PDA

View Full Version : 4000+ or X2 4200+


Pages : [1] 2

Starbuck
07-01-05, 10:15 AM
Thinking about upgrading CPU, currently running a A64 3500+ (first version, so doesn't OC all that great). Can't figure out if the X2 with 512 x 2 L2 Cache or the 4000+ with 1MB L2 cache will be better, primary performance will be games from BF2 into the future??? Which of these processors will be better in my rig??? Thanks.

CPU?
A8N-SLI Deluxe
EVGA 7800GTX @ 475/1250
2 x 1GB Corsair @ (1T,2,3,3,6)
Audigy 2ZS
2 x Deathstars in RAID 0
NeoPower 480
Misc other stuff...

Ninjaman09
07-01-05, 10:33 AM
4000+ will perform much better in games. All games are currently single-threaded and the 4200+ is a 2.2Ghz 512k core, just like the 3500+ you currently have. You would see no improvement from 3500+ to 4200+, while you will see a very nice improvement from 3500+ to 4000+. Up to you.

Just think of it this way - as far as games go, this is the way to look at the X2 processors:

4200 = 3500
4400 = 3700
4600 = 3800
4800 = 4000

BrianG
07-01-05, 10:41 AM
4000+ will perform much better in games. All games are currently single-threaded and the 4200+ is a 2.2Ghz 512k core, just like the 3500+ you currently have. You would see no improvement from 3500+ to 4200+, while you will see a very nice improvement from 3500+ to 4000+. Up to you.

Just think of it this way - as far as games go, this is the way to look at the X2 processors:

4200 = 3500
4400 = 3700
4600 = 3800
4800 = 4000
Unless you have stuff running in the background...

Ninjaman09
07-01-05, 12:26 PM
Unless you have stuff running in the background...
Right, but like I said, that list pertains to game performance. If you're not interested in running CPU-intensive processes in the background while you play games, an X2 isn't really a good idea right now. However, if you do plan on doing this, an X2 would be the way to go.

saturnotaku
07-01-05, 12:39 PM
I know it's entirely possible to run a game at the same time as having an application like Folding going. I wonder, though, is the system smart enough to know to run the game on the 'unused' CPU?

Riptide
07-01-05, 12:42 PM
I hate to be a poop, but is it really worth going from a 3500+ to a 4000+? Games don't benefit much from that extra cache and what is the clock speed difference? 200MHz? Is that even worth bothering with?

Ninjaman09
07-01-05, 12:42 PM
Actually I saw a very large performance increase.

Riptide
07-01-05, 12:43 PM
I know it's entirely possible to run a game at the same time as having an application like Folding going. I wonder, though, is the system smart enough to know to run the game on the 'unused' CPU?
I think you would want to manually configure the folding client to grab the second CPU and let the game automatically take over the first one. Should work well that way.

Riptide
07-01-05, 12:44 PM
Actually I saw a very large performance increase.
I don't see how... 2.2 vs. 2.4 is a what, 10% increase at best? /shrugs

But whatever's clever. I'm glad it worked out well for you. :D

Ninjaman09
07-01-05, 12:49 PM
Don't ask me, I'm surprised too. Then again, it was a combined upgrade of a 4000+ and a 7800GTX (from a 3500 and a 6800GT) so the 7800GTX definitely had a hand in it too. But still, overall game performance is noticably better across the board, and more so than I was led to believe than I would see from just upgrading the video card.

Oh, there was also a jump from the VIA K8T800 platform to nForce 4.

Riptide
07-01-05, 12:52 PM
Yeah I'm sure the video card had something to do with it there. Quite a jump going from a 6800GT to that GTX. ;)

You basically have the same CPU I do, minus the unlocked multiplier. Not a bad chip is it? Difference is I paid $800 for mine about a year ago.

If I were going to spend $800 right now it would be on a 4600+ x2. 2.4 clock speed just like my current chip, but it would have that second core. Less cache but cache is not worth much for games. I remember that from reading all those reviews back when I was shopping for my chip. The 3800+ was real similar, just had less cache but same clock (and no unlocked mulit). In benchmarks the extra cache gave my FX about a 2% performance advantage.

And yeah, I should've got the 3800+ at the time. ;)

-=DVS=-
07-01-05, 12:53 PM
Easy choice go with X2 4200 offcourse, windows feel smoother , they OC like crazy 2.2Ghz -> 2.6 easy , plus future proof for games that do support it . And you gotta love multitasking encode dvd and play games ;)

Oh and anything higer then 4200 is not worth the double bill ;) especially 4600 :D

BrianG
07-01-05, 12:59 PM
I don't see how... 2.2 vs. 2.4 is a what, 10% increase at best? /shrugs

But whatever's clever. I'm glad it worked out well for you. :D
IIRC, AMD improved the memory controller during the transition 90nm. Anand found this in a budget comparison review. Same clock, there was an improvement from the 130nm to 90nm parts.

Riptide
07-01-05, 01:22 PM
Yes but the improvement was minimal. Not to mention A64 has never been that dependent on memory bandwidth to begin with.

BrianG
07-01-05, 01:37 PM
Yes but the improvement was minimal. Not to mention A64 has never been that dependent on memory bandwidth to begin with.
I seem to remember an 8% performance increase, clock for clock, in memory intensive tests. But yeah, probably not anything too noticable in real world performance.

Its funny, alot of times you get the idea that your new hardware is way faster because you do a clean install of Windows. Heh.

Riptide
07-01-05, 01:45 PM
That's true. And a lot of times that might even mean a new AGP driver (new chipset package) with the rebuild, which could easily increase video performance in games coupled with an updated video driver.

Ninjaman09
07-01-05, 02:04 PM
Well put it this way - my CS:S VST went from 87.9 to 147.8, and my Doom 3 timedemo went from 80.1 to 94.6. In addition I can now run Far Cry at 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF with a minimum framerate of about 45. Before, it easily dipped into the teens.

Could be a combo of faster processor, faster video card, better memory usage, better VGA drivers, and better platform. Either way I'm liking it. :D

Starbuck
07-01-05, 02:17 PM
Ok, I'm a little more confused after reading the replys. It sounds like in an apples to apples comparison, the 512 verses 1mb cache doesn't matter for games. So, if I assume that, will going with an X2 allow all those MS services, etc., BS to run on the other processor and the game run alone on the other? If so, would this smooth things out enought. Secondly, what are the odds that future games will be written to take advantage of both processors? Anyone have any hard links to reviews/articles is appreciated. Thanks.

-=DVS=-
07-01-05, 02:32 PM
To lazy to look for links but there was discussion of top of my head first game with Dual Cpu support would be Age of Empires 4 or 3 was it ? with others to follow.. not to mention popular sequals of Unreal.

Peacemaker
07-01-05, 02:59 PM
Here You will find all answers for Your Q :)

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ultimate_workstation_ultimate_gaming_pc/page16.asp

personally i just buy 4400+ and waiting for 7800gtx :D

greetings,

P.

fastguy94416
07-01-05, 03:17 PM
I bought a 4400+ (it's still on backorder) and a 7800 GTX as my first upgrade in 2 years. I'm coming from an 1800+ and a 9500 modded to 9700pro. This is going to be an exciting jump for me.

Dazz
07-01-05, 03:35 PM
I gone from a 3200+ @ 2.7GHz to a 4400+ @ 2.6Ghz with 3200+ was faster in games but i can do more now, everything is kinda multi threaded in a away, from the load it's spread out on the two CPU's but while playing games CPU usage never goes much higher then 50% or it's just the way it works in task manager where it tells you by spreading it across the two CPU's as a percentage. But yes you can fold and play games with no effect at all. If you use the console version other wise the GUI will conflict as you will have two 3D display running which most video card will refuse to run. No the first was a flight SIM where the fps had gone from 30fps single core to 45fps dual core. Can't remember which one it was however.

OWA
07-01-05, 04:16 PM
Ok, I'm a little more confused after reading the replys. It sounds like in an apples to apples comparison, the 512 verses 1mb cache doesn't matter for games. So, if I assume that, will going with an X2 allow all those MS services, etc., BS to run on the other processor and the game run alone on the other? If so, would this smooth things out enought. Secondly, what are the odds that future games will be written to take advantage of both processors? Anyone have any hard links to reviews/articles is appreciated. Thanks.
It has also been said that the nvidia graphic driver will be taking advantage of dual cores maybe increasing performance by...actually, don't remember the range but I think it was 5-20%. It has also helped my video playback but it could actually be the card and not the CPU. With AMD 64 3500+/6800 Ultra combo, playing the HD step into liquid video I'd get like 90% plus CPU load. With the X2 4800+/7800GTX I'm getting around 25-30%. I think Tim Sweeny said the U3 will take advantage of it as well so it'll probably be supported more and more.

Anyway, the main difference I notice right now with the X2 is that the system is a lot more responsive while other things are going on (i.e. much more like the unix workstations that I use at work).

Dazz
07-01-05, 05:49 PM
Hell yeah it's lot more responsive, it was the only thing i liked about the Intel CPU's with HT but now with dual core you can now have the power of the Athlon with responsivenes better then that of the Pentium 4 HT :) Dual core will be getting more and more support as CPU's at the moment won't be getting much higher in clock speed and road maps are showing 3 & 4 core plans. (3 Cores being 4 cores with 1 disabled)

radekhulan
07-04-05, 05:01 AM
Go for X2 4400+ (2x 1MB L2 cache), as it is the first AMD CPU that can compete with Intel in other areas than single-threaded games using FPU a lot..

Using X2, you do not have to worry anymore to run multiple tasks (as with single core CPU without HyperThreading), and performance in games is BETTER by about 10-20% than with 4000+ (Doom 3, GTA: SA, CS:S) - means there are actually some dualcore benefits for games as well. I am using Forceware 80.40 drivers for that, updated AMD 1.2.2.2 CPU driver, and /usepmtimer switch in boot.ini for better compatibility...

X2 SSE/SSE2 performance, Intel-stronghold, seems to be better as well, meaning realtime rips into MPEG2 are possible now, while still having enough processing power to do something else :-)

And it is nice to know that you can play Far Cry while burning DVD-RW disc, and it will be readable for sure :-)