Athlon 64 compared to Athlon 64 DX

Hello all!

I am thinking about a new system (for myself or someone who asks me to build one) and have decided on a 64-bit processor. Now, there are single core (what we are used to) and dual core processors. I make an example of the Athlon: Side by Side Comparision

The price difference (in Sweden) is approximately 10 % (higher for the DX) for the same "AMD performance number" and that is not prohibitive for going DX but ...... ...... under which circumstances will I notice a difference?

Only when multi tasking, such as rendering a film in Pinnacle Studio and working in Microsoft PowerPoint at the same time or will there be a general improvement with DX?

(I'm not capable of multi tasking myself ...... ...... unless something is running in the back ground!)

Thanks for Your time,
Christer

By the way, can someone explain what is meant by "Stepping - E3/E6 - E4/E6" for the different processors in the Comparision?

 

Hi HJ!

My conclusion is, if I get 64-bit then I might get dual core as well. That meshes with my aim for a reasonable computer to be "acceptable" in terms of performance a few years down the time line.

I have read somewhere that AMD is planning quadro core processors for 2006 ...... ...... if one waits for the latest, one will wait for ever!

Yes, I found that out from Answers.com - stepping

At first, I thought that it had something to do with the "multiplier" and couldn't figure it out.

(Answers.com is a new find to me, it is a really good "encyclopedia" ...... ...... !)

Christer

 

I made a few price comparisions, prices in $ are according to AMDs price list, prices in SEK are in my "local internet shop ". The single-core is compared to two dual-core, one with the same performance number and another with the same frequency:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ ____ $ 354 ________ SEK 3,795
2.0 GHz / 2 x 512 MB ________ + 8 % ________ + 17 %

AMD Athlon 64 3800+ _______ $ 329 ________ SEK 3,249
2.4 GHz / 512 MB

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ _____ $ 704 _________ SEK 6,990
2.4 GHz / 2 x 512 MB ________+ 214% ________ + 215 %

It seems like the swedish shop feels that the X2 3800+ (the same performance number) deserves an additional price premium. 17 % up is probably too steep just for the satisfaction of a dual-core but 8 % up might be an acceptable "bragging fee" ...... ...... or would it actually be money well spent?

The X2 4600+ (the same frequency) is currently too expensive ...... ...... but sooner or later, prices will drop.

What do You think?

Christer

 

Hi HJ!

I'm curious too since it is the weakest link in the chain that determines the strength!

Christer

 

I found a test, at X-bit Laboratories, comparing the Athlon 64 X2 3800+, Athlon 64 3800+ and Pentium D 830, Pentium 4 650. I have actually been looking for a comparision between processors having the same "performance number" and the inclusion of their respective "Intel counterparts" is a bonus. In addition to that, they have carried out the tests on 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows XP which provides a hint on performance differences on software which is available today.

Go to AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ CPU: Dual-Core and 64-Bit Go Mass! and I hope You'll find it interesting!

Christer