FX-57 vs. 4800+

[Saga]

If someone would give you (completely free) the choice between a 4800+ or a FX-57, which would you pick, and why?

My gripe with this question is that I personally would prefer the upgradeability of the 4800+. It is by far more future proof of an upgrade path.

Opinions?

 

[Saga]

Three votes but no replies? =/ I would honestly appreciate some actual input as to why people feel this way.

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: Izusaga
Given the choice between the FX-57 and the 4800+, which would you pick, and why?

I personally would prefer the upgradeability of the 4800+. It is by far more future proof of an upgrade path.

And you'll get a bigger performance increase when taking advantage of both cores through the software.

fixed

 

[Neverbehind]

4800+ because it's more future proof just like what you said before.

FX-57 is only for if you want the best single core performance or you want to beat the 4073.46 MHz record set for AMD processor.

 

[Saga]

Okay. Say you had to convince someone who was saying the following:

by the time games are multithreaded that 4800 will be nothing. thats like getting a ATI 9800 and waiting for HL2. by the time the game was release cards that were twice as fast were out for the same price as the 9800. u might be future proofing urself by getting a 939 NF4 board. so there ur logic didn't factor something like that and even if u get a NF4 board it would be out of date since the new M2 socket will be coming out mid 06. no in games the FX57 smoked the X2 4800 by 25% which is big when it comes to being able to play a game and not in the future. so if ur only going to game and overclock might as well get FX57 or if u like to multitask then go X2. another site u should read would be www.xtremesystems.org

I'm thinking of the best way to rebuke this rather pompous claim.

 

[ElTorrente]

The FX-57 is a great chip, no doubt. It's marketed as the ultimate gaming CPU- and it does awesome in all the gaming benchmarks.

However- it is only a FEW frames per second faster than the slower clocked x2 4800, no matter what game you choose. On top of that, the X2 is faster than the FX in EVERY THING ELSE.. I think it's easy to choose which one is best.

 

[Neverbehind]

Originally posted by: Izusaga
Okay. Say you had to convince someone who was saying the following:

by the time games are multithreaded that 4800 will be nothing. thats like getting a ATI 9800 and waiting for HL2. by the time the game was release cards that were twice as fast were out for the same price as the 9800. u might be future proofing urself by getting a 939 NF4 board. so there ur logic didn't factor something like that and even if u get a NF4 board it would be out of date since the new M2 socket will be coming out mid 06. no in games the FX57 smoked the X2 4800 by 25% which is big when it comes to being able to play a game and not in the future. so if ur only going to game and overclock might as well get FX57 or if u like to multitask then go X2. another site u should read would be www.xtremesystems.org

I'm thinking of the best way to rebuke this rather pompous claim.

I think that's the whole point of Moore's Law, u can't be completely future proof, only temporarily.

 

[CheesePoofs]

if you only game, get the fx-57. If also do other things on the computer (which is the case for almost everyone), get the X2.

 

[corpseofworms]

They're the same upgrade path, s939.

Maybe a month ago, I would have said the 57. I got in a couple of very heated arguments with this people (not sure if any on this board) why the 57 was better. My argument was that by the time dual core is mainstream, all current processors will be obsolete. Now I'm changing to the dual core side of things. I never would have expected the transition to be so quick. Then again, I'm the same guy who said this and the next generation of video cards would be primarily AGP. Shows what I know.

 

[CraKaJaX]

4800+. More 'future proof' as you said, and I video edit/burn disks and all that good stuff. FX-57 is for strict gaming, there's been 500000 threads on this. If you do more, get the 4800+

 

[mOeeOm]

4800+ Simply because it is the new technology.

 

[imported_Kensai]

4800+, better overall performance.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: mOeeOm
4800+ Simply because it is the new technology.

The FX5200 was new technology at one point. Did you buy that because your Ti4600 was older? 😛

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: mOeeOm
4800+ Simply because it is the new technology.

The FX5200 was new technology at one point. Did you buy that because your Ti4600 was older? 😛

QFT. Damn, Avalon, you keep staying a whole member status ahead of me 😉

OP- I voted 4800+ because oc'ing it to 2.6 or so will give you single threaded performance within a few % points of the 57 plus the glouriousness of SMP on the desktop 😀

 

[caz67]

4800+ without a doubt. It's much better overall value than the FX-57.

 

[biostud]

both are hugely overpriced

 

[StrangerGuy]

4800+ by a loooooooooonnnnnnnngggggggg shot

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: biostud
both are hugely overpriced

my thoughts exactly .. if anyone intends to overclock, the only thing you look for is the right core with the right features (aka cache size, sSOI, SSE3 etc etc), and the CPU mulit that you want (10x 11x) .. obviously with the FX57 you get higher yields due to 2.8Ghz on stock volts .. but you get what you pay for and the FX57 tops out around 3Ghz on air anyway .. so thats why you buy a lower spec San Diego aka 4000+ or 3700+ and OC that to in and around 2.8Ghz, and save you self a HELLAVA a lot of money .. thats just my perception anyway.

Same thing with regards to the 4800+ Toledo .. it only makes sense to use these over the 4400+ if you use a promie or water and then OC higher with the higher yield chip.

 

[blckgrffn]

A lot of people seem to have issues pushing the 3700+ SD's now days. AMD probably got the yields figured out or something 🙂

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: blckgrffn

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: mOeeOm
4800+ Simply because it is the new technology.

The FX5200 was new technology at one point. Did you buy that because your Ti4600 was older? 😛

QFT. Damn, Avalon, you keep staying a whole member status ahead of me 😉

OP- I voted 4800+ because oc'ing it to 2.6 or so will give you single threaded performance within a few % points of the 57 plus the glouriousness of SMP on the desktop 😀

Quit slacking 😉

I too would take the 4800+ over the FX-57 as well. Two cores can be much more productive than one. However, if I had a choice, I'd take an X2 3800+, throw it into my DFI, and see if I can make her scream...I mean...uhh, how high the chip would OC. Naturally.

😛

 

[Munky]

I'll take the FX57 just because I use my comp mainly for gaming, and there are no multi-threaded games. Besides, I dont believe in "future-proof" tech (Anyone still think SLI'd 6800GT's are future-proof when you have a single 7800gtx just as fast now?). And, what if the games were multi-threaded, you think 2 cores will make a big difference if you're playing at settings that are GPU-limited? I doubt it. Dual cores are nice for certain tasks, but they're not for everyone, and by the time multi-core CPU's become mainstream, I'll probably be using a newer platform than s939.

 

[BigCoolJesus]

4800+ by far

i mean come one, 2 cores..........2..........

 

[valkator]

Originally posted by: munky
I'll take the FX57 just because I use my comp mainly for gaming, and there are no multi-threaded games. Besides, I dont believe in "future-proof" tech (Anyone still think SLI'd 6800GT's are future-proof when you have a single 7800gtx just as fast now?). And, what if the games were multi-threaded, you think 2 cores will make a big difference if you're playing at settings that are GPU-limited? I doubt it. Dual cores are nice for certain tasks, but they're not for everyone, and by the time multi-core CPU's become mainstream, I'll probably be using a newer platform than s939.

That pretty much sums it up 😛.

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: munky
I'll take the FX57 just because I use my comp mainly for gaming, and there are no multi-threaded games. Besides, I dont believe in "future-proof" tech (Anyone still think SLI'd 6800GT's are future-proof when you have a single 7800gtx just as fast now?). And, what if the games were multi-threaded, you think 2 cores will make a big difference if you're playing at settings that are GPU-limited? I doubt it. Dual cores are nice for certain tasks, but they're not for everyone, and by the time multi-core CPU's become mainstream, I'll probably be using a newer platform than s939.

Well Lets see, By getting 2 6800GTs they got all of the speed of the current high end card, and had been able to use for a full year longer. And no one is saying that a single 7800GTX won't last awhile. To me Its ounds like those 6800GT SLI guys are going to get 2-3 years on their video card purchases, sounds like future proofing to me.

Future Proofing is horrible saying but think of it this way. If when Multi-Threaded programs come out, the 4800+ is going to be slow/nothing, what position is the 57 going to be in. The fact is current X2 buyers are never going to get the full use of their purchase till after they are no longer viable to use, they will still have a easier transition then 57 buyers.

People who upgrade constantly like to think of a computer as a constantly growing and forming object. But a lot of people (myself included as of recently) are getting or building machine to last a while without tinkering. The fact is there is nothing that a 57 can play fine that a 4800+ can't, and if your not going to make any changes for a while then their is no reason not to purchase with an eye towards the future.

 

[nealh]

Well Lets see, By getting 2 6800GTs they got all of the speed of the current high end card, and had been able to use for a full year longer. And no one is saying that a single 7800GTX won't last awhile. To me Its ounds like those 6800GT SLI guys are going to get 2-3 years on their video card purchases, sounds like future proofing to me.

at what ridiculous price???...

I still think the best option is get a Venice 3000/3200 and overclock it...cost wise very good option..then later you can change and still be better off price wise...my Venice 3200@2750..chip cost $175.....(YMMV on OC but I bet 2.5-2.6 is good bet....)

now if I want dual core at xmas or early next yr fine....but I am not paying high end but still getting very good performance