Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

AMD 64 4000+

May 8, 2005 7:25PM PDT

I'm building a new computer soon and i've got my eyes on the AMD 64 4000+.

But technology is always advancing, and dual core is great in my eyes. Should I purchase a lower powered dual core processor (i'm guessing they are more expensive than normal)? Also, when do they come out?

What do you guys think? The motherboard i'm looking into is the Asus A8N SLI Deluxe.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Hmmm....Dual Video cards & Dual Processors....
May 9, 2005 3:55AM PDT

Hi,

You didn't give a specific date for building, so if I was you I would wait a while and see what AMD comes up with.

The Asus A8N SLI Deluxe is for two (or one) video graphics card(s). As of yet, I have not read any creditable reports that the SLI motherboards, or if any new motherboards will be able to handle both dual video cards and dual processors.

There is the new Dual Core processors out now by Intel, with AMD to have theirs out pretty soon. The Dual Core processors perform like two processors in one when you are running multiple games and applications at once. Myself, I would like this better than the SLI two video card capability if there is a choice.

The current Intel processor is Pentium Processor Extreme Edition 840, with HT, 3.2GHz, dual core, and can be tuned to 3.6, 3.8, or 4.0 GHz. The motherboard, Intel D955X BKLKR, 955X chipset with DDR2, PCI Express. Newegg does not have it yet.
It appears to be quite expensive now, but will probably get cheaper as time goes on.

The Intel Dual core computers are now being sold by Alienware, Dell, and Velocity Micro.

I have not seen any comparison with this Intel dual core to AMD in gaming, but it appears to be extremely powerful in a one video card setup with Velocity Micro, to handle any games to come down the pike, and also handle other computer tasks like video editing very well in a dual compacity.

http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-7586-0.html?forumID=68&threadID=101906&messageID=1171721&tag=

- Collapse -
re
May 9, 2005 11:22AM PDT

get the amd dual cores as at thg, the amd dual cores outperformed those of intels and uses amd current motherboards not new ones that r hard to get. they also take up less power.

- Collapse -
Err...........
May 9, 2005 1:30PM PDT

Do you have links, I must have missed those. Didn't know AMD released their consumer AMD 64 939 dual core and that it was tested against the Intel dual core 840.

What and where is thg?

- Collapse -
amds dual core not really released yet....
May 9, 2005 1:53PM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Thanks, and released today by Tom's Hardware.
May 9, 2005 2:44PM PDT
- Collapse -
A good review on the dual cores
May 9, 2005 3:46PM PDT
- Collapse -
Not a good comparison review at all IMO.
May 10, 2005 2:01AM PDT

I believe the author jumped the gun with his April 3 article just to be publishing something about the Dual Processors. I briefly scanned that article after Intel released their announcement on April 18 that they were selling the Dual Core 840, and was simply amazed that the author was comparing a Athlon 3500 to a Intel 2.8 Dual Core. The comparison should have been the Intel 2.8 Dual Core to an Athlon 64 3000, 939 socket, or even at the most a Athlon 64 3200, but then the author would not be able to publish his article.

It is generally thought that the Athlon 3500 is equivalent to the Intel Pent 3.4.
http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-7591-0.html?forumID=26&threadID=102588&messageID=1176525

From what I have gathered about Dual Core, is that the benefit is to be able to run multiple applications at the same time as well as multithreaded applications better than single-core processors.

Yesterdays Tom's Hardware article gives a somewhat better review and now CNet has come out with a review dated yesterday:

http://www.cnet.com/4520-6022_1-6217968-1.html

As far as gaming is concerned, AMD has previously announced that they will not consider their top FX 55 for dual core until games for dual core are out.

Intel has been working on that also:

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050308net.htm?iid=search&

I can see you do not desire to wait for dual core, and the Athlon 64 4000 will make a fine and fast gamer.

I personally have no immediate plans to build a computer this year, as at least one of the three desktops I have will play all current games without a hitch. Now when dual core and 64-bit games come out, that is when I'll upgrade and by then...will also have the differences laid out between AMD & Intel. Wink