BF2S Forums AMD Athlon 64 3800+ 2.4GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0GHz?

if you buy a socket 754 with a larger L2 cache you actually out perform a 939 single core for less cash. also, i don't know if the dual core actually does anything at all for gaming performance, but hey, if its the same cost i say the second, just because dual core sounds cooler

Ender2309 wrote:

if you buy a socket 754 with a larger L2 cache you actually out perform a 939 single core for less cash. also, i don't know if the dual core actually does anything at all for gaming performance, but hey, if its the same cost i say the second, just because dual core sounds cooler

you also lose a lot of memory bandwidth due to the lack of dual channel on 754


i would recomend the dual core as you can have background tasks running without having a hit on gaming performance

WinstontheWolf wrote:

I'm going to buy a new processor and I don't know how these AMDs work. The Intel Pentium 4 3.0 Gh that I have now has just been a pain in ass so I thought I'd give AMD a try.

So, I think I've decided to go for one of these two:

1) AMD Athlon 64 3800+ 2.4GHz HT Socket 939
512KB Cache, Boxed, "Venice"

or

2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0GHz Socket 939
1MB Cache, HyperTransport, Boxed

The first one has more GHz, but the second one has the dual core-thing and also double the amount of Cache, whatever that means.. Anyone who knows what these differences mean, and what would be the best for BF2gaming (nothing else lol), seeing that the price is about the same?

Also, if you think there are better CPUs (for playing BF2) for the same price, please feel free to slaughter my intuition:)

Extraordinary grateyful for any advice on this, I have to buy it soon..!!

Straight answer first: Go for #2

Explaination: While the 3800+ is clocked at 2.4GHz, the X2 3800+ can be overclocked to the same speed.  I have done this on mine and it's been running rock solid stable for months.  The benefits I see in dual-core will outweigh the benefits of a higher clock speed in general, especially as future softwares become more thread-aware.

The 1MB you see on the X2 is a bit misleading.  The X2 3800+ features 512K of L2 cache per core, resulting in a total of 1MB.

People proclaim that there's little to no benefits to using dual-core processors in gaming such as BF2.  I, on the other hand, think otherwise.  The benefits of having multiple cores is that one application that is single-threaded can run on one core while the other handles other background programs and processes.  And if you're the kind who have things like firewall, anti-virus, anti-spyware, and the like, the benefits of having a second core to handle "the little things" will benefit greatly, as CPU resources will be plentiful and available should you need to switch between applications or need a more responsive system after a gaming session.

Then there's the notion of future games being multi-threaded... of which a dual-core system will be ready to handle when the time arrive.  It may become a gamble and a risk to go with a single-core.

Thanks for replies!

Lol, Ender, I agree it really sounds awesome, almost like "hardcore" lol.. Now, the reason I'm in doubt about the dual core is that the other one has 2.4GH and the dual one has 2.0, so its not like they're the same except for the dualcore..

Well, Sniper, that may be a good advice, but I've reached the top of the budget by far now lol..

Btw, nr 1 is actually a bit more expensive.. Just so you know it..

Last edited by WinstontheWolf (2006-05-01 18:26:00)

From the link slicknic wrote (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html) it seems that the x2 is more fit to office work, and that even an AMD3200+ will perform better when it comes to gaming. And when I think of it, one can just as well overclock a single core as a dual core, or what? Everyone says x2, but the 3800+ really seems like a better gaming machine..

Allow me to interject..

I recently got an Athlon 64 X2 4800+, this is one seriously kick arse processor. Games run ultra smooth, plus remember with a single processor like another poster mentioned you're sharing it with other processes which will eat into it.

Go with dual core, more games are starting to support it nowadays anyway.

EvilMonkeySlayer wrote:

Allow me to interject..

I recently got an Athlon 64 X2 4800+, this is one seriously kick arse processor. Games run ultra smooth, plus remember with a single processor like another poster mentioned you're sharing it with other processes which will eat into it.

Go with dual core, more games are starting to support it nowadays anyway.

i tottaly agree, dual core FTW and its the future. OC a dual core then it would run way faster than a single core

I'll put my single core system on the 1/4 mile line against any X2 system and I'd bet a dollar that I'll load into a new map faster. 

Here's why I think a single core opteron is better than all the dual cores out there.
#1 price to performance ratio favors a single core opteron (I run between an FX55 and FX57) 144 or 146
#2 unless your compiling a new autocad drawing in the background a single core (opty or a64) can laugh at any "background" processes you throw at it (antivirus, firewall, etc.).
#3 my motherboard still supports dual core processors, so if in 1 years time I'm dead wrong I can throw away my $160 opteron and buy a dual core (prices will drop over $160, i'll bet my shorts, and I would NEVER throw away my opty).  Even then I'll be looking at the opteron dual core series since they allow EXTREME overclocking with nothing more than a good HSF.

All that said, if I could find an x2 AMD processor that would allow me to Overclock up near 3Ghz for a reasonable price (under $300) I'd be ALL OVER IT.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 4tw.

I'd go with either a 3700+ San Diego Core or a 146 Opteron. Both are reported to be excellent overclockers. As for going X2 I'd hesitate, since no current games utilize both cores, and with the new AM2 socket processors coming out it's debatable if any future games will be optimized for X2's.

ii guess it all comes down to user preference. i have a single core amd fx 53 and it has no problem with running bf2 in high with all my other apps running. im not talking apps that eat alot of resources but stuff like anit-virus,anti-spyware,trojan blockers, firewall, and even a ts server i get no lag at all.so it all comes down to what are you gonna be doing? if you like to burn cds while still playing bf2 then yes get the dual. but if not i would say single is better if you just want gaming.

also when i end bf2 my system doesnt hang or anything, i could end bf2 then load up photoshop and it would start loading instantly.

Slo5oh, I didnt find anything about opterons speed on Toms Hardware Guide. Did you mean the 144 and 146 is comparable with the FX-55 and FX-57?? Those are insanely expensive and is on the top of the test..! And the opteron 146 is even cheaper than the X2..!

Well, cash is certainly a factor, but I think I could afford a 3800+.. It costs about 50 $ more than a 3700+, is it worth it, you think?

Btw is Cache important? How does it influence the CPU?

Last edited by WinstontheWolf (2006-05-02 15:26:52)

Well if I could stretch all the way I'd have an FX-60, but since us mere mortals can't afford that the x2 4200 is a fine processor.
Any of the x2 series are great all round processors, though if your only going to be gaming I would suggest either going with the 3800+ or stretch to the 4000+ shouldn't be much more money, and performs better in games then the x2 3800.