FX-57 vs. 4800+

[blckgrffn]

No mention of price was mentioned here. The OP just wanted to know which one would be "best" and I think that it is the predominant opinion that the dual core solution is the "best" one right now. Look at my sig, I totally agree that best bang for the buck is what you said, but that wasn't what the OP was asking for.

 

[nealh]

I know but I think people forget how fast stuff change and how little we get on resale

Cost should matter...but that is my opinion(I can afford the latest and greatest but I am not getting enough to justify the high end...too much of premium IMHO)

 

[dguy6789]

I would choose the 4800+ over the FX57 because

1. You will never see the difference between the two processors in any single threaded application.

2. You will see a HUGE difference in multitasking performance and multithreaded application performance.

 

[PKing1977]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I would choose the 4800+ over the FX57 because

1. You will never see the difference between the two processors in any single threaded application.

2. You will see a HUGE difference in multitasking performance and multithreaded application performance.

This is a very valid point that I have not seen any perponent of staying with a FX over X2 address. We are not talking about budget chips, they both cost the same. I do not see how anyone can even argue to stay with a single core chip.

PKing

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: 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

Obviously Price isn't much of an Issue if the only 2 CPUS are the Highest Priced ones. Also for the 6800GT yor talking about $375 to $400 for one. Which mean they got 7800GTX performance a year before it came out at $150-$200 more. That doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.

When Spending that much money, unless you have stupid money, longevity should be the first thing analyzed. When you take that into consideration the X2 to me sounds like a No Brainer. But then again I might be biased because of my 4400+ purchase.

 

[piddlefoot]

rocks in yas heads, my fx55 is no comparison in ONLINE GAMING the 4400+ dual core smashes it, offline fx57 all the way , online dual core everytime, l dont care what ppl say the dual pulls the SAME frame rate give or take 5 fps as the fx55 online only you NEVER get backreound task lag ever.
offline fx57 will pwn, online theres a piont where core speed with the games out now will just not used so an extra core is the way to go,the fx55, all it can do better in realworld terms in my opinion is benchmarks..........

dual core IS BETTER .

 

[Markbnj]

[and there are no multi-threaded games.]

Virtually all games are multi-threaded. At least, anything in Windows using DirectX is. Yes, I know that doesn't mean the custom parts of the game's code have been written to make efficient use of parallelism, but however you look at it: single core means more context switches.

 

[Griffinhart]

4800+ for me. There just isn't enough of a Framerate increase with the FX-57 over the 4800+ in games to make losing the performance boost in multi-threaded apps, like Photoshop and video editing software, worth it.

And once NVidia releases the multi-threaded version of their video drivers, this year, the Framerate lead of the FX-57 will be non-existant with the expected 5 to 30% expected performance increase.

 

[Mickey21]

People getting that kind of performance aren't interested in future proofing in general... I game a lot and when I am not gaming I could care less for the multi processor aspect at this time. Sure eventually I will move that way when a bigger majority of software will take advantage of dual cores and more, but right now, give me the 57. I want the fastest gaming performance I can get, which I get in the FX57 I already have... Looks like early adopting marketing is really paying off for Intel and AMD as shown in this thread. Good for them I guess... As for convincing me on the dual core instead, as asked, give me faster performance, I'll switch. Right now, that just isnt happening no matter what all the dual core proponents what to think.

Come on anyways, they are both great products and you would be lucky to own either one. Do we really need to keep creating the pissing contest? Just buy what is best for you and have at it...

 

[Griffinhart]

Saw this in another thread, and it's related to this topic.

http://www.hardwareoc.at/Geforce-7-Treibervergleich.htm

It's a german site, but it has benchmarks of the multi-core drivers from nVidia. Depending on the game, you get anywhere between a slight increase to near 50%.

Interesting.

 

[PKing1977]

Originally posted by: Mickey21
People getting that kind of performance aren't interested in future proofing in general... I game a lot and when I am not gaming I could care less for the multi processor aspect at this time. Sure eventually I will move that way when a bigger majority of software will take advantage of dual cores and more, but right now, give me the 57. I want the fastest gaming performance I can get, which I get in the FX57 I already have... Looks like early adopting marketing is really paying off for Intel and AMD as shown in this thread. Good for them I guess... As for convincing me on the dual core instead, as asked, give me faster performance, I'll switch. Right now, that just isnt happening no matter what all the dual core proponents what to think.

Come on anyways, they are both great products and you would be lucky to own either one. Do we really need to keep creating the pissing contest? Just buy what is best for you and have at it...

Early adopting marketing is not the reason why the X2 is getting this kind of word of mouth praise. There are real benifits the you will notice right out of the box and not in some far off future program. Humm far off.. the nvidia drivers come out soon. FEAR comes out soon.. guess it is not as far off as some ppl like to argue

PKing

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: PKing1977

Originally posted by: Mickey21
People getting that kind of performance aren't interested in future proofing in general... I game a lot and when I am not gaming I could care less for the multi processor aspect at this time. Sure eventually I will move that way when a bigger majority of software will take advantage of dual cores and more, but right now, give me the 57. I want the fastest gaming performance I can get, which I get in the FX57 I already have... Looks like early adopting marketing is really paying off for Intel and AMD as shown in this thread. Good for them I guess... As for convincing me on the dual core instead, as asked, give me faster performance, I'll switch. Right now, that just isnt happening no matter what all the dual core proponents what to think.

Come on anyways, they are both great products and you would be lucky to own either one. Do we really need to keep creating the pissing contest? Just buy what is best for you and have at it...

Early adopting marketing is not the reason why the X2 is getting this kind of word of mouth praise. There are real benifits the you will notice right out of the box and not in some far off future program. Humm far off.. the nvidia drivers come out soon. FEAR comes out soon.. guess it is not as far off as some ppl like to argue

PKing

I like the line I read in a Another thread. People recommending that a DC is not worth it has never used one. I like those Doom3 scores with the 81.26s Those were uber sweet.

 

[theMan]

those new drivers sold me completely. dual core all the way!!

 

[piddlefoot]

quote''... As for convincing me on the dual core instead, as asked, give me faster performance, I'll switch. Right now, that just isnt happening no matter what all the dual core proponents what to think.

WRONG in my opinion,
bf2 uses the second core , whether programmed to or not , it does and well that gives you a MASSIVE increase in pollygon count / i.e smoother game, i e, faster game, over current single core chips. Dont believe me ?
run this bot program on your single core, then put media player on in backround with a 192 bit rate, then see if you can record it [ fraps maybe ].
Or just try and get 128 bots to run on a single core .....
Cause the 4400+ dual can do all the above recording it all at 40 fps........

its just faster better NOW basicly.......

On top of that every game lve used this 4400+ has shown an improvement, how do you argue against a dual chip without trying one ?

 

[meatfestival]

In games, if you actually give your graphics card something to do, a Venice 3200 is just as effective as an FX57. It's a ridiculously expensive chip and I find its reputation as a gaming CPU quite bizarre.

The only reason to get one is for the unlocked multiplier, which is only of interest to serious overclockers and benchmarkers (most pointless hobby ever IMO), not gamers.

It might give you an extra 1000 points in 3DMark05, but that equates to about 5 more fps in GPU intensive games if you're lucky.

The X2 4800+ also costs silly money, but it makes a lot more sense for most users, even gamers.

 

[Markbnj]

[People recommending that a DC is not worth it has never used one.]

That's the truth. I replaced a 2.5 ghz P4 with 2 2.2 Ghz Athlons, and everything worked better right out of POST. Windows boots faster, much faster. Programs load much faster. Games run much faster. There isn't anything that I do on my system that isn't faster, smoother, and more responsive. People forget that Windows is heavily multi-threaded, with a lot of processes running even when you are playing that "single threaded" game. Having an extra core to chew through that workload makes a huge difference.

 

[piddlefoot]

heres a link for non believers of dual core gaming magic , bf2 , 128 bots pick your map, then see if any single core can even run 128 bots SMOOTHLY ...
Of coarse you can only experience this awsome gaming kaos if you run a dual core !
A bit of ram and a good vid card !

http://www.aaenterprisesonline.com/old_index.htm

enjoy dual corers......

 

[George Powell]

I have chosen the 4800 as the one I would use. I already have a 4400 and it's great. As for the FX I would like the case badge, mmm make that I'll go for the FX sell it and get a couple of 7800gtx with the procedes. But would keep the badge.

 

[Pythias]

Originally posted by: 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.

And they payed twice as much for it. Not to mention that sli support is lacking in many games.

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: piddlefoot
quote''... As for convincing me on the dual core instead, as asked, give me faster performance, I'll switch. Right now, that just isnt happening no matter what all the dual core proponents what to think.

WRONG in my opinion,
bf2 uses the second core , whether programmed to or not , it does and well that gives you a MASSIVE increase in pollygon count / i.e smoother game, i e, faster game, over current single core chips. Dont believe me ?
run this bot program on your single core, then put media player on in backround with a 192 bit rate, then see if you can record it [ fraps maybe ].
Or just try and get 128 bots to run on a single core .....
Cause the 4400+ dual can do all the above recording it all at 40 fps........

its just faster better NOW basicly.......

On top of that every game lve used this 4400+ has shown an improvement, how do you argue against a dual chip without trying one ?

This whole point was useless... That isnt giving me faster performance, that is still giving me more multitasking ability... I asked for faster performance in games... Why the heck would I be talking about playing music while playing BF2, while throwing in a ridiculous amount of bots that would render just about any of those maps stupidly full of people...

But since you bring it up, if I want to play music, I play music on my satellite receiver, not my computer. If I wanted 128 bots, I would throw up a dedicated server and host 128bots in a BF2 game from the Quad-Xeon server. My point is to the OP that if given the choice I would still get the FX-57. Not "what makes sense for most people who dont do things the right way" or cant afford to do it otherwise... To everyone else, all the power to them to get a dual core because it makes the best sense for them, but one or two niche games (as posted by another poster which doesnt realize that buying something for upcoming few releases is by definition "early adopting"), does not a perfect product for everyone make it either...

I kind of love how defensive the DC people are though. It tells me they constantly seek to validate their choices. Not all of them, but quite a bit of them... They like to spout off things they like to do at the same time, and assume everyone else does these kinds of behaviors. I mean, I state my requested opinion to the OP, and I get all sorts of "you're wrong, because this and that". You dont see me jumping on others saying they are wrong because all my dual core activity I do on real servers, not my gaming box.... And this stupid notion "well you never tried one, that's why you dont believe" mentality... Whatever you want to tell yourselves... I work with multicores all day long, I just dont think they give the fastest gaming performance... They have their place though, and they are good processors, so just be happy with what you got... Maybe next year...

You want to go over my main rigs, you can: My Rigs
By no means am I average, I know that, but that is what a poll is for...

 

[cbehnken]

overclock the 4800+ and you may have 2 FX-57s

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: cbehnken
overclock the 4800+ and you may have 2 FX-57s

Quite frankly, they don't overclock as well...

 

[IeraseU]

The FX series is sort of dead in the water for thier price compared to what the X2's are offering, imo. I would love to see an FX-X2 chip, and I'm sure we will in due time.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Mickey21

Originally posted by: cbehnken
overclock the 4800+ and you may have 2 FX-57s

Quite frankly, they don't overclock as well...

Baloney. I've seen plenty of 4800+ doing 2.8+ either meeting or exceeding FX-57 specs. And you get 2 of them.

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Mickey21

Originally posted by: cbehnken
overclock the 4800+ and you may have 2 FX-57s

Quite frankly, they don't overclock as well...

Baloney. I've seen plenty of 4800+ doing 2.8+ either meeting or exceeding FX-57 specs. And you get 2 of them.

Hmmm, let's take a look at what I said, shall we????

They (the dual cores)
Don't (negative, can't, won't, etc)
Overclock (process of using a processor faster than rated at)
as (transitive word, but used to compare in this case)
Well (comparative word used to describe the ability of something versus something else)...

SOOO, in my statement, we would be talking about:
the dual cores negative abitilty to operate faster than rated at in comparison to something else (ie FX-57)...

The ability for the dual core to overclock to FX-57 stock speeds never really came into question.... You offend me with your assumption that I know not that the dual core CAN overclock to FX-57 stock speeds.... Be gone...