Gaming performance for the AMD 4800+ Proc

[BeakerChem]

Since this seems to be a reoccuring question people are wondering about, I have collected some links that deal with current gaming performance with the AMD 4800+.

Gamespot's review of the 4800+
Compares it to a 4000+ and some intel systems - Conclusion: X2 good for Doom3 low res, bad or breaks even for Doom3 High Res, Half-Life 2

Xbits' review
Compares FX-55, 4000+ and some intels to the 4800+ - Conclusion: X2 shows very moderate gains vs 4000+ and slower than FX-55 in Doom3 medium res, FarCry, UT2004, and Quake3

Bit Tech's review
Compares to FX-55 and 4000+ - Conclusion: Almost exactly the same performance for Doom3 low and high res, FarCry low and high res, and UT2004 low and high res

Tech Report's review
Claims to have removed the videocard bottleneck common in other CPU review benchmarking. Compares many CPUs to the 4800+ - Conclusion: UT2004 and Farcry low res are moderately better on the X2 system while Doom3 is about even with the next fastest CPUs (FX-55)

Tom's Hardware Review (and the preceeding two pages) Props to Hatim for the link!
Only shows comparison to two intels and the 4000+, but uses higher resolution on games - Conclusion: FarCry mid-high res 4800 same as 4000, Doom3 mid-high res 4800 same as 4000, UT2004 mid-high res almost the same fps with 4800 and 4000, and Wolfenstein:ET small increase in FPS with 4800

ExtremeTech
While certainly big fans of AMD, they do put in some high res LCD native resolution gaming tests that show that the 4800+ is only a small amount slower than an FX-55. The tests use a single 6800GT vid card...

Neoseeker collection of reviews

 

[imported_Starman]

Great, now RELEASE THE DAMN THING!

 

[BeakerChem]

It is out, or at least many people are taking pre-orders for it. But the results seem to indicate that it isn't the best gaming choice. That may change with future releases. It also seems to not be the best overclocker, but those results are mixed and part of a different forum.

 

[The Green Bean]

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-14.html

Tomshardware

 

[imported_Starman]

Pre-orders only at this point.

 

[BeakerChem]

Originally posted by: hatim
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-14.html

Tomshardware

Thanks! Added it to the top post.

 

[Markfw]

So its basically the same as the 4000+, and same or slower than FX-55, exactly where it should be for single-core games since its core is the same speed as the 4000+ and slower than the FX-55. Whats new ? You wouldn;t buy one for that unless you want ot encode or something at the same time.

 

[BeakerChem]

That is what it seems, at least at the moment with games not being optimized for having a second proc. What I really want to know is how it runs with other minor apps running in the background, such as proc intensive software firewalls (Norton, Zonealarm), gaming voice transmission programs (teamspeak, etc.) running at the same time as games. Those apps don't really pull much in the way of resources though, so it may be a minimal improvement.

 

[Markfw]

There were also mutitasking scenarios in those benches, and thats where the 4800 eats even the FX-55....

 

[BeakerChem]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
There were also mutitasking scenarios in those benches, and thats where the 4800 eats even the FX-55....

But the multi-tasking is stuff the typical gamer doesn't intend to do. How often do non-videophiles encode DVD's as a background task because they do it 10 hours a day and want to game on top of that?

I want a bench with gaming multitasking.

I want to see someone run a dedicated server and then join it with the same rig, etc.

 

[RichUK]

good idea to the OP, you can guarantee there will be some CAD users coming in stating that gaming is not what this chip is mainly used for

 

[BeakerChem]

OP?

 

[RichUK]

OP "original poster" the person that started the thread .. that would be you .. you will see that used alot around here ..

 

[Markfw]

Bottom line is, any two major apps running at the same time (or more ) the X2 will kill the FX-55. I know, with my duallie, trust me.

 

[rgreen83]

How many ppl here are spending $1000+ on a cpu? I am curious even though i wont be. The day i spend a thousand bucks on virtual fallic enhancement will be the same day i can get real fallic enhancement for a thousand bucks.

 

[BeakerChem]

Originally posted by: RichUK
OP "original poster" the person that started the thread .. that would be you .. you will see that used alot around here ..

Ahh, noted. Thanks!

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Bottom line is, any two major apps running at the same time (or more ) the X2 will kill the FX-55. I know, with my duallie, trust me.

Two major ones, definately. But with one major and a couple minior then you instead have a $1000 FX-53. I just wonder what gaming apps are major when it comes to determining if the 4800+ is useful. Nothing now, and 1 year from now the graphics cards I buy will be too out of date to help.

Originally posted by: rgreen83
How many ppl here are spending $1000+ on a cpu? I am curious even though i wont be. The day i spend a thousand bucks on virtual fallic enhancement will be the same day i can get real fallic enhancement for a thousand bucks.

I would if it seemed that it would be enough of an improvement for my gaming needs over the FX-55. I am a bit of oddball here though, I don't OC anything, and I have a bunch of cash to spend on a computer but what I don't spend won't store. Meaning, use it now or never - no upgrading in the future. Kind of a strange position.

From the tests I have linked at the top, I guess you can conclude one of two things if you take price out of the equation. The FX-55 is better, get that one -- Or -- The 4800+ is only a little slower for things now and may be a significant improvement in the future. I am looking at the same thing for graphics cards. I am not going to be able to wait out the G70 unless it is up by mid-July. I am going to be gaming on an LCD monitor, so native resolution max, but I am getting an Ultra-SLi setup. It won't be any improvement with current games over one Ultra (158 fps vs 80 fps), but I am hoping it will help keep future games above 30fps.

 

[BeakerChem]

Added link to ExtremeTech's review with gaming benchmarks. Another show of 4800+ close to FX-55 results for gaming.

 

[Aries64]

Originally posted by: BeakerChem
It is out, or at least many people are taking pre-orders for it. But the results seem to indicate that it isn't the best gaming choice. That may change with future releases. It also seems to not be the best overclocker, but those results are mixed and part of a different forum.

No news there. Since last year AMD has been saying that upon initial release of the X2 the FXs' would continue to lead in gaming performance (this is rather obvious, as even the older 130nm FX-55s' (2.6Ghz) will beat the soon-to-be-released Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2.4Ghz) in single threaded gaming when no other CPU intensive apps are running. Although, to be fair the numbers are real close. 200Mhz doesn't really buy you alot in terms of framerates these days unless your GPU is OC'ed too. Even then the difference isn't huge.

However, as the X2 process matures, more Mhz are squeezed-out, and games can actually use multiple processors the line will become more blurred. At this point I don't know how many games actually use multiple threads, let alone multiple CPU support, which is entirely different.

You are correct as far as overclocking results being mixed. This early in the process this isn't surprising as the X2 4800+ is basically two (2) 90nm 4000+ cores' on the same die. Even though its' built on 90nm that heat has to be considerable and must be addressed.

In a fit of insanity I decided to sell my S939 FX-53 for a 90nm FX-55 (or wait for the Q3 release of the FX-57). But then, I started thinking about how much I hate how slow my system runs when I'm playing online and Norton Systemworks starts a full system scan with my FX-53. Waaaayyy slow and blocky. I always get fragged when this happens.

If I go for an X2 4800+ this shouldn't happen at all. And if I can OC it to 2.6 or 2.7Ghz with my XP-90 I'll be pretty happy.

On the other hand, waiting for the end of the year couldn't hurt either, because I think that by year's end AMD will release something along the lines of an X2 5200+ (two cores at 2.6GHz?). Maybe even faster. That would be sweet. Life is nothing if you don't have a dream...

 

[TankGuys]

Originally posted by: rgreen83
How many ppl here are spending $1000+ on a cpu? I am curious even though i wont be. The day i spend a thousand bucks on virtual fallic enhancement will be the same day i can get real fallic enhancement for a thousand bucks.

We've had a lot of pre-orders for the 4400+, but only 4 for the 4800+. I talked 3 of those people into buying the 4400+ instead because of the price/performance advantage. So that leaves only 1 of all of our pre-orders being for the 4800+.

Mainly, the people who will buy this chip either don't worry about the money, or are willing to spend the huge premium just to have a top of the line processor.

 

[BeakerChem]

Originally posted by: Aries64

Originally posted by: BeakerChem
It is out, or at least many people are taking pre-orders for it. But the results seem to indicate that it isn't the best gaming choice. That may change with future releases. It also seems to not be the best overclocker, but those results are mixed and part of a different forum.

No news there. Since last year AMD has been saying that upon initial release of the X2 the FXs' would continue to lead in gaming performance (this is rather obvious, as even the older 130nm FX-55s' (2.6Ghz) will beat the soon-to-be-released Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2.4Ghz) in single threaded gaming when no other CPU intensive apps are running. Although, to be fair the numbers are real close. 200Mhz doesn't really buy you alot in terms of framerates these days unless your GPU is OC'ed too. Even then the difference isn't huge.

However, as the X2 process matures, more Mhz are squeezed-out, and games can actually use multiple processors the line will become more blurred. At this point I don't know how many games actually use multiple threads, let alone multiple CPU support, which is entirely different.

You are correct as far as overclocking results being mixed. This early in the process this isn't surprising as the X2 4800+ is basically two (2) 90nm 4000+ cores' on the same die. Even though its' built on 90nm that heat has to be considerable and must be addressed.

In a fit of insanity I decided to sell my S939 FX-53 for a 90nm FX-55 (or wait for the Q3 release of the FX-57). But then, I started thinking about how much I hate how slow my system runs when I'm playing online and Norton Systemworks starts a full system scan with my FX-53. Waaaayyy slow and blocky. I always get fragged when this happens.

If I go for an X2 4800+ this shouldn't happen at all. And if I can OC it to 2.6 or 2.7Ghz with my XP-90 I'll be pretty happy.

On the other hand, waiting for the end of the year couldn't hurt either, because I think that by year's end AMD will release something along the lines of an X2 5200+ (two cores at 2.6GHz?). Maybe even faster. That would be sweet. Life is nothing if you don't have a dream...

The tests that I have seen that multitask with a game show that it still runs the game like an FX-53. But the thing is, unless you are running a serious ap in the background it still doesn't make too much of a difference. My opinion on why is that today's games are not all that proc limited, more GPU limited, so the minor hit of general background ap (firewalls, etc) don't matter much at the moment and the second proc to help out with them doesn't have much real work to do.

About the X2 5200+ release date isn't on the road map yet, but the X2 5000 (2.666GHz duel core) is scheduled for Q2 2006, the same time that the 3GHz FX-59 is due out. Both are supposed to have support for DDRII 667 MHz mem modules as well.

 

[Aries64]

Originally posted by: BeakerChem

Originally posted by: Aries64

Originally posted by: BeakerChem
It is out, or at least many people are taking pre-orders for it. But the results seem to indicate that it isn't the best gaming choice. That may change with future releases. It also seems to not be the best overclocker, but those results are mixed and part of a different forum.

No news there. Since last year AMD has been saying that upon initial release of the X2 the FXs' would continue to lead in gaming performance (this is rather obvious, as even the older 130nm FX-55s' (2.6Ghz) will beat the soon-to-be-released Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2.4Ghz) in single threaded gaming when no other CPU intensive apps are running. Although, to be fair the numbers are real close. 200Mhz doesn't really buy you alot in terms of framerates these days unless your GPU is OC'ed too. Even then the difference isn't huge.

However, as the X2 process matures, more Mhz are squeezed-out, and games can actually use multiple processors the line will become more blurred. At this point I don't know how many games actually use multiple threads, let alone multiple CPU support, which is entirely different.

You are correct as far as overclocking results being mixed. This early in the process this isn't surprising as the X2 4800+ is basically two (2) 90nm 4000+ cores' on the same die. Even though its' built on 90nm that heat has to be considerable and must be addressed.

In a fit of insanity I decided to sell my S939 FX-53 for a 90nm FX-55 (or wait for the Q3 release of the FX-57). But then, I started thinking about how much I hate how slow my system runs when I'm playing online and Norton Systemworks starts a full system scan with my FX-53. Waaaayyy slow and blocky. I always get fragged when this happens.

If I go for an X2 4800+ this shouldn't happen at all. And if I can OC it to 2.6 or 2.7Ghz with my XP-90 I'll be pretty happy.

On the other hand, waiting for the end of the year couldn't hurt either, because I think that by year's end AMD will release something along the lines of an X2 5200+ (two cores at 2.6GHz?). Maybe even faster. That would be sweet. Life is nothing if you don't have a dream...

The tests that I have seen that multitask with a game show that it still runs the game like an FX-53. But the thing is, unless you are running a serious ap in the background it still doesn't make too much of a difference. My opinion on why is that today's games are not all that proc limited, more GPU limited, so the minor hit of general background ap (firewalls, etc) don't matter much at the moment and the second proc to help out with them doesn't have much real work to do.

About the X2 5200+ release date isn't on the road map yet, but the X2 5000 (2.666GHz duel core) is scheduled for Q2 2006, the same time that the 3GHz FX-59 is due out. Both are supposed to have support for DDRII 667 MHz mem modules as well.

From experience I can tell you that if I'm playing Halo online and Norton Anti Virus starts a full system scan my gaming performance goes to pot. Everything...sloowwws waaaaayy....downnnn. Slows down and becomes so blocky I get killed because my Masterchief moves too slow. This has happened to me three times, so I just turn off Norton when I want to play to avoid the problem until I go X2.

 

[Gerbil333]

I'll buy one when I can get them used for $50.

 

[Pabster]

In fairness, Norton is major bloatware. I'd highly recommend going with AVP or even NOD32.

 

[AMDgood IntelBAD]

when will games support dual core? so if you have a 2.4Ghz processor you can only use 1.2Ghz of it on the current games??? im confused?

 

[Markfw]

Also, Norton is disk intensive, and that alone could be hurting you. Remember that when you go dual-core..