• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

64 3700+ San Diego or 64 X2 3800+ or 64 X2 4400+

Associate
Joined
31 May 2006
Posts
133
Location
Orpington, Kent
Is price difference between these cpus worth the difference.
For a pretty much pure gaming pc.

-AMD Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego 90nm (Socket 939) - Price: £101.95 (£119.79 Including VAT at 17.5%)

-AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+ (Socket 939) - Price: £161.95 (£190.29 Including VAT at 17.5%)

-AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4400+ (Socket 939) - Price: £264.95 (£311.32 Including VAT at 17.5%)

Is it better to sacrifice money on cpu or better to sacrifice on all other parts and go for the more expensive cpu.

Difference of nearly £200 between the single core and dual core 4400+. Won't be running multiple apps very often.
 
Last edited:
Suspended
Joined
17 Mar 2006
Posts
9,055
You could just buy a 3700, if you're planning to build a another machine a bit down the line...take out the 3700 fit into new machine, buy a dual core CPU for existing machine. Quake 4 offers dual core support, so does Oblivion AFAIK. ie wait until 5000+ DC 939/AM2 is released

I don't have two identical machines of single/dual core but I do have one in sig plus a 3700+ single Core. Either will do fine, but I guess if you can afford it go dual core. Windows does seem more nippy, it's not just multitasking that speed difference it's CPU loading also.

Single core 2ghz - 100% . 11 minutes for a DVD re-encode. System is unusable during this time.

Dual core 2ghz - 50% + 50% - Same time for process, but still usable.
or 100% + 100% = Much faster completing the process than the single core. 6 minutes for a DVD re-encode. System is unusable during this time.
 
Permabanned
Joined
31 Jul 2005
Posts
2,592
I'd get a 3700+ OEM and a AC Freezer 64 pro. Spend more on a better graphics card and RAM as this will give a better performance increase in games.
 
Associate
Joined
11 Feb 2006
Posts
2,185
A2Z said:
you answered your own question there

Yeah, I thought the same way when he wrote "wont be running multiple apps very often"

If you can stretch to dual core, then you'd be better off in the long run.
 

A2Z

A2Z

Soldato
Joined
9 May 2005
Posts
8,930
Location
Earth
s96024 said:
yes

during gaming you wont notice any difference with dual core over single, unless off course you want to be doing other stuff while you are gaming, which you clearly stated you wont :)
 
Associate
Joined
15 Nov 2005
Posts
2,307
Location
Newcastle
Yeh go for a 3700sd and clock it, almost all seem to be clocking well at the minute. With the cash left over use it to upgrade other componants like ram or graphics as thats where you'll see the best gains when gaming.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Dec 2004
Posts
6,568
Location
London/Kent
Actually a DC will last longer with optimised drivers and games patching multithreads - no I know it's not ideal but it does offer a performance increase. I cannot think what a single core is like now having had a DC for a year now. It doesn't bear thinking! :eek:
 
Back
Top Bottom