   Way over my head, buying a new PC
  I'm trying to design a new PC, to purchase by the end of January, and many doubts have surfaced:Q1) What is inside a Dual AMD 4800+ ? I know the AMD 4800+ is a Dual Core processor, but what cores does it hold? Two 2400 cores? Because I was thinking of buying the AMD single core 4000+.Q2) Is it advisable, all things being equal, to go for a VIVO enabled graphics card? Can I put a "Digital Video Recorder" system in place with a VIVO? What can I expect from a VIVO card?Q3) Will the 939 socket type be around for long? Or is it scheduled for an overhaul. Because I find solace in the fact that I can simply upgrade my PC by buying a new processor and a new graphics card.Thanks for the tips! [wink]   
  Think of dual cores sort of like a computer with two AMD 4800+ processors.  That's probably the easiest way to explain it.  (Technically, it's not really, but for simplistic reasons...)  The dual core AMD 4800 will be much faster than the single core 4000+, and depending on the program, may, or may not be faster than a single core 4800+.VIVO's alright, but not worth it imho, unless you do a lot of video editing.  And if you do, it's better to get professional tools.  Graphics look better with a TV that has HDMI or a DVI interface over SVideo & composite anyday, and input most likely will be composite, which doesn't look too hot with a high resolution.  (SVideo's a bit better, but not that great).And for right now, 939 won't be going anywhere.  If you plan on doing upgrading with the same motherboard for the next 3-5 years, that's another story, but you'd probably have to wait another year to upgrade.   ;  A1) the 4800+ is the same as having 2 4000+ san diego cores.  it has 2 2.4GHz physical cores with 1MB l2 cache each.  a 4000+ has a single 2.4GHz core with a 1MB l2 cache.  the 4800+ won't be faster in every case, only in multitasking and programs optimized for multiple threads of execution. A2) never had vivo, so i can't help there.A3) IIRC, AMD is going to move to socket M when they make DDR2 enabled processors.  it will still have 939 pins, but probably in a different arrangement.  I have no idea if they will continue to develop the regular 939 socket after that point.edit:  if you aren't adverse to a little overclocking, you can save yourself a LOT of money by buying a more middle of the run processor. the benefits you get for spending the extra $300 to from a 4400+ to a 4800+ is a slim 200MHz and can easily be reached.   ;Quote:A1) the 4800+ is the same as having 2 4000+ san diego cores. it has 2 2.4GHz physical cores with 1MB l2 cache each. a 4000+ has a single 2.4GHz core with a 1MB l2 cache. the 4800+ won't be faster in every case, only in multitasking and programs optimized for multiple threads of execution.Argh... the more I try to understand this, the more confused I get...You say that a 4000+ has a single 2.4Ghz core... well, if it is a 2.4Ghz processor, then why isnt it named AMD 2400+ ?Is it overclocked or somehow altered to deliver a performance we could call "4000+"?   ;Quote:Original post by ProzakYou say that a 4000+ has a single 2.4Ghz core... well, if it is a 2.4Ghz processor, then why isnt it named AMD 2400+ ?Because the name isn't based off of the processor speed. The AMD 2400+ is way diffrent then the 4000+, it is also way older.   ;Quote:Original post by ProzakQuote:A1) the 4800+ is the same as having 2 4000+ san diego cores. it has 2 2.4GHz physical cores with 1MB l2 cache each. a 4000+ has a single 2.4GHz core with a 1MB l2 cache. the 4800+ won't be faster in every case, only in multitasking and programs optimized for multiple threads of execution.Argh... the more I try to understand this, the more confused I get...You say that a 4000+ has a single 2.4Ghz core... well, if it is a 2.4Ghz processor, then why isnt it named AMD 2400+ ?Is it overclocked or somehow altered to deliver a performance we could call "4000+"?when buying a processor these days, you need to ignore the model numbers and stuff and just look at the specifications.  don't think about 2400+, think about the cache size (1MB may help over 512kB), core (i.e. venice is better than clawhammer because it has sse3), and clock rate (all else held equal, the higher the better).look here to compare all of the athlon 64's organized by their core.edit: i just took a peek at  this price guide to ponder a recommendation, when i realized they mentioned new processor lines being introduced by both AMD and INTEL very soon.  if you are concerned about future upgrades, you might want to wait a moment and see what they release.Quote:excerpt:We are expecting AMD to release a new series of processors in the very near future, but at the moment, we will not be able to discuss any of this information any further. As the time period approaches, expect us to make some comment about this.how long to wait is just a question of what "very near future" means.   ;  Don't pay too much attention to that last bit I'd say. They are always releasing newer and better processors. The 939 will do for now and as an upgrade path, though it might take a few years for 939 processors to come out that are significantly faster than the Dual Core 4800+. Even if they switch to a new one then 939 will be available as well. When the 939 line came out, AMD still manufactured, shipped and even designed a couple of new processors for the socket 754.   ;Quote:You say that a 4000+ has a single 2.4Ghz core... well, if it is a 2.4Ghz processor, then why isnt it named AMD 2400+ ?Because the rating isn't a simple function of clock speed. (If it was, they could just call it 2.4GHz and be done with it.But they also have to take into account how much cache the chip has, the speed of the hypertransport bus (socket 754 only had 800mhz, and so the rating was lower), as well as which particular revision of the chip it is, and even how well the chip scales. (If a 3ghz chip is only 10% faster than a 2.4ghz, then it should have a 10% higher rating. These particular numbers are 100% made up though)   ;  Ok... but not having a real number to hold on to, to define the speed of the processor is very confusing for me.So, how fast is the San Diego 4000+ when compared with one of the cores of the dual core 4800+ ? Are they almost the same in speed, but the single core will be a tad faster because the dual core has some overhead?   ;Quote:Original post by ProzakSo, how fast is the San Diego 4000+ when compared with one of the cores of the dual core 4800+ ? Are they almost the same in speed, but the single core will be a tad faster because the dual core has some overhead?No, if anything the dual core should be a little faster as each core can run a seperate thread, which in a multi-thread OS such as windows this will reduce the overhead. The only place this doesnt hold true is the 64FX line of processor, where in single thread mode (aka current games) it performs a bit better than the X2 in game situations.In real world terms, on a single thread application you probably wont see any difference. When it comes to a properly written Multi-thread program then the X2 holds all the aces with its two cores.As others have said, pay attension to the specs not the names, the names are just confusing at times [grin]   