FX-57 vs. 4800+

[Fallengod]

Originally posted by: 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.

Ill make one for you. For $1 million dollars! pm if interested.

 

[dnavarro]

I think the whole "pro FX57" crowd is forgetting that the multithreaded NVIDIA drivers make a huge difference. These are beta at the moment but are already giving me at least 15% performance and up to 30-40% improvement in all my games. Your FX chip gets no improvement from it being mutithreaded. My X2 3800+ @3.1Ghz gets me more FPS in HL2 for example than my FX55 @ 3.3Ghz with these drivers. You do the math. People using the lame excuse of "nothing will support dual core for a few years" obviously haven't thought of the NVIDIA driver development. And the official drivers are expected very soon. One other note, both FEAR and AOE3 are positioned (by intel) to have dual core support in the game iteself. Imagine FEAR with NVIDIA multi threaded drivers. Ouch to an FX57. Give me my 3800+ X2

Don't knock it til u try it You don't know what your missing lol

D

 

[PKing1977]

I think the FX crowd is just mad because they paid so much money and are going to end up in second place

PKing

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: PKing1977
I think the FX crowd is just mad because they paid so much money and are going to end up in second place

PKing

I had to laugh at that one...

Not only was my first FX-57 free (connections), but it won me a second FX-57 from Alienware (Quakecon 2005 - Performance Challenge - First Place)... WHO'S Bitter?

And well, yes even Dual Cores didnt beat me...

 

[dnavarro]

Doubt they were using the NVIDIA Drivers either

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: dnavarro
Doubt they were using the NVIDIA Drivers either

You act like Dual Cores even got close? In the scores, the closest dual core to my score was over 4000 points lower... over 25%...

Again, they are good processors, they just dont overclock as well... Why even the argueing, it's not like most people overclock anyways... The OP asked what would I pick... Sheesh...

 

[PKing1977]

it sounds like you were testing processer speed and not skill in play.

However, for free I would take an FX. I am just talking about people who are going to be paying for a new cpu.

PKing

 

[dnavarro]

I would say most dual cores don't clock that well. But given the cold they can get to within 5-10% the clockspeed of a single core overclock. And with 15-25% (and theoretically more) increases due to drivers and software, they WILL surpass single core. I agree however, besides the 3800+ X2's most aren't know to be great Overclockers.

D

 

[johnnqq]

a 4400 would be the better choice. the extra $ isn't worth a very small (maybe not noticeable difference). RIGHT NOW i would get the fx57, but the fact taht future games MIGHT be multi threaded gives a good excuse to splurge on an x2...personally, if i had the money i would get an fx 57. when multi threaded games come out, they won't be optimized for dual core ONLY, as most uses still have single core. the 57 is also very future proof as an overclocker. 2.8 stocker!!

 

[piddlefoot]

its all bs how much core clock speed do you NEED to run a game smoothly, less than 2 gig will do in 32 bit games like hl2 and doom etc ,, so in REAL WORLD TERMS a dual core is still better for gaming everyday online, cause you just dont need 3 or 4 gig clock core cpu's, for 32 bit games, face it we could really make a game loook sick with 64 bit code , we still use 32 halving the cpu 's potential , your graphics card is more important , so all this rubbish about the FASTEST GAME PC is well rubbish, its really the best bench and now your talking pure overclockers so back to the real world , l own an fx55 and a 3200, 2600, 1800, x800 pro , xt, xtpe, 5600 nvidea fx , 7800 gtx nvidia, well the gtx 7800 is plugged into the dual 4400+, in real world gaming online the fx55 CANNOT COMPARE, the dual never gets backround lag , ALL FX CPUS DO, and as for price fx 57 or 4400+/4800+ dual, there around the high end yea but if you can afford it and if you want the best or close to it price dont really come into it, you just want the best, so l stand by the duals as being a BETTER cpu , not as fast so to speak , but then lets look at AMD and intel, Intel were always usually faster core but the amd could crunch more numbers less clock totally different archutecture,making it FASTER in alot of cases, so ask yourself again how vital a clock of 3 gig really is RIGHT NOW . Then realise with 64 bit round the corner your clock speed is pppfffttt in the wind, they just wont need it for a while yet, they will slap more and more cores together for a while, and when some drivers and program coding comes for dual cores we ll see then the true SPEED of these 64 bit chips, on 32 bit its all limited.
DUAL ALL THE WAY ,been gaming since the commodore 64, NOTHING even comes close to dual online game performance.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Mickey21

Originally posted by: dnavarro
Doubt they were using the NVIDIA Drivers either

You act like Dual Cores even got close? In the scores, the closest dual core to my score was over 4000 points lower... over 25%...

Again, they are good processors, they just dont overclock as well... Why even the argueing, it's not like most people overclock anyways... The OP asked what would I pick... Sheesh...

What score are you talking about, oh you mean the benchmark that's not using the second core. I can pick one benchmark that would crash your FX no matter how much you overclock it too.

Hey, if you have the money to build one PC for each of your need. Like one for game, one for HTPC, one for serving files, one for whatever you want, and assuming everyone has an understanding wife that will let you do it, life is all good.

But most people in the real world tend to have one main pc for their everyday need, they game on it and do most of the stuff on it too. In that case dual core will offer the most benefit, period. It's not about future proof, it is about the best performance for everything you can throw at the PC at any given time today. The future development in driver and games to take advantage of dual core/cpu is just added incentive.

Oh and by the way, dual core is not just early adaptor or marketing. Dual CPU has been in existance for years, dual core just make it easy for people to take advantage of SMP. People who like dual core/SMP actually uses it and 99% have used single core at one point in time, unlike those who bashes dual core.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Mickey21
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...

And, how much headroom is there for FX-57 without extreme cooling (ie phase change)?

My point is that you can attain FX-57 x 2 with a 4800+ for the same damn price. Who in their right mind would choose a vanilla FX-57?

Be gone

 

[Mickey21]

Originally posted by: PKing1977
it sounds like you were testing processer speed and not skill in play.

However, for free I would take an FX. I am just talking about people who are going to be paying for a new cpu.

PKing

Yes PKing, it was a bring your system and we will run Doom3 and 3Dmark2005 (hey I didnt make the challenge) and Alienware will run the programs and the best scores win. BTW, Doom3 was average FPS (x 100). Being that it was a Quakecon event they weighted the FPS x100 to make Doom3 count more...

Basically the true test was to give the best Doom3 performance. Hardly an easy task given over 5000 systems in attendance including many X2 chips surprisingly. 3Dmark score was as is, so if you got an 8000 in 3Dmark 2005 and an average of 100FPS in Doom 3, 18000 would have been your score. The closest X2 system was a 4800+ that scored a 17,000 and a few points over. It too was overclocked to 2.8 on watercooling. My winning score was 20505. Because of time constraints I actually made my run with my non personal best score of 8675 in 3Dmark 2005. But my Doom3 score of over 115FPS average, added up... My personal best in 3Dmark 2005 is around 9200 and some change from rounds of experimenting those couple of days. But really I am not benchie whore. Just use them to verify overclocking speeds and settings, then I set it and forget it. I only really know the scores because I spent about 3 days overclocking my system for best performance and obviously paid off.

In the end I received a system that scores 25400 (FX-57 - SLI 7800GTX's) in the same scripted run (they ran the system there to see if anyone would challenge them). I competed in the single GPU category, but the dual GPU category would win an identical system but Intel EE processor based (that scores 20800 - even with DUAL SLI 7800GTX's). Not bad, my single GPU system can beat the fastest Intel based system with SLI Alienware produces. All of them watercooled BTW...

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: dnavarro
I would say most dual cores don't clock that well. But given the cold they can get to within 5-10% the clockspeed of a single core overclock. And with 15-25% (and theoretically more) increases due to drivers and software, they WILL surpass single core. I agree however, besides the 3800+ X2's most aren't know to be great Overclockers.

D

The X2 3800+ OC's I have seen are almost allways 2.5 ghz or better. 25% OC is not a good overclocker ? Thats better than my 3000 Winchester !

 

[PKing1977]

Yes PKing, it was a bring your system and we will run Doom3 and 3Dmark2005 (hey I didnt make the challenge) and Alienware will run the programs and the best scores win. BTW, Doom3 was average FPS (x 100). Being that it was a Quakecon event they weighted the FPS x100 to make Doom3 count more...

Basically the true test was to give the best Doom3 performance. Hardly an easy task given over 5000 systems in attendance including many X2 chips surprisingly. 3Dmark score was as is, so if you got an 8000 in 3Dmark 2005 and an average of 100FPS in Doom 3, 18000 would have been your score. The closest X2 system was a 4800+ that scored a 17,000 and a few points over. It too was overclocked to 2.8 on watercooling. My winning score was 20505. Because of time constraints I actually made my run with my non personal best score of 8675 in 3Dmark 2005. But my Doom3 score of over 115FPS average, added up... My personal best in 3Dmark 2005 is around 9200 and some change from rounds of experimenting those couple of days. But really I am not benchie whore. Just use them to verify overclocking speeds and settings, then I set it and forget it. I only really know the scores because I spent about 3 days overclocking my system for best performance and obviously paid off.

In the end I received a system that scores 25400 (FX-57 - SLI 7800GTX's) in the same scripted run (they ran the system there to see if anyone would challenge them). I competed in the single GPU category, but the dual GPU category would win an identical system but Intel EE processor based (that scores 20800 - even with DUAL SLI 7800GTX's). Not bad, my single GPU system can beat the fastest Intel based system with SLI Alienware produces. All of them watercooled BTW...

And because you can bench the best with a game that is over a year old that is a compelling reason to by an FX chip over a X2 chip now? Does my system look like it will have trouble playing Doom3?? When I buy a computer, I look to buy the best chip that will be competitive the longest. Dual cores will be compeitive longer then FX's. Why would I get an FX (not using the new beta nvidia drivers!!!!) to play Doom3 when FEAR comes out next month and has dual core optimizations. Or elder scrolls .. dual core optimizations.. Nividia drivers .. dual core optimizations.. WHY would I spend 1k for an FX when it will be second in one month and I can spend 850ish for an X2??? So you can bench on a game that is old??? who cares? I can still run that game with all the goodies turned on and rez up and maybe even beat you in game play (skill not meaningless benches)

PKing

 

[piddlefoot]

LOL

DUAL ALL THE WAY, your score in doom is neat but what is said above rings true aswell,
anyone whom hs a dual can see the small fps drop from an fx cpu, will not effect your game, so a dual with 10 or 15 fps down from 100 fps odd fx55, is a better deal, got a dual core micky? l dont see one in your rig page, maybe when you own one and get to push it to its potential your veiw will change, untill then an old doom comp aint gunna convince me , go make a fraps video at 40fpr record in bf2 with 32 ppl in server, bet my x2 is FASTER now, period.
Ther really is no comparison with dual and single cores, if you load that cpu up, and what do you recon the next generation of games are going to do?
Point being dual core AMD cpu's havent been tested to there full potential, i e 32bit , 64 bit, dual core bla bla bla, and when they finally do...........incredible comes to mind...

 

[ElTorrente]

FX proponents don't seem to understand a crucial thing with the X2s.

For one, benchmarks take place under perfect conditions and clean installs- with no other application running. I don't remember seeing any benchmarks where the machine is playing REAL games. I'd like to see some BF2 benchmarks with VOIP activated, where the CPU has to encode/decode voice information while rendering frames. How about the act of staying connected and communicating with TCP/IP with a 64 person server- hundreds or thousands (?) of packets every second. Which benchmark compares the performance under those conditions?!?! How about Game Spy/All Seeing Eye, Joysticks/controllers, anti-virus, firewall, anti-spyware, AIM, and all the other common utilities that people have while playing online?

The thing is, with dual core- games are as fast as they CAN be. You will never have to wait for a CPU cycle to come around for your task to be performed- there is always CPU cycles available for any program/app to perform its function without taking away from other programs/apps. What this means is that it is SMOOTHER- especially online where much more is going on. Even under PERFECT conditions, the FX is ONLY a few frames a second faster- which is insignificant, and has nothing to do with REAL WORLD gaming!

Ever benchmark your own system?

When you do, do you move the mouse furiously around and press buttons, and send TCP packets, and encode/decode voices over internet? If not- WHY not? Well- because it slows you down, right? Well, not the X2. All that stuff happens while playing REAL GAMES.

LOL ever notice in SiSandra software how when you run a benchmark it says something like, "Benchmarking - DON'T move your mouse! OMFG be perfectly still while your system is being benchmarked!" .. Last time I played a game I was like, moving my mouse and doing stuff.

Have fun with your FXs and benchmarking, and proving to YOURSELVES that you made a good purchase. Those of us with X2s will enjoy the fringe benefits right now - EVEN WITHOUT any software optimizations for dual cores - and in the coming months will see even more improvements.

 

[piddlefoot]

WHAT HE SAID !

 

[RichUK]

only buy an FX57 if you are going to use a promie/vapo setup

otherwsie there is no point !!!

 

[Mickey21]

I think the X2 crowd is missing a very big thing... We are ignoring COST in this thread... Besides that you are ignoring that I said I WOULD get the FX-57... I am not trying to convert anyone. Just stating a fact that however good the X2's are, they are not the best at GAMING at this time... The majority of games out there are not going to harness the abilities, and who knows when that trend will truely shift. Most of the upcoming games are LONG into developement and switching to dual core capable now would take a lot of effort on their part which would be unnecessary. The numbers of people owning dual cores in the form of gaming machines is VERY LOW. Quit kidding yourselves. Game creators are not stupid and they tend to make their games to the most common denominator (ie average power of systems on the market - to sell more games). Quit trying to tell me something I dont know... Also who in the know uses the VOIP system in BF2. The coding SUCKS!!! I run a teamspeak/ventrillo server and connect to it while our whole clan uses it while we game. When I host 30 person LAN's at my house, I have everyone log on to the teamspeak/ventrillo server. Big whoop... I doubt even running teamspeak in the background, there is much hinderence there at all... MY point to everyone trying to tell me otherwise is that the FX-57 is being marginalized by a huge crowd of X2 persons, and I on the otherhand love the design of the SMP capable X2. I just dont think it has the edge (no matter how much cheaper now) IN PLAYING GAMES... You have every right to think otherwise, but oh well...

And to those challenging my gaming skills, like I am some 21 year old punk, I am 29 now and have been playing games longer than most people have even used a computer. I played original copies of warcraft, duneII, doom, etc... I built my first computer at age 10 over 19 years ago, and had my first computer when I was still 8. I have been around... I have hosted LAN parties for going on 6 years now in my own home, and have always had more than 17 people in attendance... I play games, as well as mod computers, as well as tweak them. I have been to Quakecon 6 years in a row, help run larger 800 person LAN's and various smaller scale ones, I think I would know a thing or two. I not just blowing crap in your ear, both processors are stellar, no doubt...

 

[Markbnj]

[The majority of games out there are not going to harness the abilities, and who knows when that trend will truely shift.]

It would be MUCH more accurate to restate that as follows:

Every game that runs on the Windows platform will see a significant benefit from moving to a dual core, and in the future games will be written to take specific advantage of the additional processing capacity.

It's just wrong to think that current games don't benefit.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Originally posted by: ElTorrente
FX proponents don't seem to understand a crucial thing with the X2s.

For one, benchmarks take place under perfect conditions and clean installs- with no other application running. I don't remember seeing any benchmarks where the machine is playing REAL games. I'd like to see some BF2 benchmarks with VOIP activated, where the CPU has to encode/decode voice information while rendering frames. How about the act of staying connected and communicating with TCP/IP with a 64 person server- hundreds or thousands (?) of packets every second. Which benchmark compares the performance under those conditions?!?! How about Game Spy/All Seeing Eye, Joysticks/controllers, anti-virus, firewall, anti-spyware, AIM, and all the other common utilities that people have while playing online?

The thing is, with dual core- games are as fast as they CAN be. You will never have to wait for a CPU cycle to come around for your task to be performed- there is always CPU cycles available for any program/app to perform its function without taking away from other programs/apps. What this means is that it is SMOOTHER- especially online where much more is going on. Even under PERFECT conditions, the FX is ONLY a few frames a second faster- which is insignificant, and has nothing to do with REAL WORLD gaming!

Ever benchmark your own system?

When you do, do you move the mouse furiously around and press buttons, and send TCP packets, and encode/decode voices over internet? If not- WHY not? Well- because it slows you down, right? Well, not the X2. All that stuff happens while playing REAL GAMES.

LOL ever notice in SiSandra software how when you run a benchmark it says something like, "Benchmarking - DON'T move your mouse! OMFG be perfectly still while your system is being benchmarked!" .. Last time I played a game I was like, moving my mouse and doing stuff.

Have fun with your FXs and benchmarking, and proving to YOURSELVES that you made a good purchase. Those of us with X2s will enjoy the fringe benefits right now - EVEN WITHOUT any software optimizations for dual cores - and in the coming months will see even more improvements.

Very well said. Plus I believe when during benchmarking audio is disabled. In real life who the hell will play games without sound anyway? There are so many things the benchmarks doesn't take in account like what those ElTorrente had said.

With multithreaded video drivers, the FX-57 will lose to the X2 in everything, even including gaming benchmarks.

 

[Kyanzes]

DUAL CORE

 

[Pabster]

9/23/05

Lowest prices (retail box parts) on Froogle

FX-57: $1,011.00

X2 4800+ $879.00

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: Mickey21
I think the X2 crowd is missing a very big thing... We are ignoring COST in this thread... Besides that you are ignoring that I said I WOULD get the FX-57... I am not trying to convert anyone. Just stating a fact that however good the X2's are, they are not the best at GAMING at this time... The majority of games out there are not going to harness the abilities, and who knows when that trend will truely shift. Most of the upcoming games are LONG into developement and switching to dual core capable now would take a lot of effort on their part which would be unnecessary. The numbers of people owning dual cores in the form of gaming machines is VERY LOW. Quit kidding yourselves. Game creators are not stupid and they tend to make their games to the most common denominator (ie average power of systems on the market - to sell more games). Quit trying to tell me something I dont know... Also who in the know uses the VOIP system in BF2. The coding SUCKS!!! I run a teamspeak/ventrillo server and connect to it while our whole clan uses it while we game. When I host 30 person LAN's at my house, I have everyone log on to the teamspeak/ventrillo server. Big whoop... I doubt even running teamspeak in the background, there is much hinderence there at all... MY point to everyone trying to tell me otherwise is that the FX-57 is being marginalized by a huge crowd of X2 persons, and I on the otherhand love the design of the SMP capable X2. I just dont think it has the edge (no matter how much cheaper now) IN PLAYING GAMES... You have every right to think otherwise, but oh well...

And to those challenging my gaming skills, like I am some 21 year old punk, I am 29 now and have been playing games longer than most people have even used a computer. I played original copies of warcraft, duneII, doom, etc... I built my first computer at age 10 over 19 years ago, and had my first computer when I was still 8. I have been around... I have hosted LAN parties for going on 6 years now in my own home, and have always had more than 17 people in attendance... I play games, as well as mod computers, as well as tweak them. I have been to Quakecon 6 years in a row, help run larger 800 person LAN's and various smaller scale ones, I think I would know a thing or two. I not just blowing crap in your ear, both processors are stellar, no doubt...

Yes you are blowing crap into my ears, no matter how long you have been in the industry (which also I might add makes you more unlikely to change, proven fact).

How many HL2 or DM3 or BF2 gamers, play Deer Hunter, or ASScar racing, extreeme Paintball. Not many, These games while they make it so they can run on slower machines are aimed at the enthusiest. The DOOM3 engine, The Crytek engine and the Source engine were mad to push the boundries of peoples systems. Heck even Sony while talking out of there butts was telling us no system could play EQ2 with all of the toys on. Why in the world when something like an extra CPU for gamers reachs mass production would you believe they wouldn't tweak the game to take use of that. Sure it might be awhile before every once of an X2 is put to full use but to say that no new game is going to use it is a joke. Then Look at Nvidia, they are already coming out with drivers that will off load some work to the second core. This means people can go back to HL1 or UT or Quake 2 and get use of that second core. Argghhhh Absolutely no reason to spend more money to get 5-10 FPS when that extra 10FPS (and maybe more) will be coming back to X2 users sooner rather then later.

Trust me, the Day the X1K is announced from ATI, Nvidia will announce and release the Dual core drivers.