AMD S939 Athlon 64 3700+ -vs- AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+

[stockhausen]

I currently have a Socket 939 AMD Athlon 64 3700+. The S939 AMD Athlon 64 range is just about at the end of the road in terms of availability and I am thinking of replacing it with a twin core Athlon 64 X2 4200+.

I am not really that familiar with dual core technology and have a vague recollection of reading that the nominal "speed" of a dual core AMD CPU results from two cores, each running at a nominal "speed" rating of 2100 (in the case of a 4200+).

This seems entirely wrong, can anyone please clear up the question for me?

Incidentally, some CPU-Z details are:
Name : AMD Athlon 64 3700+
Code name : San Diego
Package : Socket 939
Technology : 90nm
Voltage : 1.338v
Core speed : 220MHz
Multiplier : x11.0

Many thanks

 

[mattyrigby00]

the 4200+ has a stock speeed of 2.2ghz and would be a good improvement over a 3700+ because of the dual cores.

 

[stockhausen]

The 4200+ has a stock speed of 2.2ghz and would be a good improvement over a 3700+ because of the dual cores.

Thanks for that, but is that 1.1GHz for CPU1 & 1.1GHz for CPU2 -or-
2.2GHz for CPU1 & 2.2GHz for CPU2?

I know that seems like a daft question, but I really do have this distinct recollection of hearing that any single application running on a dual-core 2.2GHz CPU will run significantly slower than the same application running on a single core 2.2GHz CPU.

If you happen to be running a dual-core Athlon 64 X2, would you be able to run CPU-Z and tell me what the core speed and multiplier is for each of the two CPUs?

 

[Owenb]

Thanks for that, but is that 1.1GHz for CPU1 & 1.1GHz for CPU2 -or-
2.2GHz for CPU1 & 2.2GHz for CPU2?

I know that seems like a daft question, but I really do have this distinct recollection of hearing that any single application running on a dual-core 2.2GHz CPU will run significantly slower than the same application running on a single core 2.2GHz CPU.

If you happen to be running a dual-core Athlon 64 X2, would you be able to run CPU-Z and tell me what the core speed and multiplier is for each of the two CPUs?

2.2ghz for each core. A single thread app will run at the same speed if both CPU's are clocked at the same speed- and of course are the same cores.

 

[badbob]

I changed the HTPC from 3700+ to 4200X2, is far quicker. When I was encoding my music (using both machines) the 3700+ was unusable whilst encoding, whilst the other one 4400x2 was perfectly fine. Converting music again on the 4200x2 no problem using apps whilst eac was in the background.

 

[J.D]

I got this X2 3800 from stock 2Ghz to this and it can go further but my motherboard (300 FSB limit) and air cooler restrict me from passing 2.8Ghz. Well I can get to 2.95Ghz without stressing the CPU's as my cooler couldn't handle it but as soon as I try 300FSB with any voltage I get nothing.

I'm only telling you this so you can maybe attempt it yourself as there is potential in just about every CPU.

 

[stockhausen]

2.2ghz for each core. A single thread app will run at the same speed if both CPU's are clocked at the same speed- and of course are the same cores.

Many thanks for that; that was the answer I hoped to hear.

 

[Edinho]

You will see no difference in games unless it was use more than 1 core, and most almost all games dont. IMO you are best keeping your money in your wallet and saving for C2D.

 

[akirru]

There are more advantages with a dual core than just gaming as mentioned above. Single core games will probably run smoother aswell with the aid of a second core as there is an additional core to deal with background apps

Also many realtime gaming benchmarks have proven the x2 to be very comparable to the c2d. Although if you are into serious encoding the c2d would be a wiser choice!

Cheers
Andy