FX-57 or X2 for Gaming System

[Markfw]

Well I think that games will be multi-threaded soon, so the OC'ed 4400+ (I have two, so I know) is the way to go ! And in the meantime, run 2 F@H !!

 

[hardwareuser]

Will games really be developed to be multi-threaded soon? Doesn't it take a few years to develop a game?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Mirko

Originally posted by: Zebo
You're an idiot go back to tomshardware.

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.

No, you are an idiot and need to go back to Toms Hardware. 😛

If you're looking for the absolute best gaming processor money can buy, it is the FX57 hands down, no questions asked. Nobody asked about whether or not it is worth the performance, not even the OP.

Never was this a question of price/performance or even noticable performance. Benches prove the FX57 to be the fastest in gaming, and unlocked multis up and down make it attractive to enthusiasts as well.

However people are giving their own opinions as to what they'd want because the OP didn't exactly make things crystal clear in what the needs or desires are.

I'd obviously want the 4400+ for the dual core, extra cache, and the fact that it is nearly half the price of either the 4800+ or FX57. Seeing as how I'd definately overclock it, I probably wouldn't miss much either and would do more than fine for my games and most likely be a little more future proof for games as well.

HOWEVER futureproof is the most retarded term I've ever heard associated with computer hardware. By the time multithreaded games are on the scene in force, I'll probably already be itching to upgrade again, most likely to a quad core or something.

But for the here and now, a 2.6 X2 would be incredibly awesome. Heck 2.2 would work just fine. It'd easily be enough for gaming and would allow me the extra processing power I know I could take advantage of.

However the OP didn't post specifics, the only thing remotely close to specific is the fact that he is asking about games. And in the here and now where it counts 99%, the FX57 is the obvious fastest choice for game. Does that make it the best choice? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[amking]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You're an idiot go back to tomshardware.

LMAO

 

[amking]

Originally posted by: Zebo
FX57...less heat and faster and adjustable multipliers for lots of fun. I dunno why people are so excited about 4800's most will not use them proper or need them. A single core A64 multitasks just fine for 95% of users and FX57 nothing can touch in game or just about anything else that's not multithreads.. go look at reviews.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-fx57/index.x?pg=1

THIS is what I was mentioning in my earlier post: http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-fx57/index.x?pg=16

"But I must unleash my spiel, because I really, really would prefer even an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ to the FX-57 for my main system. I play games on that system, sure, but an Athlon 64 X2 at 2.2 or 2.4GHz is plenty potent for real-world gaming. Heck, with the Pentium 4 sucking wind like it is in most games, developers may be forced to keep CPU requirements at a minimum until they make the transition to multithreaded gaming engines. Even before that transition comes in earnest, we may see multithreaded graphics drivers that negate the FX-57's present advantage in gaming performance. Dual-core processors arguably offer better future proofing than the FX-57, as well.

Beyond that, dual-core processors are simply newer and better products. The results from our test suite, which is admittedly loaded up with multithreaded applications, leave no doubt about that. We're testing the same basic mix of application types that we've tested for years now, and many of them benefit greatly from having a second CPU core onboard. The Pentium D 820 sells for under a quarter the cost of the FX-57, yet it gave the FX-57 a run for its money in a number of scenarios on the preceding pages. More importantly, the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ is a wondrous thing?and still the fastest CPU you can drop into a 939-pin socket. If you must sink a grand into the purchase of a new CPU, for Pete's sake, let it be the X2 4800+ and not the FX-57. Your multithreaded performance will be better, and your quotient of creamy smoothness for multitasking will rise exponentially."

 

[Avalon]

Neither - I'm a poor, sad bastard 😛

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Mirko

Originally posted by: Zebo
You're an idiot go back to tomshardware.

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.

1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF?
It's not a video card test but a processor test it will be the exact same differential as 600x800 with sli setup. I don't need to show it. Any moron knows this to be the case, the processors doing the same amount of work at any res. It's like asking to show sky is blue. Lower the processor speed by 20% and you will lower your scores by somewhere around 20% as long as you're not video card bottlenecked in one of the tests.

Why don't you think about why all reviewers crank way down the res when doing processor tests?

 

[amking]

so what about the excerpt i posted........thoughts anyone?

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Mirko

Originally posted by: Zebo
You're an idiot go back to tomshardware.

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.

1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF?
It's not a video card test but a processor test it will be the exact same differential as 600x800 with sli setup. I don't need to show it. Any moron knows this to be the case, the processors doing the same amount of work at any res. It's like asking to show sky is blue. Lower the processor speed by 20% and you will lower your scores by somewhere around 20% as long as you're not video card bottlenecked in one of the tests.

Why don't you think about why all reviewers crank way down the res when doing processor tests?

I think you sort of missed the point there. He's saying if you want to run in resolutions where the video card is the bottleneck, why are you spending so much on a CPU that is not going to help ?

As far it goes, it's a reasonable sentiment - I don't think there is *anyone* who could provide a convincing argument that would let the FX-57 even appear on the price/performance scale. Then again, it's also kind of pointless to complain about things like that in a thread with this title ;p

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: amking
so what about the excerpt i posted........thoughts anyone?

For myself, I agree with it. The times when I would shut down all applications, trim excess windows services and run the game and only the game are long gone. Winamp, trillium, azureus, firefox, mirc, encoders, dvd burning software - I don't use them all the time, but often enough that to shut them down in order to game optimally would be a major inconvenience.

Call it laziness or lack of attention span, but a slightly slower dual core processor is much more suited for my uses than a topline single processor.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
4400+ and OC to 2.6 !

winner

or if going for single core get a cheap venice and o/c

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: hardwareuser
Will games really be developed to be multi-threaded soon? Doesn't it take a few years to develop a game?

yup, and the UT2K7 egine has been underway for some time.

 

[StrangerGuy]

A X2 4400+ is more than fast enough for every single game out there. Yes, I know the FX-57 gives you 10% more frames in games, but once you factor in the far superior X2 multitasking performance and multi-threaded software even the lowest X2 eats the FX for lunch.

 

[imported_Frallan]

The 4400+ and with the saved cash U can pay about 70% of a phasechange cooler...

So 4400+; Vapo; 2*1 GB ans 4* hitachi SATA2s... GC Ull have to chose according to your religion 😀

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

Is there a list of motherboards that have X2 Dual-Core support bios?

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
Is there a list of motherboards that have X2 Dual-Core support bios?

Most.. Check your motherboards bios updates. All three of my 939 boards are updated to use a dual-core, and I have tried it on all three, even though only 2 are using it now. I would say the odds are very good that 99% have it, or will have support in the next month or two. What board do you have ?

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

okay, i was thinking bout which cheap X2 mobo to buy and i dont need SLI. Maybe ill go for a Gigabyte.

 

[Icepick]

Of the choices presented I'd choose the 4400+. I doubt anyone would be able to see a performance difference between the mid-range and high-end processors of any generation. I'd rather go with the versatility of dual core and sacrifice a few hundred MHz at stock.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

I would have chosen the 4400+ but you gave me the choice of "neither" in that poll, and, right this second, I think the money is better spent on a 3000+ Venice. Overclock the livin snot out of it, and match it with a great deal on a 6800GT or a GTX if you dare.

I imagine my answer would change a lot if you gave more details regarding how often you upgrade, if you multitask ALOT, your budget, monitor type, desired resolution/details to game at, etc.

Take away the "Neither" option and my choice is the 4400+.

 

[amking]

Well.....here's the old ongoing list I've had as I've bought parts, etc:

MOBO: ASUS A8N-SLI Premium nForce 4 (Socket 939)

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4 GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache, Toledo Core (90 nm)

OR

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 2.8 GHz, 1 MB L2 Cache, San Diego Core (90 nm)

HEATSINK: Thermalright XP-90

CPU FAN: Vantec "Tornado" 92mm Fan

HD: WD Raptor 74 GB 10,000RPM SATA Hard Drive x TWO (RAID 0 -- OS)

HD: WD 300 GB 7,200 RPM SATA Hard Drive x TWO (RAID 0 -- Movie Storage for Pinnacle Showcenter.....MIGHT go SATA II now)

HD: WD 200 GB 7,200 RPM SATA Hard Drive (Mass Storage)

HD: WD 80 GB 7,200 RPM IDE Hard Drive (Backup drive used by Norton Ghost)

CASE: Lian Li "PC-75B" Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Case

FANS: Vantec "Tornado" 80mm Chassis Fan x TWO

RAM: CORSAIR XMS Pro Xtra-Low Latency, 2-2-2-5 DDR400, 512MB x 4 = 2 GB

PSU: Enermax 600W NoiseTaker EG-701AX-VE SFMA 2.0

GPU: ASUS 256 MB GeForce 6800 GT x TWO (SLI)

OR

GPU: ASUS or BFG 256 MB GeForce 7800 GTX x TWO (SLI)

SOUND: Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Pro Platinum

DVD+-R/RW: Sony DRU-720A DVD Burner

CD-R/RW: Sony CRX230E1B2 CD Burner

DVD-ROM: Sony DDU1613 DVD-ROM

VFD: Matrix Orbital MX532 VFD Baybus Display (matrixorbital.com)

CONTROLLER: Vantec NXP-305-BK Fan and Light Controller

READER: LIAN-LI USB 2.0 7-in-1 Card Reader

FLOPPY: SONY MPF920 Floppy Disk Drive

IDE CABLE: 36" Vantec IDE Rounded Cable

IDE CABLE: 24" Vantec IDE Rounded Cable

FLOPPY CABLE: Vantec 18" Sliver Floppy Cable

PCI-E CABLE: Included with power supply x TWO

SATA CABLE: Random right angle cables x TWO (already from work)

LIGHTING: 12" x TWO Cold Cathode Blue Light Kit (included with controller)

OS: MS XP Professional OEM (already have)

THERMAL COMPOUND: Arctic Silver Ceramique High Density Thermal Compound

BEZELS: Lian Li Brushed Aluminum Bezels (If needed)

MONITER: Viewsonic G22fb 22" CRT Moniter (might get...might not)



I know the list seems excessive, I was just pasting the "check list" I already had running because I'm lazy........I have a LOT of the parts from older systems (like the HD's and all the optical drives/cabling/etc). The more I cruise around different forums and look at reviews, the more I just want to get a FX-55/57 and a couple of 7800's and be done with it, however I think a X2 chip would be the "better buy", if you could call any of these choices that.....money isnt the biggest constraint here so whatever.

 

[amking]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
I would have chosen the 4400+ but you gave me the choice of "neither" in that poll, and, right this second, I think the money is better spent on a 3000+ Venice. Overclock the livin snot out of it, and match it with a great deal on a 6800GT or a GTX if you dare.

I imagine my answer would change a lot if you gave more details regarding how often you upgrade, if you multitask ALOT, your budget, monitor type, desired resolution/details to game at, etc.

Take away the "Neither" option and my choice is the 4400+.

oops just realized I really didn't respond to your questions.....just woke up and half read your post so I just pasted something I had already written.... 😱


well the idea behind this system originally was to build a system to "end all systems" for myself....I've already gone through a couple different A64's and just kind of decided that I wanted to go all out. I do tend to game more than the average person I'd say (or at least I used to...but I've been on and off of a laptop as I've sold systems to pay for the new SLI one, so I havent really played lately). The original purpose was going to be more gaming oriented, but the more reviews and benchmarks I read, the more I begin to think that a X2 would serve me better as everything migrates towards multithreading/64 bit games & software...(keep in mind that the point of building this system is so that I DONT have to go grab a bunch of new components NEXT year (for example)). Well i'm gonna stop rambling and go lay back down...last thing I'd say to answer your questions would be that I would obviously want to run every game at the max possible settings if I were to complete the system listed above.

Comments are appreciated...zzzzzzzzzzzz back to sleep.

 

[Jeff7181]

I'd go with an X2. The FX-57 is king in terms of single threaded performance. But it won't be long before lots of software is multi-threaded. When that happens, it will be impossible for the FX-57 to keep pace with an X2. The difference between a 2.8 GHz A64 and a 2.4 GHz A64 is apparent, but not extremely significant. In other words... you won't be able to play a game on a 2.8 GHz A64, but not on a 2.4 GHz A64. However, when real multi-threaded applications show up, there will be things you can do on two 2.4 GHz cores that you can't do very well on a single 2.8 GHz core.

 

[fishbits]

X2 4800, since in this hypothetical we're considering an FX-57 and are willing to spend $1000 on a CPU. That's even without taking future multi-threaded games into account. The 57 is the better gamer, the 4800 the better multi-tasker... but the 4800 is far better at gaming than the 57 is at multitasking. And no, I don't typically do a lot of multi-tasking nor rely on it professionally, but it would be worth it for when I do, or just the overall improvement to smoothness/responsiveness.

I don't want gaming to take hits because something twitched in the background. I don't want to worry about what kind of hit my fps is taking because I'm listening to a stream on the web, or using teamspeak or the like. I want to be able to alt-tab out of a game and check something on an open web browser without the browser hanging there for a long while.

For me personally, the 4400, especially if I were an overclocker. Probably the 4400 if I were to get an X2 soon-ish, but the 4800 later if it gets to current 4400 prices in a reasonable time frame. Since I've got an A64 3500 now, leaning on waiting. Although... I keep hearing the difference in cache between 4200/4400 4600/4800 doesn't really matter so much for a primarily gaming rig. So maybe I will look at a 4600 later on if there's 100+ savings to be had. Someone's gotta buy em! 😛

Edit: Crud, I got that backwards. Extra cache apparently is a lot better for say games than compared to say encoding. So back to 4400 or 4800 for me.

 

[aka1nas]

I would go with the X2 as well. In truly cpu-intensive games (think something like X2: The Threat that has tons of AI and stuff going on) having dual CPUs does make the gameplay smoother even if the game is not multithreaded. For an example. With my old dual AthlonMP rig I would get only 8fps in that game but it never stuttered and would always remaint at that speed. With my A64 setup, I now get closer to 24 fps in a similar situatuon, but if I load a new sector or there area lot of ships it may stutter a little from time to time. Having a second CPU to load-balance all the other background tasks going on actually made a noticeable difference for me when playing this game.

 

[The Green Bean]

either should be fine for gaming... 1 FPS here and there won't matter :/