Hi, I am a hardcore gamer and in the process of building a new PC. Which AMD CPU would be best in the 325.00 range? I am leaning toward the X2 3800 dual core but it looks like the 3800 venice single core out performs it on games, I guess because of the clock speed. I hear that some of the upcoming games will be supporting the dual core CPU's. So X2 3800 Dual or 3800 venice single core? Thanks
The forums staffers think I'm Cool
6th March 2005
If you were a REAL hardcore gamer you would know about all of this...
haha but no I have no idea im stupid.
GaMe_OvErIf you were a REAL hardcore gamer you would know about all of this... haha but no I have no idea im stupid.
I never knew to love games you have be a tech guy, I should have just went with what I thought.
21st February 2005
A leason about dual cores.
X2 3800+ = 3200+ speeds in games that use only 1 core X2 4200+ = 3500+ speeds in games that use only 1 core X2 4400+ = 3700+ speeds in games that use only 1 core X2 4600+ = 3800+ speeds in games that use only 1 core X2 4800+ = 4000+ speeds in games that use only 1 core
Now if its a game that uses 2 cores then a 3800+ would out beat a FX57. It is true more games will be coming out made for dual cores but as of right now the best dual core for a game would be a 4400+ or 4800+. But your looking at a lot of money for those 2. Single core would be the best bet as of right now if you don't want to spend a lot of money.
17th June 2002
As AMD themselves have said, the single-core FX-57 is still the ultimate for games. It will continue to be a superbly powerful processor for the next couple of years, regardless of what people tell you to the contrary and regardless of whether games come out that support dual-core processors in future. In computing, you have to live for the now, because your components will be obsolete within a week no matter how long you wait for them.
9th July 2003
I've got the dual core FX-60, i'm sure that's the latest and greatest.
17th June 2002
ZeRoNiTeI've got the dual core FX-60, i'm sure that's the latest and greatest.
Not for gaming it's not. It consistent gets virtually identical results in benchmarks as the FX-57 in Open GL and Direct X games, with maybe an extra FPS or two at higher detail levels (in fact, I think in Q3 tests the FX-57 actually beats it by a fair few FPS), and costs a nice £200/£300+ extra for the privilege. And it too will be obsolete in a very short while anyway, as AMD are planning on releasing their Socket M2 format and a version of the FX-60 made on a much smaller 65 nm process. Simply put, until games are designed specifically with dual-core processors in mind, all that power will remain untapped. And even when that happens, a powerful single-core processor will remain entirely useful for quite a long while anyway. Save yourself some money and wait until dual core processors are common and cheap.
Thanks for all the info, I think I will go with the AMD 64 4000 for now and upgrade next year when the new AMD based boards are supporting the DDR2 Ram. Thanks John
I tawt I taw a puddy tat...
30th December 2002
I'm doing a build soon as well, and I ultimately decided I'll get the 4400+ Toledo dual core. I love gaming, but I also do alot of multi-tasking and the 4400 is superb at it. And at $458, the 4400+ seems to be the best bang for your buck dual core out there.
Before I decided to get a dual core though, my choice for the single core was going to be the 4000+ San Diego ($334). But I think the best deal for an AMD cpu overall is without a doubt the 3700+ San Diego ($213).
What games that are coming out support the dual core? System: Intel Pentium D 830 Dual Core 3.0ghz 2 gigs DDR2 4300(533mhz) SATA 11 controlled 250 gig Seagate Sound blaster Audigy2 Zs gamer Nvidia 7800GTX PCI-E 256mb on card, 256 on system, 512mb total intel mobo, with 20.1 inch Wide screen flat panel monitor Sony DVD/DVD-RW/CD-RW combo :)