• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

A64 4000 or A64 X2 3800? (Athlon 64 4000 only £95 @ OcUK)

Angilion

Angilion

Angilion

Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
21,030
Location
Just to the left of my PC
I have S939 and I want a new toy^H^H^H CPU.

The 4000 is now down to £105. I'm undecided about buying it or waiting for the price cuts that will hopefully come on A64 X2 3800s that OcUK will hopefully still have in stock.

I'll be o/c'ing it, unsurprisingly, though only on air and only with at most 0.1V above stock and only at most 250 HTT base speed (my motherboard is limited to 250).

I'm thinking that the X2 3800 would overclock more than the 4000 and would probably be a better buy, but I am impatient.

Opinions welcome.
 
Last edited:
Well, the 4000 is stock 2.4ghz 1mb cache, and your board will limit the X2 (stock 2ghz) to 2.5 whereas the 4000 could reach 3ghz. Best choice depends on what exactly you're using the system for though.
 
Hmm...is it common for A64 4000s to reach 3GHz on air with 0.1V extra?

I'm using it as a toy. The only work I do on it is a bit of word processing and that hardly needs either of those two. I'm not noticing a problem with games with my current CPU (A64 [email protected]), so I don't really need a new CPU even for playing.

This will be my last chance for a CPU-only upgrade, so I want something that will still be OK in a year. So perhaps the question is "how important will dual core be in a year's time?"
 
*** 4000 is a BARGAIN at 100 quid, its sickening, could easily clock it to fx57 then u have the best single core cpu, for 100 quid
 
HI there

Yep this is a cracking deal that OcUK have for you guys. Full retail box and only just over £100 for a CPU that can easily hit FX57 speeds and beyond. :)
 
If its "just a toy", I would really go for the 4000. It is cheap, and you will have more fun overclocking it, plus dual core at the moment is only really useful in pro applications. Yeah you can encode an mp3 while playing CS but who really ever does that, a vastly overclocked 4000 will be well more fun.
 
Depends what you want the cpu for tbh. If you do a lot of multitasking then go for the dual core cpu if you don't then don't.

The 4000+ are generally good clockers although when I had one 2.8ghz required quite a bump in voltages. (san diego core). 3ghz is going to be pushing it on air cooling.
 
San Diego 4000 version

Hi guys, talking of the 4000 San Diego, has anyone had any trouble with their order? Mine came today and I thought the CPU date was a bit suspect (0442) and when I've installed it and used CPU-Z it says Clawhammer and 0.13nm. It also runs default 1.45v and a bit hotter at stock speeds. Sigh... I don't seem to be having much luck with web orders recently.
 
On the plus side they are re-badged FX-53s (without the unlocked multiplier), I have one and there is nothing wrong with it, though she does run a little toasty :p

You'll lack a few things like SSE3, NX bit, overclockability, cooler running and lower voltage but other than that, all good :D

Edit: oh and reduced ability to run with multiple memory modules and slightly worse performance :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
If like me, you have not overclocked any thing in your life and and probably dont plan to, which is the better of the two chips to go for?
More games than anything else would be the usage
 
Tetras said:
On the plus side they are re-badged FX-53s (without the unlocked multiplier), I have one and there is nothing wrong with it, though she does run a little toasty :p
Click to expand...

there is if its advertised as an sse3 supporting san diego.

Send it back, it doesnt fit the description.
 
Thanks for the replies, I've sent off a webnote and will see what they say. I'm sure it won't be a problem, just the hassle of keep installing CPUs and now i've run out of arctic silver as well :(
 
Blackhorse said:
If like me, you have not overclocked any thing in your life and and probably dont plan to, which is the better of the two chips to go for?
More games than anything else would be the usage
Click to expand...
Right now, the single-core 4000. If you get a San Diego version (see previous posters).

Since hardly any games that are out now make any use at all of the second core, the X2 3800 willl give lower performance due to the slower clock speed and the smaller cache (per core).
 
I've just noticed that someone has added an advert to my subject header.

I want to make it clear that this addition has nothing to do with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom