1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Athlon 64 4000 vs. Athlon 64 X2 4200

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by One Man Band, 21 Jan 2006.

  1. One Man Band


    Joined: 29 Dec 2005

    Posts: 6


    I'm wondering if getting the Dual Core Athlon 4200 is worth getting, whilst it's on offer, or the (none dual core) Athlon 64 4000, for a video editing PC?

    I was told that the 1mb cache, that the single core Athlon has, is better for video editing. The dual core has only 512 kb cache.

    I've also got the same question for another PC i'm building for a friend, but his PC is for video games.

    Is there much difference in speed, or is the advantage of Dual Core only the ability to run more programs at once? I don't imagine either PC will run many programs at once.
  2. King_Boru

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 9 Jan 2005

    Posts: 2,356

    Location: Canada

    Stick a dual core in the Video editing machine and a single core in the gaming machine.
  3. InSanCen


    Joined: 3 Jan 2005

    Posts: 861

    Location: In my own little world

    The 4200 is plenty quick if you application is multithreaded. Most decent Video-Editing apps will be. The difference in Photoshop for me is night n day. as said above, put the X2 in the Video editingbox, and the single core in the gaming.
  4. Mattus


    Joined: 30 Sep 2003

    Posts: 10,903

    Location: London

    The dual core 4200 will flatten the single core 4000 in video editing.
  5. ajgoodfellow


    Joined: 24 Dec 2004

    Posts: 11,329

    Location: Shirley, Solihull, UK

    1MB cache will help with Video Editing, but as mentioned above, the fact that Video Editing apps are multi-threaded will give the dual core a huge boost

    If you can stretch to it consider the X2 4400+ as this has 1MB of L2 cache per core