longer to load, but mostly due to HDD being taxed - yes it downloads to F:\ - and higher host ram consumption).

No further comment.

Overall tho (given a broad range of applications), seems like the 4200+ comes out on top.. at least, according to the reviewer's conclusions.

Sure because you or anyone else uses extensively applications like 3dsmax for example? The reviewer did a fine job, trouble being that you want to read out of it what you want to read and nothing else.

IMO, the review seems to be fairly consistent with what the people from AMD said (in the AMD ad, posted by ArchAngelCD).

Go on with the research; the more sources the better that's all I have to say.

[scottg26]

My advice....buy a 4000+ and do this to it

(I got an error at 230 so i put it back a bit)