I'm a hardcore gamer, I need to figure out which of these cpus is the best for gaming. Pretty much comparing the 4200+ dual core to 4000+ revision E (90nm). And if the 4200+ wins, is it better that much than the 3800+ X2 for what they are both worth? Thanks guys.
I have the 4400+ x2 and I scored stock 15660 on 3dmark03 with a 7800gt.
I put together a computer for my friend who has the 4000+ single core sandiego and a 7800gt and he got over 17000.
So, predator has it right...Single core is better for gaming as of now. i got the x2 in hopes that the games will soon be written to use multiple cpu's.
As far as the 3800+ and 4200+ go..I think they are similar to eachother and similar to the 4400+, except the 4400+, based on the Toledo core, has 1mb L2 cache and the others only have 512kb, based on manchester. If I were to pick between the 3800+ and the 4200+, I would spend the 80 bucks difference and go for the 4200+.
Lol, yes Lan Yeoh, you beat me with your 3dmark scores...but your system seems to have a little more hardware in it...I can't put my finger on it, but for some reason I just think it does....
My cpu is also running at 2.2 ghz, while yours is at 2.73!!!
You are running SLI!!! With nicely overclocked cards!!!
I have not even tried overclocking my new system, though I am really happy with the 4400+ and everything else to go along with it.
Nice rig though, good score too...
I still think the 4000+ is better for gaming though
Brothers, Thanks for the compliments. My point wasn't to show that a dual core is superior, just that it works well. Those 3D benchmarks are not affected by any HDD capabilities. So, even if you have solid state ram disks, the scores won't change.
Actually, if you were tocheck in windows task manager while playing BF2, even if you exit a lot of windows processes, you will see that the second core is about 50% used. The latest 81.xx Nvidia drivers are also optimized for both dual gpus and dual core cpus.
Alright let me sort this out. I'm quite interested in this now. The perfomance of the 4000+ is solid, we all know that. I heard when OC'ed it goes to FX's scores in games. Now, if I am to buy a CPU for the future gaming, with a 4200+ or say 4400+ I will get a few frames less at the moment, but later, when the games become designed for dual core cpu's, it should pay off. Hmm, but what about as far as the price / perfomance go right now? I checked benchmarks and the 4000+ gets pretty significantly high fps over the dual cores (even compared to the 4800+) Plus, 4000+ on pricewatch 325$, 4200+ w/ 512kb cache per core is 389$ and the toledo 4400+ is whooping 485$. Now, I doubt the 4400+ even with extra 512kb per core is worth over 100$ price difference from at least 4200+. And to mention that even the cheaper 4000+ beats it pretty bad in games? Which one do you think is worth buying for games as far as the price vs perfomance ratio goes?
There never will be good support for games on dual core processors because of the inherant latency with figuring out which core has less load. If they made games largely multi-threaded, a dual-core CPU also wouldn't benefit much but a multi-CPU system would. For serious gaming, get the 4000+. For everything else, get the fastest dual-core you can afford.
________________________ If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
Do this and i promise you that you will beat out the 4000+ and FX 57 by a good deal with duel core X2.
As for what duel core to get. its a moode point. Do you mind overclocking ? 3800+ is cheaper and can hit 5000+ to 5100+ on air no problem. 4400+ has more cache but will not show much gain in gaming just larger aplications.
"a dual-core CPU also wouldn't benefit much but a multi-CPU system would."
2 cores wouldn't benefit, but 2 CPU's would? LOL You're way off... Either way, they would have the same memory bandwidth because the amount of memory shouldn't change when comparing. Having half of it sent to 2 CPU's would be the same as having all of it go to one CPU and shared between 2 cores. As far as any latency goes, what's the difference in 2 CPU's having to figure out where the data goes (as far as which which CPU) and 2 cores having to figure out where the data goes? If anything, the gap between the 2 CPUs while trying to communicate with each other would increase the latency for the 2 CPU setup.
You continue to amaze me everyday. Those are patches which I have never used heh. I must try them and see my scores improve heh.
You guys just better listen to PC Geek. And Predator, I can assure you that hard drives have nothing to do with 3D Mark. Just FYI, my 3D Mark scores were loaded off an ATA133 and not any raptors, which were being optimize for HDD scores heh.
Listen to PC Geek. He provides valuable wisdom.
And guys, quit talking smack about dual cores unless you have owned them. PC Geek, Blue and myself have all used Venices.
And then you talk about how great the San Diego is, but how lousy the extra cache of the Toledo performs? The whole concept behind teh San Diego is extra cache. If the cache is so bad, why not just buy a Venice 3800+, which is exactly a San Diego minus 512k ?