How Does the New 4000+ Stack Up?
by Anand Lal Shimpion May 23, 2006 12:14 PM EST
- Posted in
- CPUs
83 Comments
|
83 Comments
IndexAM2 in DetailThe New Heatsink TrayEnergy Efficient AM2 CPUsThe Question on Everyone’s Mind: Is AM2 Faster?Does AM2 Reduce the Impact of L2 Cache Size?How Does the New 4000+ Stack Up?A New FXAthlon 64 X2 5000+: A Cheap FX or Overpriced 4800+?The Odd Multiplier IssuePower ConsumptionFinal Words
How Does the New 4000+ Stack Up?
Today AMD is also introducing a new X2, the Athlon 64 X2 4000+. Running at 2.0GHz but equipped with a 1MB L2 cache, the X2 4000+ fits nicely in between the X2 3800+ and the X2 4200+. Its pricing is also in between the two chips, coming in at $25 more than a X2 3800+ and $37 less than the X2 4200+.
The closest competition from Intel, after its recent price cuts, is the Pentium D 950. Clocked at 3.4GHz and armed with a 2MB L2 cache per core, the Pentium D 950 is priced at $316 in 1,000 unit quantities putting it in between the X2 4000+’s $328 and the X2 3800+’s $303 price tag.
3D Rendering — Cinebench 9.5
Our first benchmark is a 3D rendering test using Cinebench 9.5. We focused on the multi-threaded CPU rendering scores since we’re primarily testing dual-core CPUs here. The benchmark reports performance in its own Cinebench units, but the important thing is that higher numbers mean better performance.
Cinebench 9.5 shows absolutely no performance difference between the 3800+ and the 4000+, indicating that the 512KB of L2 cache per core is sufficient for the dataset used in this test (alternatively it could be that even a 1MB L2 cache isn’t big enough to hold the working dataset). The end result is that since the 3800+ and the 4000+ feature the same clock speed, in situations where a larger L2 cache isn’t helpful we’ll see absolutely no performance difference between the two processors. Combine this with the possibility that 512KB parts perform better on AM2 than they did on 939 and we start off seeing very little need to recommend the 4000+ over the cheaper 3800+.
3D Rendering — 3dsmax 7
Our next 3D rendering test has been around for a while on AnandTech, it’s the 3dsmax 7 SPECapc test that we’ve used in past CPU reviews. The results we’re reporting here are the SPECapc composite scores which are a geometric mean of four rendering tests and scaled against a set of reference scores that are included with the SPECapc benchmark package.
Once again we see basically no performance difference between the 3800+ and the 4000+, proving that clock speed is all that matters here with the Athlon 64 X2. Unlike the Cinebench test however, the Pentium D 950 is able to take the performance lead. Intel’s Pentium D architecture continues to be quite competitive in 3D rendering and media encoding tasks as we’re about to see.
Video Encoding — DivX 6.1.1 Pro
Next up to bat is DivX 6.1.1 Pro, once again a benchmark used in previous CPU reviews. Our testing methodologies haven’t changed, so let’s take a look at the results.
DivX performance is extremely strong with the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ and 3800+, but once again we see absolutely no performance difference between the two CPUs. Both AMD offerings are able to significantly outperform the Pentium D 950.
Video Encoding — Windows Media Encoder 9
While H.264 is the way of the future for video encoding, the vast majority of content today is still encoded in MPEG-2, DivX or using Microsoft’s Windows Media Encoder codecs. Just as in previous reviews we’re using the Advanced Profile enabled by installing Media Player 10 alongside WME9 which allows for better video quality options and as a result ends up stressing dual-core CPUs even more.
The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ manages to pull slightly ahead of the 3800+, but the two are basically tied. The Pentium D 950 is far more competitive in the WME9 test but isn’t tangibly faster than the X2 4000+.
Video Encoding — Quicktime Pro 7.0.4 (H.264)
Until we get support for GPU accelerated H.264 encoding and/or faster CPUs, the number of H.264 encoding applications will remain quite limited. Apple’s Quicktime Movie Trailers site has a great deal of H.264 encoded content and using Quicktime 7.0.4 you can generate the same quality, bitrate and file size of content. This is the same test we’ve run in the past, re-encoding the SD Quicktime movie trailer for Hoodwinked using the H.264 codec. All of the encoding settings were left at their defaults.
We continue to see a very small performance advantage for the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ but it’s nothing worth writing home about, the X2 3800+ is just as good. The Pentium D 950 continues to be a close competitor but definitely isn’t any faster than the two AMD solutions.
MP3 Encoding — iTunes 6. 0.1.4
Almost a decade ago MP3 playback and encoding could bring even the fastest system to its knees, but today we can encode a 300MB wav into a 192 kbps MP3 in far less than a minute. We left all settings on their defaults except that we did not allow iTunes to play back the song while importing.
Given the nature of MP3 encoding it’s not a surprise that there’s no performance difference between the 4000+ and 3800+, but there’s also no difference in performance between the AMD solutions and the Pentium D 950.
Gaming — Quake 4 1.1
With the later versions of Quake 4, id Software implemented multi-core support and we saw some pretty impressive performance gains on dual-core CPUs. As always we ran at the game’s built in High Quality settings at a resolution of 1024 x 768; SMP was of course enabled.
Just as we saw performance differences between AM2 and 939 in games, we see a difference between the 4000+ and 3800+ in these very same games. The fact that the AM2 platform sees a performance gain in 3D games indicates that they are noticeably more memory bandwidth dependent than other applications, and thus we see a benefit to the 4000+’s larger L2 cache. The Pentium D 950 does surprisingly well here, especially considering Intel’s very poor reputation for gaming performance.
Gaming — F.E.A.R.
With the graphics options set to F.E.A.R.’s default High Quality and the computer settings at Maximum, we ran the built in F.E.A.R. benchmark reporting average frame rate.
The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ holds a 6% performance advantage over the 3800+ thanks to its larger L2 cache, which continues to make a reasonable difference in our gaming tests. The Pentium D 950 is nipping at the heels of the 3800+, but the 4000+ is untouched at the top here.
Gaming — Oblivion
Our final gaming benchmark uses Oblivion at the same quality settings we used in our recent Oblivion CPU comparison, the only difference is that we ran at 1024 x 768 to make this more of a CPU test and less of a GPU test. We used our Oblivion Town benchmark and reported the average frame rate obtained using FRAPS.
As we saw in our Oblivion CPU comparison, this game really favors AMD’s K8 architecture for all of its strengths and severely penalizes the Pentium D for its NetBurst roots. The Athlon 64 X2 4000+ does continue to hold a performance advantage over the 3800+, but it isn’t as large in Oblivion as we’ve seen in the previous two games.
So How Does the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ Stack Up?
At the end of the day the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ is still a very nice CPU that doesn’t cost that much more than an X2 3800+; however, unless you’re a gamer, you can probably get by pocketing the difference and sticking with the extremely competent 3800+. This is one of the unfortunate consequences of AMD’s model number system, where a model number increase can be attributed to either a clock speed bump or an increase in cache size — the model number won’t always convey true performance.
Surprisingly enough, the Pentium D 950 is extremely competitive here. Since it’s built on Intel’s new 65nm process the CPU is actually fairly cool compared to Pentium Ds of the past. Competition is good, but with sometimes significantly higher gaming performance, the Athlon 64 X2 still gets our recommendation here.
Does AM2 Reduce the Impact of L2 Cache Size?
A New FX
IndexAM2 in DetailThe New Heatsink TrayEnergy Efficient AM2 CPUsThe Question on Everyone’s Mind: Is AM2 Faster?Does AM2 Reduce the Impact of L2 Cache Size?How Does the New 4000+ Stack Up?A New FXAthlon 64 X2 5000+: A Cheap FX or Overpriced 4800+?The Odd Multiplier IssuePower ConsumptionFinal Words
Tweet
PRINT THIS ARTICLE
Athlon 64 X2 4000+ [in 3 benchmarks]
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
Buy
- Interface
- Core clock speed
- Max video memory
- Memory type
- Memory clock speed
- Maximum resolution
Summary
AMD started AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ sales on May 2006. This is Windsor architecture desktop processor primarily aimed at office systems. It has 2 cores and 2 threads, and is based on 90 nm manufacturing technology, with a maximum frequency of 2000 MHz and a locked multiplier.
Compatibility-wise, this is AMD Socket AM2 processor with a TDP of 89 Watt.
It provides poor benchmark performance at
0.65%
of a leader’s which is AMD EPYC 7h22.
Athlon 64
X2 4000+
vs
EPYC
7h22
General info
Athlon 64 X2 4000+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and pricing.
Place in performance rating | 2586 | |
Value for money | 1. 45 | |
Market segment | Desktop processor | |
Architecture codename | Windsor (2006−2009) | |
Release date | May 2006 (16 years ago) | |
Current price | $80 | of 15411 (EPYC 7351) |
Value for money
To get the index we compare the characteristics of the processors and their cost, taking into account the cost of other processors.
- 0
- 50
- 100
Technical specs
Basic microprocessor parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters can generally indicate CPU performance, but to be more precise you have to review its test results.
Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | |
Threads | 2 | |
Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | of 5.8 (Core i9-13900K) |
L1 cache | 256 KB | of 1536 (EPYC Embedded 3401) |
L2 cache | 512K | of 12288 (Core 2 Quad Q9550) |
L3 cache | 0 KB | of 32768 (Ryzen Threadripper 1998) |
Chip lithography | 90 nm | of 5 (Apple M1) |
Die size | 220 mm2 | |
Number of transistors | 154 million | of 57000 (Apple M1 Max) |
64 bit support | + | |
Windows 11 compatibility | — |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon 64 X2 4000+ compatibility with other computer components and devices: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one.
Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | of 8 (Opteron 842) |
Socket | AM2 | |
Thermal design power (TDP) | 89 Watt | of 400 (Xeon Platinum 9282) |
Benchmark performance
Single-core and multi-core benchmark results of Athlon 64 X2 4000+. Overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
0.65
- Passmark
- GeekBench 5 Single-Core
- GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 69%
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
656
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 37%
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
195
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 37%
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
354
Relative perfomance
Overall Athlon 64 X2 4000+ performance compared to nearest competitors among desktop CPUs.
AMD Athlon II X2 260u
101.54
Intel Celeron J3060
101.54
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
100
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+
100
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400
98.46
AMD Athlon 64 FX-53
98.46
Intel Core 2 Duo E6320
96.92
Intel equivalent
We believe that the nearest equivalent to Athlon 64 X2 4000+ by Intel is Core 2 Duo E4400, which is slower by 2% and lower by 4 positions in our rating.
Core 2
Duo E4400
Compare
Here are some closest Intel rivals to Athlon 64 X2 4000+:
Intel Pentium D 950
103.08
Intel Pentium E2180
103.08
Intel Celeron J3060
101.54
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+
100
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400
98.46
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2160
96.92
Intel Core 2 Duo E6320
96.92
Similar processors
Here is our recommendation of several processors that are more or less close in performance to the one reviewed.
Athlon 64
FX-53
Compare
Core 2
Duo E4400
Compare
Athlon 64
3800+
Compare
Core 2
Duo E6320
Compare
Pentium Dual
Core E2160
Compare
Athlon 64
X2 4200+
Compare
Recommended graphics cards
These graphics cards are most commonly used with Athlon 64 X2 4000+ according to our statistics.
GeForce
9600 GT
4.1%
GeForce
6150 SE + nForce 430
3.7%
GeForce GT
630
3.7%
GeForce
210
3.5%
GeForce
9500 GT
3.5%
GeForce
8600 GT
3.2%
GeForce GT
730
3.1%
GeForce GT
710
3. 1%
GeForce GT
440
2.7%
GeForce
9800 GT
2.7%
User rating
Here is the rating given to the reviewed processor by our users. Let others know your opinion by rating it yourself.
Questions and comments
Here you can ask a question about Athlon 64 X2 4000+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
c — Technical City
c — Technical City
We couldn’t find such page: /en/cpu/athlon-64-x2-4000-plus%23general-info
Popular video cards comparisons
GeForce RTX
3060 Ti
vs
GeForce RTX
3060
GeForce RTX
2060
vs
GeForce RTX
3050 8 GB
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
vs
GeForce GTX
1650
GeForce RTX
3060 Ti
vs
GeForce RTX
3070
GeForce GTX
1660 Super
vs
GeForce RTX
3050 8 GB
GeForce RTX
2060 Super
vs
GeForce RTX
3060
Popular video cards
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
GeForce RTX
3090 Ti
Radeon RX
Vega 7
GeForce GTX
1650
GeForce RTX
3060
GeForce GTX
1060 6 GB
Popular CPU comparisons
Ryzen 5
5600X
vs
Core i5
12400F
Core i5
1135G7
vs
Ryzen 5
5500U
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Core i5
10400F
Ryzen 5
5600X
vs
Ryzen 5
5600G
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Ryzen 5
5600X
Ryzen 7
3700X
vs
Ryzen 5
5600X
Popular CPUs
Ryzen 5
5500U
EPYC
7h22
Core i3
1115G4
Core i5
1135G7
Ryzen 5
3500U
Ryzen 3
5300U
characteristics of the AMD Athlon 64 x2 4000+ (Brisbane) / overclockers.
ua
Name | Athlon 64 x2 4000+ (Brisbane) 9000 | Brisbane 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technic process, Nm | 65 SOI | |||||
connector | AM2 | frequency, MHz | 2100 | |||
multiplier | 10. | — | ||||
power voltage, in | 1.25 ~ 1.35 | |||||
TDP, W | 65 | |||||
Kolnovs of transistors, million | 221 | Square CROSTALL, AC . mm | 118 |
Geekbench 4 Single Core |
|
|||||
Geekbench 4 Multi-Core |
|
|||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Face Detection |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Ocean Surface Simulation |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop T-Rex |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop Bitcoin Mining |
|
|
Name | Meaning |
---|---|
Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 195 |
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 356 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection | 0. 912 mPixels/s |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation | 1.694 Frames/s |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex | 0.054 Frames/s |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining | 0.981 mHash/s |
Features
Architecture name | Windsor |
Issue date | May 2006 |
Place in the ranking | 2727 |
Applicability | Desktop |
Support 64 bit | |
Crystal area | 220mm |
Level 1 cache | 256KB |
Level 2 cache | 1024KB |
Process | 90nm |
Maximum frequency | 2 GHz |
Number of cores | 2 |
Number of transistors | 154 million |
Maximum number of processors in configuration | 1 |
Supported sockets | AM2 |
Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt |
Navigation
Select processor
Processor comparison
Compare AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ with other processors
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
versus
Intel
Pentium III 1133
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
versus
Intel
Pentium III 1000
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
versus
Intel
Celeron 2. 10
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
versus
AMD
Phenom X4 9500
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
versus
AMD
Phenom II X3 715 BE
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
versus
AMD
Athlon II X4 620e
Athlon 64 X2 4000+ [in 3 benchmarks]
AMD
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
- Interface
- Core frequency
- Video memory size
- Memory type
- Memory frequency
- Maximum resolution
Description
AMD started AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ sales in May 2006. This is Windsor architecture desktop processor primarily aimed at office systems. It has 2 cores and 2 threads and is manufactured in 90 nm process technology, the maximum frequency is 2000 MHz, the multiplier is locked.
In terms of compatibility, this is an AMD Socket AM2 processor with a TDP of 89W.
It provides poor benchmark performance at
0.65%
from the leader, which is AMD EPYC 7h22.
Athlon 64
X2 4000+
or
EPYC
7h22
General information
Information about the type (desktop or laptop) and architecture of the Athlon 64 X2 4000+, as well as when sales started and cost at that time.
Features
Athlon 64 X2 4000+ quantitative parameters such as number of cores and threads, clock speeds, manufacturing process, cache size and multiplier lock state. They indirectly speak about the performance of the processor, but for an accurate assessment, you need to consider the results of the tests.
Core | 2 | ||
Threads | 3 0011 Compatible with Windows 11 | — |
Compatible
Information on Athlon 64 X2 4000+ compatibility with other computer components. Useful, for example, when choosing the configuration of a future computer or to upgrade an existing one.
Please note that the power consumption of some processors can significantly exceed their nominal TDP even without overclocking. Some may even double their claims if the motherboard allows you to adjust the power settings of the processor.
Overall performance in tests
This is our overall performance rating. We regularly improve our algorithms, but if you find any inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in the comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
0.65
- Passmark
- GeekBench 5 Single-Core
- GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widely used benchmark that consists of 8 different tests, including integer and floating point calculations, extended instruction tests, compression, encryption, and game physics calculations. Also includes a separate single-threaded test.
Benchmark coverage: 69%
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
656
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real-world tasks that can be used to accurately measure performance. This version uses only one processor core.
Benchmark coverage: 37%
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
195
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can accurately measure performance. This version uses all available processor cores.
Benchmark coverage: 37%
Athlon 64 X2 4000+
354
Relative capacity
Athlon 64 X2 4000+ overall performance compared to its nearest competitor desktop processors.
AMD Athlon II X2 260u
101.54
Intel Celeron J3060
101.54
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
100
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+
100
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400
98.46
AMD Athlon 64 FX-53
98.46
Intel Core 2 Duo E6320
96.92
Competitor from Intel
We believe that the nearest equivalent to Athlon 64 X2 4000+ from Intel is Core 2 Duo E4400, which is slower by 2% on average and lower by 4 positions in our rating.
Core 2
Duo E4400
Compare
Here are some of Intel’s closest competitors to the Athlon 64 X2 4000+:
Intel Pentium D 950
103. 08
Intel Pentium E2180
103.08
Intel Celeron J3060
101.54
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+
100
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400
98.46
Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2160
96.92
Intel Core 2 Duo E6320
96.92
Other processors
Here we recommend several processors that are more or less similar in performance to the reviewed one.
Athlon 64
FX-53
Compare
Core 2
Duo E4400
Compare
Athlon 64
3800+
Compare
Core 2
Duo E6320
Compare
Athlon 64
X2 4200+
Compare
Pentium Dual
Core E2160
Compare
Recommended video cards
According to our statistics, these video cards are most often used with Athlon 64 X2 4000+:
GeForce
9600 GT
4. 1%
GeForce
6150 SE + nForce 430
3.7%
GeForce GT
630
3.7%
GeForce
210
3.5%
GeForce
9500 GT
3.5%
GeForce
8600 GT
3.2%
GeForce GT
730
3.1%
GeForce GT
710
3.1%
GeForce GT
440
2.7%
GeForce
9800 GT
2.7%
User rating
Here you can see the evaluation of the processor by users, as well as put your own rating.