How much of a difference is there in the AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3700 and the AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3800?
141540
It depends on whether you're comparing the 3700+ with a single or dual core 3800+.\n\nIn single core formation there isn't much of a difference between the two. The performance difference of the dual core over the single can be significant, however.
618371
There is no Athlon 64x2 3200+, the lowest end Athlon 64x2 is a 3800+ with two cores running at 2.0GHz.  First of all, the socket 939 motherboards only support up to PC3200 so you're fine there.  It's true that a single application can only use one core at a time but Windows can split different applications between the two cores.  Like all your background stuff (firewall, anti-virus and so on) run on one core and if you're playing a game, it runs on the other core so one doesn't slow the other down.  If you do a lot of multi-tasking a dual core will speed things up because put simply half will be running on one core and half on the other.  But if you only run one or two applications at a time then a single core is probably best.  An argument can be made for both, single cores are good for now.  But when multi-threaded applications come out at the end of this year and next year a single core will begin to show its age, oh it'll still run them without the multithreading but you'll see a performance decrease for sure.  I reccomend taking a look at Tomshardware and seeing which processor you like best (but keep in mind all these applications are single threaded so they slow the dual cores down, had they been multithreaded the dual cores would have appeared faster), http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page24.html
52421
There's no contest, dual or single core, the Athlon 64 is by far the best of the bunch. If you want the best, choose an AMD Athlon 64 in dual core formation.
1073775
The AMD Athlon is better for gaming..and the Intel Pentium is better for multi-tasking stuff..so its up to you..go by what you plan to do the most with your computer
1001053
when pc games say they require "2.4ghz" they are refering to intel's way of measuring the processor. an x2 3800+ should have no problem handling ANYTHING you throw at it today.\n\nfor pc games nowadays, you need more video card power than cpu power. therefore, most gamers invest most of their cash into the video card than the cpu.\n\nsomeone mentioned above that 3800+ is the eqiuvalent of an intel 3.8ghz...not correct. a lot of the amd fans like to say that because yes, the performance [was] A LOT better. intel's newer dual core presler is about the equivalent (a bit slower but easily overclockable) of their corresponding amd parts....and amd is going in their pants at the sight of conroe core coming out in July.\n\nthe cnet review someone posted earlier was of intel's older dual core smithfields. and yes, those were hot running and horrible.
600567
AMD Athlon 64fx\n\nworld's ultimate processor for PC enthusiasts\nFeaturing the world’s most advanced processor technology, the AMD Athlon™ 64 FX processor is the first Windows®-compatible 64-bit PC processor designed specifically for PC enthusiasts. The AMD Athlon™ 64 FX enables enthusiasts to immerse themselves in their digital world. You can play games at a level previously only reserved for the world of simulations or create and manipulate digital media like a pro.\n\nAMD Athlon 64\n\nSimultaneous 32-bit and 64-bit computing\nGet powerful performance for your unique digital experience. It’s not just about email, Web browsing and word processing anymore. The AMD Athlon™ 64 processor gives you leading performance to go wherever your digital world takes you.
512562
basically it depends on ones need.\nits the processor cycle speed and RAM size which really matters.\np4 2.66 ghz can work slow compare to amd 3.0 ghz.\nbut i feel for one desktop machine 256 mb RAM and p4 2.66ghz is better.
576281
It all depends upon your processor [CPU]. If you have a x86 based machine then is is tough to go wrong with i386. ia64 is if you have a Itanium based CPU.. The rest are all for different computer architectures.
1009461
AMD Processors and Intel Pentium 4's are two popular processors. They are different in internal structure but both function under Windows.\n\nHow are they different?\n\nAMD has shorter pipelines than Intel. In short, this gives a minimal advantage to repetitive tasks, which gives Intel chips a small advantage. But, most tasks like gaming or other processor intensive tasks are not predictive and change frequently. This gives AMD a huge advantage for gaming. Some $300 AMD's outperform $1000 Intels.\n\nAlso, AMD's are generally better bang to the buck (value), which makes them more attractive.\n\nIn short? Either will run Windows, and either processor should serve you well for internet browsing, email and word processing. But if you are a power user or a gamer, AMD is the way to go.
13617
AMD not just for the value but for superior performance as well.  The latest generation of AMD Athlons completely shredded Intels offerings.  The fastest AMD chip currently is the Athlon 64 FX-57 series followed by the FX-55 series.  Just behind those are the AMD 64 4000+ and the AMD 64x2 4800+.  See the link for a benchmark comparisons of 77 processors, notice how all the ones at the top are AMD processors.  Intel chips are, lacking to say the least.\n\nI'm into gaming so for gamers there is no better choice than AMD.\n\nI'll let the benchmark speak for itself.
406528
THERE PRETTY CLOSE ON SOME BENCHMARKS GO WITH ONE RAP ONE SATA RAID 1 IF U DONT GAME GO WITH ATHLON X2 GREAT CHIP I HAVE 4200 BUT THEY HAVE 3800 CLOSE TOO THE SAME PRICE AS YOUR 3700 AT NEWEGG.COM
5387
If you rate speed by Ghz then, yes, your brother's computer is faster by 200 mhz.  Note, however, that your Athlon64 has more cache and faster bus speed which should translate in running programs faster.
292470
AMD is better overall, lower power usage, price/performance, and better for multitasking. The benchmarks prove it, just Google AMD vs Intel. Even better, most AMD systems are cheaper than Intel systems. I agree with the poster below, go for Athlon 64 for the best performance.
890703
AMD is better cos they are usaully 64 bits where as celeron are 32bit
162845
The only diffence in the celeron from the pentium is on chip cache size. The Pentium has twice as much cache memory. Same thing goes with the AMD Sempron it has less cache than the Athlon line.
286003
64bit processors have the ability to run 64 bit operating systems(i.e. windows xp pro 64bit), and use 64 bit applications. 64 bit allows more system memory, among other things. Yeah the fx55 amd is over $1000 and is "only" 2.6ghz. But it is the fastest cpu in existance right now, so that "justifies" it's price. It beats an intel 3.8ghz. A 64bit 1.8ghz cpu, which is equivalent to a p4 3ghz is about $150. Not that expensive, and way cheaper than intel's new 64 bit chips.
470010
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1674&cid=2&pg=4\nhttp://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/index.php?page=pchelp#1\n\n"The type of customer (based on our own findings) who generally chooses and AMD Athlon64 processor will be looking for a computer for gaming, movies and home entertainment."\n\n"The type of customer (based on our own findings) who generally chooses and Intel Pentium processor will be looking for a computer for video editing, photo editing and number crunching tasks."\n\nI can't find all the reviews I've seen but from what I have It look likes the AMD is definitely the way to go, I'm guessing you want it for normal home use.\n\nI have just bought an AMD 4800 and i'm very happy :D.