azagahl Posted January 4, 2007 Author Share Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) >The reason why a Athlon X2 3800+ might be slower than a Athlon64 3800+ is because the 64-3800 is clocked higher. Each of the two cores in the X2 will be clocked slower, but AMD gives it the "3800" rating because the second core "makes up" for the lower clock speed.When you write X2 3800 vs. 64 3400, I think from the point of view of a single thread and see 64 1900 vs. 64 3400. I'm assuming that an "X2 3800" essentially equivalent to two "64-1900" cores. Maybe I'm wrong - is the "3800" just an artificial performance number, perhaps measuring the average speed for a few typical situations? Are a fair number of these situations single-threaded? So X2 3800 really is much better than the 64 3400 in practice??The ability to execute two threads is obviously useful. I guess I'm willing to tolerate a 20% drop in single-threaded performance in exchange for this ability. But a core going from 3400->1900 is too large of a drop.Is there an unbiased source for benchmarks? AnandTech and Tom's Hardware Guide are chock full of ads and seem less informative than a few years ago. I'm not sure whether to trust them. Edited January 4, 2007 by azagahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now