4800+ vs FX57

[Kernel32]

I posted similar question in general hardware, but thought this would be more appropriate area.

Which of these would be better for gaming? I know there may not be much use yet for a dual core, but i was considering it for future games and apps. Would the 4800+ perform well with games?

 

[fatty4ksu]

fx-57.

 

[deanx0r]

The FX performs better than the X2 in games but only by a very slight margin compare to all the benefit you'd get from running dualcore in a multitasking environment.

I just got me an 3800 X2 last week and didn't feel it was that much faster than my 3 years old P4 3.06GHz with HT enabled. That was until I start using photoshop and run very heavy application like quickpar that I noticed the difference.

 

[dclapps]

@ deanx0r: how much faster could you repair or recreate the files using quickpar? I plan on jumping up to that x2 from my xp 2000, and quickpar bounces around depending on whether it's creating or repairing.

@ OP: fx-57 will be faster for games, but only marginally. I would say the x2 would be a better investment though, as it seems to be more future proof than the fx if games actually utilize dual-core. If not, then your just a bit off from that fx, but you've got some of the best multitasking capabilities around.

 

[deanx0r]

I tried to rebuild 200MB of data (from 4.7GB) with quickpar and it gaves me an ETA of 30 minutes at 800MB/s. But about 20 minutes into the process, the ETA stretched to 45 minutes!

I am not quite sure on what quickpar is dependant on, memory bandwidth, raw cpu power, or subsystem disk. My old P4 would probably take between 60 to 75 minutes to rebuild this (old school northwood P4 w/ 533FSB, 266DDR).

But here's the catch, even with HT enabled with the P4, and while quickpar is running: the system would lag so much that it would be unusable during the rebuild period. With the X2, I was still able to surf the net, watch movies etc...

 

[Kernel32]

thanks for the info.....i've only recently started comparing x2's with the FX procs.......sounds like dual core is the way to go.

 

[the splat in the hat]

l use my 4400+ for online games, and my fx55 for singleplayer offline games or lan parties....

 

[Bona Fide]

Go with the 4400+ unless you're hellbent against overclocking. Many can reach 2.6GHz, which would give you the power of dual FX-55's.

 

[Kernel32]

What about overclocking the 4800+? Possible?

 

[entropy1982]

why not just save a bunch of money and get a 3800+ people are getting like 2.7ghz with em and they cost 375 shipped as of today .... the extra cache doesn't help in games almost at all literally (1%)

 

[Kernel32]

what if i want to overclock the 4800? what kinda clock could i get out of it?

Also, i've never done any overclocking. Could you recommend a overclocking site?

 

[Bona Fide]

Originally posted by: Kernel32
What about overclocking the 4800+? Possible?

Possible, but I would say get the 4400+ and use the extra money on more RAM and a better video card.

 

[the splat in the hat]

it ll oc...
like most of em...without to many dramas...

 

[Kernel32]

i may also wait until January when (hopefully) the FX59 and 5000+ x2 come out.....this should lower prices on the 4800.

 

[fstime]

FX-57.

 

[Pabster]

You can make your X2 a 5000+ right now.

 

[Kernel32]

Well. lay it on me! I don't have any overclocking experience; do you have a link for any sites that may provides steps to doing this?

 

[uOpt]

How long do you plan the chip?

Do you overclock?

How much data safety do you require if you overclock?

%%

Not overclocked, the FX-57 will be faster for non-multithreaded applications for now, but not by much. Most benchmarks don't show the extra Megahertz to be very noticable.

And not only does the FX-57 start out only slightly faster, it might lose than speed advantage during the time you use it. If you use the chip you buy now for 2 years, then most applications will be out with multithreaded versions by then, giving the 4800+ a clear edge.

However, if you overclock, the FX-57 is better. First of all, having only one core it has a better statistical chance to reach a given overclock, since in the 4800+ the core which overclocks worse limits the whole thing.

Then, the FX-57 has the unlocked multiplier which enables you do overclock and test safer and in a more straightforward manner.

If you are willing to overclock you likely also use faster than DDR400 which normally doesn't do much for AMD64s, but in this case might help the FX-57 to show off its extra 200 or 400 Megahertz.

%%

Last but not least if you overclock the FX-57 is easier to test, to verify your overclock is safe. While running two Prime95 or SuperPi will do some basic testing the exact interactions of two overlocked cores are not very well understood. Alternate overlock testing such as FreeBSD's `make world` which I use to test hardware are not easily multithreadable and won't reliably load two cores. Running two at the same time chances the whole system dynamics and might invalidate the test run.

I also noticed that the final point of making an overclocked single-core chip in my testing sometimes is a `make world` simultaneously with a Mozilla build. Now transpose that to the SMP situation, how do you reliably put this dual load (actually alternating load per core) reliably on each core, at the same time?

Overall the FX-57 will not only overclock higher, it will do so much more safely.