• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FX-57 or X2 for Gaming System

x2. soon games will really take advantage of 2 threads for physics and whatnot.

obviously the 4800 if you can afford it, but if yuo cant, just oc the 4400.
 
4400X2. I don't think the 4800 is worth nearly twice as much as the 4400. Also while the fx57 is cool I think the X2 is just a much better chip.
 
I voted on the X2 4800+, because I expect you have money to burn, since you asked this question in the first place. In a not too distant future, games will be multi-threaded, and you'll benefit from a dualcore processor, then.

However, if you really have money to burn, and don't mind upgrading, I'd go with the FX-57 and an extreme cooling solution, and overclock it like hell. Since it has an unlocked multiplier, there's no hard thing about it. I'm not sure how high it goes, but it's at 14 now. Then, when games get multithreaded, get a dualcore processor and sell the FX, or re-use it. 😀
 
You could got the cheaper route and get a 4200+ and overclock it 😉

I am eying that 4200+ and just waiting for the right time to build my new system.
 
With the cost and the chace you can OC to that high anyways it is a NOOOOOO brainer....If I remember the reviews the 4800+ at TechReport seemed to have beat the 2.6ghz FX55 in some of the games and showed to me what looks like a hint of multithreading ability now....I know the toledos have core enancements but I think the cpu task manager graphs may have shown something a tad bit more...
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
You could got the cheaper route and get a 4200+ and overclock it 😉

I am eying that 4200+ and just waiting for the right time to build my new system.
Click to expand...

Yeah but for the little extra money you can get 2x1Mb of cache Toledo core, over the 2x512Kb's of cache for the manchester core.. and for the money that you are going to be spending you might aswell do a proper job, i mean it is only a little bit more and you get an extra meg of cache ..
 
Voting X2 4800+, because 1) I am getting one and trying to justify it to myself 😉 and 2) it is a similar price comparison (both seem to be ~$1000+/-)
 
Originally posted by: Vegitto
It all depends on the kind of money you're willing to spend, mate.
Click to expand...



both the FX57 and 4800+ are plus 1000 so they seem comparable in price...

Yes you could get the 4400+ and try to oc further but I have only seen a handful up to 2.8ghz so far and most of them have been 4800+s...better liklihood anyways, and if you were thinking of spending that cash before....

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=5


here is the link....It may be multithreaded to like the tune of 0-5% of the second core...however it just seems odd the 4800+ at 2.4ghz would beat the 2.6ghz when most of the venice and san diego core revisions didn't help that much from reviews that I saw.....

Is there a cance that though single core the cpu may have access to the other cores cache or that the cache is more free becuase of the idle core and it cache???
 
Well with overclocking, it's still all luck of the draw. But for pure gaming performance, I would go with the FX57 which could possibly hit the magical 3Ghz on air AMD.
 
I had the same delima.

I choose the FX, mainly because I spend most of my time on games for two reasons;

1. Little or no multi-threaded support in games currently.

2. No nVidia drivers so support multi-threaded games currently.

Starting in 2006 my decision would be dual core since the games and drivers will begin appearing that will utilize the dual core.
 
If I remember the reviews the 4800+ at TechReport seemed to have beat the 2.6ghz FX55 in some of the games
Click to expand...

Not fair Duvie.. you're comparing a first rev clawhammer to rev 4 dual core with improved mem controller and half the power disapation.. Well, FX-57 has the same Rev 4 mem controller and improved cache handing now as X2's got..
 
Originally posted by: vlad4
I had the same delima.

I choose the FX, mainly because I spend most of my time on games for two reasons;

1. Little or no multi-threaded support in games currently.

2. No nVidia drivers so support multi-threaded games currently.

Starting in 2006 my decision would be dual core since the games and drivers will begin appearing that will utilize the dual core.
Click to expand...


The point I am trying to make here is that I don't regularly drop $700-$1,000 on cpus, and if I DO decide to buy either a FX or X2 series chip, I want it to last and serve my needs for quite some time (past "2006"). So if the computing world is gradually moving towards multi-threaded applications/games and 64 bit capable software, then I would want to buy the chip that fits the bill the best....not necessarily the one that just rules the gaming world. I have always liked and wanted a Athlon64 FX, but now with all you guys hyping the X2's, etc etc etc....I don't know which will serve me the best. I'll check out the review that Zebo posted I guess. :/
 
Buy the 4400+ and get a 400 dollar top of the line watercooled rig if you want to spend 1100 dollars for a processor.

4400+ at 620
Incredible watercooling rig from Danger Den 400 dollars. Overclock to 2800 to 2900 and call it a day.

Hell, look for a refurbished used phase change unit for 500-600 dollars buy the 4400+ and hit 3000 for 1100 dollars.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
You're an idiot go back to tomshardware.
Click to expand...

I'll take that to mean you could not find a link any benchmarks showing a $1017 FX57 significantly faster than a $260 3500+ @ 1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top