Originally Posted by GatorLCA
Thanks guys, I was looking at some benches for X2's and regular 64's and the 4000+ beat the 4200+ X2 in a few categories during gameplay and when it did it wasn't by substantial amount of FPS.
If I were to OC the 3800+ which is 2.0GHz to 2.2GHz it would essentially be comparible to the 4200+ Manchester which is much better in multi-tasking than the single cores but only a slight disadvantage in FPS during gameplay.
I know in the article it only shows it at 1024x768 and my res is 1280x1024 but I dont think that it's going to strain it much more
I guess if you can, look over that page, and determine if I should really just go for the 4000+ Sandi (or Clawhammer) or the 3800+ X2 and then OC it to 2.2GHz or maybe 2.4GHz.
Also, this was the multitasking while gaming, which on my desktop I usually have a lot of programs running, though I try to close all of them since BF2 is a hog with memory, the FPS looks really well when running some programs, including Anti-Virus/Firewall software and it seems that it doesn't hinder performance all that much compared to even the FX-55.
Still in a bind, I've seen some people on BF2 forums with the 3800 X2 and they love it, and if it can OC to 2.4GHz, hell even 2.2GHz I think it might be worth it for the time being since I do a lot of editing, internet, video along with gaming.
I know in a few months or a year they'll be cheaper but I'm looking for something that can do everything well overall rather than one-sided, and Im pretty sure either teh 4000+ Sandi/Clawhammer or 3800+ X2 will be faster than my 3.0GHz Prescott