Athlon FX-57 or X2 4400

[ramj70]

This upgrade will have to last me at least a year, maybe little more. I have a 8800GTS 320MB card and Asus A8N5X mobo which I just ordered. I'm keeping my 2GB pc3200 from my old system which is why I am sticking with the 939. A good friend offered to sell me his FX-57 for $150.00. However should I get the dual core 4400 instead? Since dual core is where everything is headed, would it be best to get the 4400 or stick with the single core FX-57. I use my computer for gaming and I don't multi-task. I've heard newer games will make better use out of dual core, so would the 4400 help me more in the long run? I get more confused as I read more about this stuff. Thanks for any help!

 

[myocardia]

Whether you go dual core or not is up to you. But if you don't buy that FX-57, I will.

 

[HannibalX]

If you plan to stick with WinXP and don't multitask, go with the FX.

 

[yh125d]

since you dont o/c, the fx is an obvious choice. the x24400 is about equivalent to a single core 4000 in games.

 

[Boyo]

If you are going to OC and do a lot of multitasking on your rig, then you should definitely get the X2 4400. But if you aren't using your rig for those purposes, then get with the FX. I hope you do OC that FX.

 

[ramj70]

Thanks everyone for your replies and it seems the consensus is to get the FX-57 so I will stick with that. Sorry myocardia I probably will try and OC the FX a some Boyo

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: yh125td
since you dont o/c, the fx is an obvious choice. the x2 4400 is about equivalent to a single core 4000 in games.

Actually, it's identical in speed to a 3700 in single-threaded apps: 2.2 Ghz & 1MB L2 cache.

 

[tallman45]

Wheather you realize it or not you may not be multitasking but your OS is. Do not run a thing, and go check the active processes, there will be 40 or more that are always running.

At this point not doing to Dual core on an upgrade is not a great idea

 

[ImageRoc]

I got an AMD FX-55 overclocked to 2.8 so basically it a FX-57.
I tell ya what, I wish I would of just pick up a 3800+ and o'c ed instead of having the FX-55.
X2 4400+ might not be a bad choice at least its dual core.

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: yh125td
since you dont o/c, the fx is an obvious choice. the x2 4400 is about equivalent to a single core 4000 in games.

Actually, it's identical in speed to a 3700 in single-threaded apps: 2.2 Ghz & 1MB L2 cache.

No it isn't the 4400 has twice the L1 cache of the 3700. Check out some of these charts
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=478&model2=486&chart=187

The 4000's extra .2 gHz makes up for its L1 cache, so in nearly all tests, the 4000 was closer to the x2 4400 than the 3700

 

[firebyyrd]

Why buy a FX-57, when a 4000+ runs on FX-57 speeds, :]

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: yh125d

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: yh125td
since you dont o/c, the fx is an obvious choice. the x2 4400 is about equivalent to a single core 4000 in games.

Actually, it's identical in speed to a 3700 in single-threaded apps: 2.2 Ghz & 1MB L2 cache.

No it isn't the 4400 has twice the L1 cache of the 3700. Check out some of these charts
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=478&model2=486&chart=187

The 4000's extra .2 gHz makes up for its L1 cache, so in nearly all tests, the 4000 was closer to the x2 4400 than the 3700

Haha, no wonder you're confused-- Tom's has never known what they're talking about. Try checking with AMD; the 3700 is 2.2 Ghz, with 1 MB of L2 cache, like I said to begin with.

edit: I retract that statement about Tom's. They're pretty decent at testing video cards, they just don't seem to know much about cpu's, it seems.