Athlon 64 4000 vs. Athlon 64 X2 4200

[One Man Band]

Hello.

I'm wondering if getting the Dual Core Athlon 4200 is worth getting, whilst it's on offer, or the (none dual core) Athlon 64 4000, for a video editing PC?

I was told that the 1mb cache, that the single core Athlon has, is better for video editing. The dual core has only 512 kb cache.


I've also got the same question for another PC i'm building for a friend, but his PC is for video games.


Is there much difference in speed, or is the advantage of Dual Core only the ability to run more programs at once? I don't imagine either PC will run many programs at once.

 

[King_Boru]

Stick a dual core in the Video editing machine and a single core in the gaming machine.

 

[InSanCen]

The 4200 is plenty quick if you application is multithreaded. Most decent Video-Editing apps will be. The difference in Photoshop for me is night n day. as said above, put the X2 in the Video editingbox, and the single core in the gaming.

 

[Mattus]

The dual core 4200 will flatten the single core 4000 in video editing.

 

[ajgoodfellow]

1MB cache will help with Video Editing, but as mentioned above, the fact that Video Editing apps are multi-threaded will give the dual core a huge boost

If you can stretch to it consider the X2 4400+ as this has 1MB of L2 cache per core