x2 4800 vs. fx-57

[argoldst]

I will be ordering a new system in about 2 weeks and was wondering which processor should I go with. I know the fx will probaly be faster in gaming and most apps, at least until software catches up to dual processors.

I really plan on using my system mostly for gaming.

Which would you guys recommend buying and why?

 

[JackBurton]

X2 4400+ and overclock it. Your gaming will then depend on your video card.

 

[Sentential]

To be perfectally blunt there are a number of things at play. First of all while cache helps, it doesnt help as much as if it were on a chip like a Pent4. In addition there were alot of "bugs" that involved the windows XP OS that were fixed in the X2 series.

The reason why Intel often feels more smooth on WinXP is because there is a bug with the system idle protocal. One single core it is especially bad and tends to have a laggy feel because it hogs alot of system resources. Intel got around this by introducing HT which adds a free core to deal with this issue and other SMP related things.

If you went with an FX you would have the stereo-typical AMD system. Aweful at multi-tasking, sluggish in Windows, and great in games.

However if you go the X2 route you avoid this issue. In addition since they are rougly the same die-size as older Clawhammers they will roughly clock the same.

I really dont see much of a point to buy an FX anymore, especially in light of these things. With the X2 you get around the WinXP bug, you gain 2 cores, in addition it should clock about the same as an FX anyway.

Why bother even considering it?

 

[johnnqq]

is the multiplier locked in x2 cores?

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: johnnqq
is the multiplier locked in x2 cores?

So long as AMD uses CNQ it wont be

 

[AnandThenMan]

Sentential do you have a masters degree in FUD and a Doctorate in Intel ass kissing? For the LAST TIME Windows is NOT sluggish using any AMD CPU, you got that? Period. Stop spreading this utter garbage already. BTW there is not a bug in the "system idle protocal." (protocol) stop making stuff up.

To answer the original question, IMO it is a far better value to go with an X2. Games already run very fast on the A64's you will probably never notice the few fps you lose with a slightly lower clocked X2. And in some cases the X2 actually does better than the single core A64's at the same clock speed.

 

[cheesehead]

Originally posted by: Sentential

The reason why Intel often feels more smooth on WinXP is because there is a bug with the system idle protocal. One single core it is especially bad and tends to have a laggy feel because it hogs alot of system resources. Intel got around this by introducing HT which adds a free core to deal with this issue and other SMP related things.

To be perfectly fair, even HT-enabled systems (or at least ones running at 3Ghz or less) are bogged down by this problem. I would know; I'm using one. My friend bought an Athlon XP system, and it's much "crisper" to use, even with about six programs running under another user.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: Sentential

Originally posted by: johnnqq
is the multiplier locked in x2 cores?

So long as AMD uses CNQ it wont be

I would imagine he meant upward mulitpliers but pretty funny, LOL. I would get the X2 instead of the FX-57 for multitasking. I wouldn't call the FX series sluggish in Windows though as a previous poster did, that is also funny. The X2 4800 if you can afford it would be the way I would go and I imagine so high end air overclocking should yield you 2600-2700 which would put it at or over FX-55 speeds times two.

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: AnandThenMan
Sentential do you have a masters degree in FUD and a Doctorate in Intel ass kissing? For the LAST TIME Windows is NOT sluggish using any AMD CPU, you got that? Period. Stop spreading this utter garbage already. BTW there is not a bug in the "system idle protocal." (protocol) stop making stuff up.

Did you even read what I said? (stupid question, obviously not).

However if you go the X2 route you avoid this issue. In addition since they are rougly the same die-size as older Clawhammers they will roughly clock the same.

I really dont see much of a point to buy an FX anymore, especially in light of these things. With the X2 you get around the WinXP bug, you gain 2 cores, in addition it should clock about the same as an FX anyway.

Why bother even considering it?

What's the problem here? Did I ever say "w00r buy intel! amd sux" No. Stfu and read what I say. This issue applies to my P4 as well. Without HT it runs like dog ****. Especially in heavy multi-taking enviroments.

My point was:

There is no reason to buy an FX. The X2s are faster per clock, they are dual-core. The heat load is about the same.There are alot of bug-fixes on them. In addition they clock the same as an FX and dont suffer the non-SMP issues that a regular Athlon typically faces.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
X2 4400+ and overclock it. Your gaming will then depend on your video card.

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: JackBurton
X2 4400+ and overclock it. Your gaming will then depend on your video card.

Other way around. Typically speaking it will depend heavily upon what resolution he prefers to play at. If he is using under 1200/1076 and if he has atleast a 9800PRO/XT, he will be CPU limited up to and past 3. This has been proven many many times.

 

[ScottFern]

I happen to agree with Sentential and I own a Athlon64 3500+ OC'd to 2.5Ghz. I usually have DVDshrink, winamp, AIM, and Firefox open. I find that after they are all open for about 1 hour that when I try to maximize my Firefox window it gets jerky and slow, and other times the other windows all pop up jerky. I used to think it was a firefox/windows problem...then I thought it may be a jave/firefox problem.

However, I don't see this problem at work when I am using firefox, java, winamp, aim, or our database program. All our work machines are P4s, and I am not saying they are far superior just that with HT they run a little smoother when I have multiple apps running. I can't wait for my 4800+ to show up!

 

[mindgam3]

I have absolutely no multitasking problems with my amd64 its fast as hell with several users logged on with several apps going at the same time no lag at all... however on this p4 system i use at work the same cant be said

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Sentential

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: JackBurton
X2 4400+ and overclock it. Your gaming will then depend on your video card.

Other way around. Typically speaking it will depend heavily upon what resolution he prefers to play at. If he is using under 1200/1076 and if he has atleast a 9800PRO/XT, he will be CPU limited up to and past 3. This has been proven many many times.

Not really, people who are actually considering spending $1000 on processor, have intention to game, and do not have or do not intend to use high res and high eye candy...well they shouldn't be using computers.

Otherwise if they're ready to spend that much on a processor, turning around and spending that much on an SLI system shouldn't be hard to swallow.

 

[CheesePoofs]

Sentenial: a single core A64 system isn't anywhere near as bad in windows as you try to make it out to be. Sure, its not as good as a P4 with hyperthreading, but it doesn't have a "laggy feel" and isn't "sluggish in Windows." I know, I've got one. It also isn't "awful at multi-tasking. Its not great at multi tasking, but it survives my having itunes, outlook, seti@home, trillian (im client), a firewall, and firefox w/ 8 tabs running with no laggy laggy feel at all. Only time I notice the poor multi-tasking is when I try and alt-tab from a resource-hogging game and do something in the background.

To the OP: If all you will ever do on the computer is game, then get the fx-57; the 4800 will do nothing for you. However, since there is such a small difference between the 4800 and fx-57 in gaming performance, if you will also be using your computer for normal use, you might as well get the 4800.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Sentential

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: JackBurton
X2 4400+ and overclock it. Your gaming will then depend on your video card.

Other way around. Typically speaking it will depend heavily upon what resolution he prefers to play at. If he is using under 1200/1076 and if he has atleast a 9800PRO/XT, he will be CPU limited up to and past 3. This has been proven many many times.

Seriously man, you have no idea what you're talking about. 1200x1076? What fvcking resolution is that? Secondly, let's say he leaves his 4400+ stock. What, he's going to get 200FPS @ 1024x768 instead of 230FPS using a 4800+? Is that what you are calling cpu limited? The fact is, his processor will have plenty of power, the graphics card is what is going to be the deciding factor whether his games lag or not. And when someone wants to build a GAMING machine, I HIGHLY doubt they are going for the LEAST amount of eye candy. If you want eye candy, it is going to be more dependant on the video card you have NOT the cpu.

And using an overclocked 4400+ will probably get him around 4800+ speeds and possibly even more. So he ain't gonna be cpu limited AT ALL. If he is cpu limited, then 99% of the other gamers out there are REALLY cpu limited.

 

[CheesePoofs]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Sentential

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: JackBurton
X2 4400+ and overclock it. Your gaming will then depend on your video card.

Other way around. Typically speaking it will depend heavily upon what resolution he prefers to play at. If he is using under 1200/1076 and if he has atleast a 9800PRO/XT, he will be CPU limited up to and past 3. This has been proven many many times.

Seriously man, you have no idea what your are talking about. 1200x1076? What fvcking resolution is that? Secondly, let's say he leaves his 4400+ stock. What, he's going to get 200FPS @ 1024x768 instead of 230FPS using a 4800+? Is that what you are calling cpu limited? The fact is, his processor will have plenty of power, the graphics card is what is going to be the deciding factor whether his games lag or not. And when someone wants to build a GAMING machine, I HIGHLY doubt they are going for the LEAST amount of eye candy. If you want eye candy, it is going to be more dependant on the video card you have NOT the cpu.

And using an overclocked 4400+ will probably get him around 4800+ speeds and possibly even more. So he ain't gonna be cpu limited AT ALL. If he is cpu limited, then 99% of the other gamers out there are REALLY cpu limited.

:thumbsup:

 

[Dragon41673]

Ok so let me get this straight...basically the X2 4800+ will do better all around then the FX-57, even at gaming?

 

[CheesePoofs]

It won't beat it at gaming, but the difference will be so small that if you do stuff other than gaming on the computer or want to do stuff in the background while playing a game, you might as well get the 4800.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Dragon41673
Ok so let me get this straight...basically the X2 4800+ will do better all around then the FX-57, even at gaming?

Not quite.

The FX-55 or FX-57 will do better in gaming, but not by all that much.
The X2s are the ultimate multitasking monsters though...so much better of a buy overall IMO.

 

[Dragon41673]

Ok...that's what I'm looking for. When you say the X2 won't beat it by much...any idea what we are talking stats wise yet?

Oh wait I think there was a review about that...I'll go look...

 

[Dragon41673]

Ok yeah found it...it's a 50/50 when it comes to games...the X2 4800+ is sometimes better and sometimes under a FX-55...but either way...it's only a few points higher or lower. Me likey!

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: Sentential
To be perfectally blunt there are a number of things at play. First of all while cache helps, it doesnt help as much as if it were on a chip like a Pent4. In addition there were alot of "bugs" that involved the windows XP OS that were fixed in the X2 series.

The reason why Intel often feels more smooth on WinXP is because there is a bug with the system idle protocal. One single core it is especially bad and tends to have a laggy feel because it hogs alot of system resources. Intel got around this by introducing HT which adds a free core to deal with this issue and other SMP related things.

If you went with an FX you would have the stereo-typical AMD system. Aweful at multi-tasking, sluggish in Windows, and great in games.

However if you go the X2 route you avoid this issue. In addition since they are rougly the same die-size as older Clawhammers they will roughly clock the same.

I really dont see much of a point to buy an FX anymore, especially in light of these things. With the X2 you get around the WinXP bug, you gain 2 cores, in addition it should clock about the same as an FX anyway.

Why bother even considering it?

Hello, there.

I have a question: I recently aquired two Pentium 4 @ 3.0Ghz prescott processors with their respective motherboards and DDR400 memory. I have used mostly AMD systems, and have found them to be great performers, specially with the tasks I normally do. However, I've found these P4 systems to be all but responsive and smooth. Is there a special tweak I have to do so I can see the smoothness you talk about?

That was my main concern when I bought these, but so far I've hardly seen any performance bennefits at all.

Also, I am VERY concerned on the "bug" you talk about in AMD processors and WinXP. Could you please explain better or tell me where do I find the information you are disucssing?

Thankyou.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: ScottFern
I happen to agree with Sentential and I own a Athlon64 3500+ OC'd to 2.5Ghz. I usually have DVDshrink, winamp, AIM, and Firefox open. I find that after they are all open for about 1 hour that when I try to maximize my Firefox window it gets jerky and slow, and other times the other windows all pop up jerky. I used to think it was a firefox/windows problem...then I thought it may be a jave/firefox problem.

However, I don't see this problem at work when I am using firefox, java, winamp, aim, or our database program. All our work machines are P4s, and I am not saying they are far superior just that with HT they run a little smoother when I have multiple apps running. I can't wait for my 4800+ to show up!

That sounds great! Could you tell me the config on those computers? because these ones I have are prerrty sluggish compared to my Athlon 64 2800+@2.2Ghz.

Both of my P4 computers are using DDR400 in dual channel config, on Intel 865GVG motherboards, with the most recent drivers from www.intel.com . Any suggestions appreciated.

 

[Aenslead]

gee... no replies. Car got your tongue?