theinq only used 3dmark05 to bench. we all know thats not the best way to test it.
well, the way i see it is that the knock on x2's had been that single core was faster for gaming, which clearly isn't evident here. even at gpu limited resolutions like 16x12 the x2 3800 @ 2000 with smp outperforms (barely) the single core 3800 @ 2400.
as seen here at AT twice as many people can run at 12x10 or less as opposed to any resolution above. at 12x10, the x2 with smp is ~15% faster than the higher clocked single core.
on top of that, the x2 3800 can be found under $300 on sale.
Originally posted by: nitromullet
theinq only used 3dmark05 to bench. we all know thats not the best way to test it.
I'm not the one that posted the link... Just pointing out that a link that supposedly supports the dual core for gaming claim doesn't...
well, the way i see it is that the knock on x2's had been that single core was faster for gaming, which clearly isn't evident here. even at gpu limited resolutions like 16x12 the x2 3800 @ 2000 with smp outperforms (barely) the single core 3800 @ 2400.
as seen here at AT twice as many people can run at 12x10 or less as opposed to any resolution above. at 12x10, the x2 with smp is ~15% faster than the higher clocked single core.
on top of that, the x2 3800 can be found under $300 on sale.
There is that, but the OP of this thread is considering either an FX-57 or an X2 4200+, it is doubtful that he plays at 1280x1024... Plus, so far you're only talking about one game. As far as the 3800+ goes, I think if anyone is considering between an X2 3800+ or a single core 3800+ they should definitely go with the X2, since it is a good value by comparison.
Again, my main point of bringing these points up is:
1) I'm not totally sold on dual core as the best gaming platform. AMD offers a great platform for gaming, so you really can't go wrong with any of their chips. However, the OP is looking at the very high end of this segment where a lot of dollars often only yield small gains, and I'm not convinced that when looking at it from this perspective that a dual core X2 4800+ willl squeeze that last bit of FPS out like an FX-57 would.
2) AT forums has gone completely nutty over dual core for gaming... Why? There are no real facts to back the idea that dual core procs offer superior gaming performance over a single core, except for a few cases where specific games and resolutions are being used. AMD themselves still don't take this stance, and they are still pushing their single core FX series as the top gaming chip, which at this point is still proven true by most of the benchmarks I've seen. Again, I'm not knocking dual core, if you multi-task, it's great (even if you don't the chips pretty much all the X2's are fast), but I'm a bit irritated by the mindless responses on this forum that push dual core to everyone that asks a question about cpu's...
3) No response on the claim that dual core chips are faster for networked games...? I really am curious about this one.
He is already getting an awesome video card and wants to spend the money, if dual core is soon to be supported in almost all games coming out in the near future, why not? Just because a game can become more and mpre GPU reliant does not mean that the CPU is not used at all, not to mention software developers are bound to wrtie more software to take advantage of the extra core, (I am thinking physics or something)...
btw whoever said get the prommy and the 3800X@ to OC it, 1. that is not a sure thing
2. the OP is not an experienced OC'er yet 3. that would turn out to be more expensive then jst going for the fx60 that he has his heart set on
Originally posted by: nitromullet
He is already getting an awesome video card and wants to spend the money, if dual core is soon to be supported in almost all games coming out in the near future, why not? Just because a game can become more and mpre GPU reliant does not mean that the CPU is not used at all, not to mention software developers are bound to wrtie more software to take advantage of the extra core, (I am thinking physics or something)...
btw whoever said get the prommy and the 3800X@ to OC it, 1. that is not a sure thing
2. the OP is not an experienced OC'er yet 3. that would turn out to be more expensive then jst going for the fx60 that he has his heart set on
The thing is is that you are making a speculative claim with this. You are saying that maybe someday there will be a need/use for dual core in a gaming rig for features that are yet to be released, and suggesting that it is the best option to purchase today. Thus far all benchmarks pretty much show that there is no replacement for pure speed in a cpu when it comes to gaming, except in a few games at low resolutions, which apparently might require a bit of registry tweaking to see a benefit with NV cards http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=m...index&req=viewarticle&artid=216&page=1
Again, don't get me wrong, AMD dual core chips are great, and I would definitely recommend one to just about anybody. However, as it stands right now IMO, a single core FX-57 is the undisputed reigning king of gaming, and I don't see a lower clocked dual core taking that crown any time too soon.
Please note that Call of Duty 2 is a very graphically intense game. The greatest performance increase from this upgrade will be realized by selecting Optimal System Settings in the Options menu.
Originally posted by: nitromullet
It will be the future of processors, that is without a doubt. However, the reality of that future may still be some time away, and you are pushing dual core as the best set up for gaming now. I would imagine that in maybe a year from now dual core will actually show a substanial increase over single core, but that will only be becasue the dual core processors finally have the same clockspeeds as the highest single core chips have now.
AMD currently is still pushing the FX-57 as their flagship gaming processor, not a dual core chip. My guess is that they decided to go with a dual core FX-60 simply because people have flipped over dual core ships, so they would be stupid not to - I bet if they come out with an FX-59 it will outperform the FX-60 in single threaded apps and the vast majority of games.
Let's look at the game patches and the benefits that you refer to...
Quake 4:
1) At 1600x1200, a single core 3800+ matches an X2 4800+ at less than half the cost. ...Don't even try to tell me that someone that buys an $800 cpu plays games at low resolutions and without eye candy... At the lower pricepoint, the 3800+ beats the X2 3800+ at 1600x1200.
2) AMDzone had to make tweaks to the registry to disable the NV dual core driver tweaks to actually see a permance improvement at all. By doing this, they lose the driver's built in dual core optimizations for all other games. I guess, if you don't mind messing with the registry everytime you play a different game, this is for you.
3) I'd be curious to see how an FX-55 (close in price to the X2 4800+) stacks up against the X2's, but most sites are doing clock-for-clock comparisons not dollar-for-dollar.
4) Chances are this is it for Q4... It is doubtful that you will see another big increase in dual core performance with subsequent patches. Maybe a bit here and there, but it looks like 5% max increase at 1600x1200 is all you'll get.
CoD2:
I haven't seen any benches yet. However, from reading this.
Please note that Call of Duty 2 is a very graphically intense game. The greatest performance increase from this upgrade will be realized by selecting Optimal System Settings in the Options menu.
...it sounds like once again the gains for high resolutions will be minimal.
Originally posted by: nitromullet
meh, whatever... You just keep telling people that dual core cpu's are faster for gaming without any facts to back it up. I know I won't win this debate with practically anyone on AT forums because most people don't seem to want to actually read into the benchmarks to see how they actually apply. They just see longer bars for dual core on a graph and all of a sudden it's not at all relevant that the resolution is 600x800, that there is no AA/AF, and that without a registry tweak the performance actually decreased. Not even to mention that we're only talking about a a very small group of games that are multi-threaded.
Also, what I said was that dual core will show significant benefits over single core for gaming as the clockspeeds of dual core processors begins to match the higher clocked single cores cpu's of today. The benchmarks do bear out that at equal clockspeeds, dual core is superior to single core (probably in almost every single category). However, seeing as how the yet to come out FX-60 is slower than an FX-57, suggesting the FX-60 to the OP because some day there will be a dual core cpu that matches the clockspeed of the FX-57 doesn't make any sense. Either way, he's going to have an awesome rig... I am really curious to know what the price tag for an FX-60 is going to be.
Originally posted by: Son of a N00b
Originally posted by: nitromullet
theinq only used 3dmark05 to bench. we all know thats not the best way to test it.
I'm not the one that posted the link... Just pointing out that a link that supposedly supports the dual core for gaming claim doesn't...
well, the way i see it is that the knock on x2's had been that single core was faster for gaming, which clearly isn't evident here. even at gpu limited resolutions like 16x12 the x2 3800 @ 2000 with smp outperforms (barely) the single core 3800 @ 2400.
as seen here at AT twice as many people can run at 12x10 or less as opposed to any resolution above. at 12x10, the x2 with smp is ~15% faster than the higher clocked single core.
on top of that, the x2 3800 can be found under $300 on sale.
There is that, but the OP of this thread is considering either an FX-57 or an X2 4200+, it is doubtful that he plays at 1280x1024... Plus, so far you're only talking about one game. As far as the 3800+ goes, I think if anyone is considering between an X2 3800+ or a single core 3800+ they should definitely go with the X2, since it is a good value by comparison.
Again, my main point of bringing these points up is:
1) I'm not totally sold on dual core as the best gaming platform. AMD offers a great platform for gaming, so you really can't go wrong with any of their chips. However, the OP is looking at the very high end of this segment where a lot of dollars often only yield small gains, and I'm not convinced that when looking at it from this perspective that a dual core X2 4800+ willl squeeze that last bit of FPS out like an FX-57 would.
2) AT forums has gone completely nutty over dual core for gaming... Why? There are no real facts to back the idea that dual core procs offer superior gaming performance over a single core, except for a few cases where specific games and resolutions are being used. AMD themselves still don't take this stance, and they are still pushing their single core FX series as the top gaming chip, which at this point is still proven true by most of the benchmarks I've seen. Again, I'm not knocking dual core, if you multi-task, it's great (even if you don't the chips pretty much all the X2's are fast), but I'm a bit irritated by the mindless responses on this forum that push dual core to everyone that asks a question about cpu's...
3) No response on the claim that dual core chips are faster for networked games...? I really am curious about this one.
He is already getting an awesome video card and wants to spend the money, if dual core is soon to be supported in almost all games coming out in the near future, why not? Just because a game can become more and mpre GPU reliant does not mean that the CPU is not used at all, not to mention software developers are bound to wrtie more software to take advantage of the extra core, (I am thinking physics or something)...
btw whoever said get the prommy and the 3800X@ to OC it, 1. that is not a sure thing
2. the OP is not an experienced OC'er yet 3. that would turn out to be more expensive then jst going for the fx60 that he has his heart set on
Originally posted by: nitromullet
I believe I already stated that I agee that dual core is the future... The thing is that the OP honestly isn't looking at value to begin with... Anyone who is trying to decide between an FX-57 or an A64 X2 4800+ isn't in the value segemnt.
The thing that you have to understand about dual core is that AMD and Intel didn't decide to go the route of dual core because it is better per se, but rather because they couldn't build single cores any faster at the moment without having issues. Basically, dual core is the alternative... The seemly high adopton rate of dual core chips is a good thing though. We can already see that developers are taking notice and are starting to code for dual core (with mixed results). I would say that over the next 2 years, dual core (and 64-bit) will become mainstream, and only budget or special purpose chips will be single core. By this time pretty much all applications and drivers will take advantage of that, and any dual core chip you buy today will be outdated as there is no such thing as "future proofing".
The point that I really want to get across here is not that I am anti-dual core, I'm not... I own one, but sometimes I feel that for what I use my PC for I might have been better off getting a faster single core. My primary use of this PC is gaming (I can only play one at a time effectively), and anything else I do is pretty much trivial for any modern processor.
It just seems that recommending dual core procs has become a knee jerk reaction on AT forums lately, without any consideration actually given to the needs of the person asking the question. Dual core is the one size fits all answer to "What kind of cpu should I get?"
Originally posted by: mrkun
Buy an Opteron 165 for $280 and OC the crap out of it. =)
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: nitromullet
I believe I already stated that I agee that dual core is the future... The thing is that the OP honestly isn't looking at value to begin with... Anyone who is trying to decide between an FX-57 or an A64 X2 4800+ isn't in the value segemnt.
The thing that you have to understand about dual core is that AMD and Intel didn't decide to go the route of dual core because it is better per se, but rather because they couldn't build single cores any faster at the moment without having issues. Basically, dual core is the alternative... The seemly high adopton rate of dual core chips is a good thing though. We can already see that developers are taking notice and are starting to code for dual core (with mixed results). I would say that over the next 2 years, dual core (and 64-bit) will become mainstream, and only budget or special purpose chips will be single core. By this time pretty much all applications and drivers will take advantage of that, and any dual core chip you buy today will be outdated as there is no such thing as "future proofing".
The point that I really want to get across here is not that I am anti-dual core, I'm not... I own one, but sometimes I feel that for what I use my PC for I might have been better off getting a faster single core. My primary use of this PC is gaming (I can only play one at a time effectively), and anything else I do is pretty much trivial for any modern processor.
It just seems that recommending dual core procs has become a knee jerk reaction on AT forums lately, without any consideration actually given to the needs of the person asking the question. Dual core is the one size fits all answer to "What kind of cpu should I get?"
I agree with you. Today, for gaming only and at default speed, FX-57 will offer best bang for the bucks period, and the OP won't have to deal with some of the gaming issues older games may have with dual core, like install patches, assign thread...that some of us dual core people have to deal with. In 6 month, the balance may tilt a little and top end dual core may perform as well as top end single core, and in one year, I'd say dual core should have advantage in gaming.
Looking at OP's current setup and the amount of money he is willing to pay, I am guessing he upgrades often and doesn't mind paying for premium. They best bet for him might be to get the FX-57 for now and upgrade to dual core when more games/video card driver take advantage of dual core and boost the performance of dual core enough to overcome the slower clock speed compare to the single core. The good thing about AMD's dual core offering if that you can just replace the CPU and you'd be set. AMD single and dual core both use the same socket, same chipset, and it's pretty easy upgrade.TextText
Ok i didnt know about the bold and underlined part. so i would have to tweak my FX60 just to run older games? that kinda bites o well progress means some sacrifice.
Anyways just for everyones FYI, no i dont upgrade every 6 months, im not a rich man, im just a gamer that wants a killer rig that can last at least awhile. I mean if you really get down to it my 9800pro runs BF2 just fine, looking side by side at my friends rig who has a 4800x2 with a 7800gtx at a glance the games looked basically the same. his framerate was a bit smoother and lil details and shadows came up quite nicer on his rig BUT the game still ran fine with my rig. dont want to start a seperate war but thats my personal xp at watching in REAL TIME, not some bars or graphs, the differences between these two machines.
But im not a 'casual' gamer. i want my settings run as high and as smooth as they can. right now my rig is good enough to allow me the 'option' of being able to wait and see if the FX60 is AMD's next FX beast, or was just something they threw together just to gain a profit. So i will wait and see what the FX60 will offer, in terms of gaming, no i dont multitask, the most i multitask is play on the internet and download pics while playing WoW, but if the FX60 is AMD's next BEAST, i want a BEAST not something they just threw together, then im all for it, if its not half the beast the FX 57 is then ill get the FX 57.
As for OC i just got into it like maybe 2 months ago. my rig runs 'stock' i think at 2002.5 in cpuz. i was told that number means my rig is runnign where it should, at 2.0ghz right? thats what 2002.5 translates too is 2.0? thats what i was told im not sure but thats it where it should be.
Before i OC i went and bought a Antec VG cooler and HD cooler. i bought the HD cooler as a replacement for my broken Vantec cooler. my rig was running at 46 C and now it runs at 34C and im not kidding it, those two products dropped the temps a griPp!! now ive been doing OC research the last month and came up with one VERY important rule: Heat kills. the most important i gathered thus far is heat=less OC. So before i start to seriously OC im gonna invest in the Thermalright XP-90c. thats good right? The reason im starting to learn OC as quick AND effeciently as i can is because i do plan on getting my EPIC beast as soon as i get the info on the FX60 which i think AT has recently done an article on it already. i want a bit more research on it. but until then i want to learn to OC as much as i can with this rig. id rather torch this system now then torch my new system lol not too sound like i have money to just 'throw' away, hence the careful investments.
anyways i hope this shed some light on where i stand. i know about the beast that is the FX57. im so close to just picking that sucker up right now. BUT i want to see if the FX60 is half the beast that one is, meaning if FX60 turns out to be an OC beast like the FX57 and get like HUGE performance gains then ill grab it, but if i see it just getting a 4-5% performance gain then ill pick up the FX57 due to the price drop its sure to get on the FX60s launch.
Originally posted by: blackllotus
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2668
The performance difference between the fx60 and the fx57 is so minimal that there is no reason NOT to get the fx60. While the 57's performance will only continue to degrade as newer games come out, the 60's will probably be performing better a year from now.