hate to be a manager for intel or something reading these forums, or people who haves shares in intel
no... its two venice cores at 2.0ghz. the amd 64 4000 is one @ 2.4ghz. go look at some benchmarks first.
Yes, the Clawhammer is more powerful, but it's also $55 more. The San Diego Core, the closest in price to the X2 3800+, does not perform as well as the Clawhammer.
Ok, The AMD X-2 is an excellent Duel-core solution it provides enough grunt to play games and do other stuff as well, overall its a multi-tasker's dream chip, unfortunately like gh0stz says having duel core doesnt mean you get double the speed since the problem is related to the piplines and the architechture of the chip. If you rich and have money to spare get a FX-57 the best single core chip on the market the ultimate Gamer's chip. I personaly would get a duel core chip if I was to upgrade because im a multi-tasker Duel-core is very good for content creation such as 3D modeling programs like 3DS max. Keep in mind that you will only get the extra performance boost from the game/program if the game/program supports duel core. Have any here figured out why AMD chip have a lower clock speed but have performance that rival's intel's chips? We in reality AMD has been in the microchip making industry for a long time they where there before Intel were established, so based on that AMD has more experiance than Intel meaning they can make more efficient chips. AMD Athlon 64 (Less heat, fast, and 64 bit) > Intel P4 (Lots of heat, fast, most are 32 bit [64 bit intels are under development I think or only sold to corperations])
Or, instead of the FX-57, you could get the 400+ Clawhammer (pretty much a re-badged FX-53) and overclock it a bit. I've heard of 4000+s being OCed to over 3GHz stabily, on Air cooling.
single core: for playing games, definately AMD's Athlon 64, for cinema 3d, Intel has a small lead with their Pentium 4 - very slight and it costs considerably more for what you get. for general use P4s are better, but the Athlonm 64s still aren't too bad, you really won't notice he difrence after a certain point dual core: for playing games, AMD has a definate lead. for cinema 3d, the Athlon X2s outperform the Pentium Extreme Editions and Pentium Ds, though not by a huge amount. for genral use the Athlon X2s outperform the Pentium Extreme editions, but not by much. Same goes for the Pentium Ds. just note this, an Athlon X2 3800+(320$) outperforms the 3.2Ghz Pentium Exterme Edition(1050$) Intel's next gen chip the core duo(based on the Pentium M) is fairly similar to AMDs Athlon series in terms of design. they do fairly close to the same amount of work when at the same clock speed, so a 2.0 Ghz Core duo will come close to a 2.0 Athlon X2(slightly behind though) but Intel designed them to use very little energy, so they might be good for overclocking(setting the clockspeed, aka the Ghz above the recomened amount) and they are good for laptops. ======================= also, it's not AMD versus Pentium, it is AMD vs. Intel. EDIT: whoever said that P4s weren't 64 bit is a retard, any P40 model 6XX and up is 64 bit compatable as are all Pentium Ds and Pentium Extreme Editions. also, an athlon X2 3800+ is far from two 3800+s combined, it is two 3200+s(or 3400+s) combined. they perform well enough for gaming, so stop BSing about an extra 30 FPS, because when you are at 180FPS to begin with, noone gives a damn about an extra 30 frames and having a second core makes switching from a ame to say AIM a lot more pleasent and you can play windoed without a performance loss.
An AMD X2 3800+ outperforms the P4 EE 3.2 ... really? Cause I might be building a computer in about a year or two ... it would be nice to know these things. I just got a graphics card ... ASUS x850 XT Platinum Edition for christmas and I oc'd it ... will that be able to hold out for 2 years in gaming ... or will it never last that long. I have a P4 HT 3.0 GHz (Parents gave me this computer because they bought a laptop so don't laugh at my processor ) and 1.5 GB of PC3200 RAM.
