• 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)

james.miller said:
i dont think its a bargain if they really are fx-53's. I'd go for the cheaper 3700+ SD personally.
Click to expand...

Arg!

I am so torn :(

How much of a difference does the SSE3 of the 3700+ make over the 4000+?

Would the 4000+ be a worthy upgrade for the rig in my sig?

Cheers
 
put it this way, if some one said, do u want to swap a 3800 x2 for a 4000 free of charge, i'd keep my 4000. honestly. (and mine is 130nm clawhammer as well)
 
Last edited:
can someone tell me how to tell which version of the 4000 chip I have just bought..... and maybe a pointer to an idiots overclocking guide as people seem to be suggesting that I have just got myself a right bargain for £95.
 
friend had his delivered yesterday and thats a clawhammer too, grr

Just checked on website and OcUK has removed what core the 4000's have, I assumed they were San Diegos and advised him getting one, now he's ***** off with me because he has a clawhammer instead.

running both at stock X2 3800 and A64 4000 the 4000 is faster in most things, X2's only real advantage at the moment is for SLI as it doesn't bottleneck the GPU's as much.
 
They were being advertised as San Diego. You may have a case for a refund.

This has answered my question (i.e. the subject title, less the advert a mod added to it). I won't be buying a Clawhammer core A64.
 
zytok said:
can someone tell me how to tell which version of the 4000 chip I have just bought..... and maybe a pointer to an idiots overclocking guide as people seem to be suggesting that I have just got myself a right bargain for £95.
Click to expand...
CPU-Z should give you the core name. It's a free download. The homepage for it is here.

If you have San Diego, it's a bargain. If you have Clawhammer, much less so. Clawhammer will run hotter and overclock less, probably quite a lot on both counts.
 
assuming its a clawhammer (I'm never that lucky) is this actually gonna be quicker than my 3200 for games? If not or not by very much, tempted to send it back.
 
A64 3200 - 2ghz 512kb cache
A54 4000 - 2.4ghz 1024kb cache

20% extra clock speed and 100% more cache
 
Angilion said:
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).
Click to expand...

Depends on whether he wants to overclock it or not (he has said he probably will), in which case it depends entirely on the chip.

My 4000+ SD refuses to run stable at anything above 2.65 whereas my X2 3800+ runs both cores perfectly stable at 2.80 (both on air).
In my case, the X2 kicks the SD's arse at everything.

Stan :)

Edit: Just noticed his mobo won't do more than 250 HTT so that would put the SD ahead, having the advantage of the higher multiplier and the extra cache.
BUT! if he had a better mobo, the above would be the case :p
 
Last edited:
Bigstan said:
Depends on whether he wants to overclock it or not (he has said he probably will), in which case it depends entirely on the chip.

My 4000+ SD refuses to run stable at anything above 2.65 whereas my X2 3800+ runs both cores perfectly stable at 2.80 (both on air).
In my case, the X2 kicks the SD's arse at everything.

Stan :)

Edit: Just noticed his mobo won't do more than 250 HTT so that would put the SD ahead, having the advantage of the higher multiplier and the extra cache.
BUT! if he had a better mobo, the above would be the case :p
Click to expand...

Newer Cores on the x2`s bigstan. the 4000`s were always not very good overclockers very much by chance you would get a good one just the higher multi was the only thing of value here, a over price con thats why the 3700 were a better deal until the price drops.

but if your going to stay with AMD and your old mother board an X2 would be the better option now.
 
I can only get my 4000+ to 2.65 air stable aswell, great chip for that price though (if it's a San Diago & not a Clawhammer :eek: ) - get a refund/or what you intended to pay for!

Although Bigstan's right, theres a chance the X2 will clock better, 50/50 really, I'd go with the 4000 for games though, more cache & hopefully the better clock.
 
shamus21 said:
Newer Cores on the x2`s bigstan. the 4000`s were always not very good overclockers very much by chance you would get a good one just the higher multi was the only thing of value here, a over price con thats why the 3700 were a better deal until the price drops.
Click to expand...

I wish I knew then what I know now.

A lot of people have been getting much better overclocks on their 3700s than I can on my 4000. I also have the same experience with X2s - my 4400 (Toledo) will only do 2.65 compared to the 3800 (Manchester).

From now on it will be lower rated/priced chips coupled with good mobos which allow high HTTs.

I think in the OP's case the 4000 would be better though as his board will only allow 250 HTT which will limit him to 2.50 on the X2 3800 but would allow up to a theoretical 3.0 with the 4000 (realistically, 3.60-3.75 I would have thought).

Stan :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom