Athlon 64 Dual Core Processor

[Prostock62]

Hey Guys do anyone have any info on these?This is the first ive seen of them.

http://www.atacom.com/program/print_html_n..._15&USER_ID=www

[Angry_Games]

#1 their lable is wrong (but their specs are right)

 

AMD ATHLON 64 DUAL CORE 4400 2.2G SOCKET 939 L2-512K X2 ADA4400CDBOX

 

Clock Speed 2.2GHz

Manufacturer Warranty 1 year

Product Type CPU

Bus Speed 2000 MHz

Compatible Slots Socket 939

Performance Index 4400+

Cache Memory L1=128KB ; L2=1MBx2

Processor Type AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core

 

 

#2

http://www.dfi-street.com/forum/showpost.p...497&postcount=9

[Prostock62]

#1 their lable is wrong (but their specs are right)

 

AMD ATHLON 64 DUAL CORE 4400 2.2G SOCKET 939 L2-512K X2 ADA4400CDBOX

 

Clock Speed 2.2GHz

Manufacturer Warranty 1 year

Product Type CPU

Bus Speed 2000 MHz

Compatible Slots Socket 939

Performance Index 4400+

Cache Memory L1=128KB ; L2=1MBx2

Processor Type AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core

 

 

#2

http://www.dfi-street.com/forum/showpost.p...497&postcount=9

Nice setup AG.Thats the first ive seen of themNo idea when they came out,been haveing some health issues again so been out of it a bit.

[tristancarton]

quick dual core searched turned up this thread. instead of making a new one i figured i would post here.

 

@ the people who own them. how do you like them? have you noticed a huge difference in windows response times? the reason i am asking is that i ran into some money this past week and it may be able to cover an x2 4400 and the s939 dfi nf3 board.(though i may wait for the next bios update) i just would hate to pull the trigger on a 700+ dollar upgrade before asking. also do you guys think the prices will come down or a lower end x2 will come out within the next few months. i know the past week or two the prices have steadily risen.(prob due to demand)

 

background: before i upgraded to this nf3 ut250 system my main system was a dual p3 1133 tualatin smp system(had it for around 4 years) and i loved the response of smp. hoping dual core feel is similar without the need for an opteron system with registered ram and extra heat/power.

[Angry_Games]

dual core cpu's are only useful if the software supports SMP/Hyperthreading.

 

right now, it is like Windows64 or SLI...not really worth it.

 

as both chip giants are now using dual-core cpu's, same as both gpu giants are using some form of 'sli', same as all software devs now have to work with both 32-bit windows and 64-bit windows...you will see integration of all new tech into your everyday lives.

 

it might take 3 years for every software to come multithread enabled + 64-bit enabled + dual gpu enabled...but there's no turning back, so eventually the tech you buy will come in handy.

 

question is...by the time software is standard for SMP, SLI, and 64-bit, will there be an 'X2 7700+ (3.6Ghz SSE4 hyperthreaded dual core (4 logical cores, 2 physical cores) that costs $600 instead of the $700 that a brand new X2 costs right now, quad-gpu SLI (ie 2 cards with 4 gpu's on each, 8 gpu total) and such that are better performing for the price offered?

 

who knows...buying into brand new tech is...for those who have money to burn lol.

 

personally i WOULD own a dual core because it is strong cpu, low voltage, and runs well...and it still whips the Intel cpu in everything but DivX apparently... I buy AMD cpu's for their strong FPU and integrated memory controller...since i mostly use them for gaming

 

for dvd ripping and servers etc, I use Intel P4 Northwood (socket 478) cpu's on Intel 875 chipsets.

[Ozy666]

What?! XP certainly supports dual core as it supports dual proc. too. Open up your task manager...all of those processes you see are separate threads (though most of them don't take much CPU time).

 

You're right in the sense that much of the software most people use won't see an advantage, the exception being encoding, graphical rendering, and compiling. However, with dual core, you can do things like hardware encoding of DVDs or TV video while playing a game at the same time.

 

Also, if you look at the latest benchmarks using these dual core chips, they've caught up to Intel with regard to video encoding, and sometimes are better.

 

Ozy

[Angry_Games]

no one said XP didnt support dual core. Just because your OS supports it doesn't mean it is worth a damn. Look at Windows64....it supports 64-bit...but how many programs actually take advantage? Thats right, none.

 

and right now Intel still kick's AMD's butt at encoding DivX/etc.

 

other than that, AMD cpu's are superior in everything.

 

What?! XP certainly supports dual core as it supports dual proc. too. Open up your task manager...all of those processes you see are separate threads (though most of them don't take much CPU time).

 

am I stupid and dont know anything about how Windows/computers work?

[vega27]

yes! :tooth: LMAO @ this thread

[Ozy666]

no one said XP didnt support dual core. Just because your OS supports it doesn't mean it is worth a damn. Look at Windows64....it supports 64-bit...but how many programs actually take advantage? Thats right, none.

 

and right now Intel still kick's AMD's butt at encoding DivX/etc.

 

other than that, AMD cpu's are superior in everything.

 

 

 

am I stupid and dont know anything about how Windows/computers work?

 

I'm sorry, I added your two beginning statements together, but I still maintain that dual cores have some use. If you do ANY video encoding, you will be happier with dual core. If you do ANY significant multi-tasking, you will be happier with dual core. If you do ANY large compiling, you will be happier with dual core. If you do ANY 3D graphical rendering, you will be happier with dual core.

 

So, to say "but how many programs actually take advantage? Thats right, none. " is just flat out wrong.

 

The encoding DivX story is a bit out of date with the new dual cores:

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/stresstest/charts.html

 

And an even better example:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=6

 

Again, it demonstrates that dual cores have their place, even with current software.

 

However, if you're a hardcore gamer, dual cores won't currently do much for you.

 

I'm not trying to rant, or turn this into a flame war, or anything of the sort.

 

Ozy

[Protagonist.]

Look at Windows64....it supports 64-bit...but how many programs actually take advantage? Thats right, none.

I would just like to point out .NET framework, Java, Internet Explorer, Avast!, and Far Cry. There might even be a few others as well.