x2 4800 vs. fx-57

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: 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.

I can say that too. My A64 doesn't feel that laggy when running multiple apps, maybe when using extremely depeandat I/O apps the system gets less responsive, but this happens too with P4HT machines I use. Using DVDShrink, firefox and winamp doesn't make my PC look laggy, I always encode in a disk different to than from the main system, to avoid I/O bottlenecks.

 

[Sixtyfour]

My Opteron @1400Mhz is faster in windows than 3Ghz Pentium with HT.
Go figure.

 

[imported_Deadringer]

Just thought I'd add my question here instead of starting a new thread.

If one was building a machine soley for gaming, and nothing else, would an FX-57 offer a big performance increase over say, an oc'd 4400+?

And how likely is it that we will see games coded to make use of dual cores anytime soon? (As I understand, it's no easy task. But then again, Xbox360 and PS3 are supposed to use multicores)

 

[imported_wyrmrider]

dear dead
you have a big vairable there
stock fx57 vs oc 4400
if you said oc 57 vs oc 4400 the 57 might be quicker
oc vs stock go with the oc 4400
the 4400 is certainly more future proof
cost it out both ways
but the 4400 may save you an expensive upgrade next year
if you are comparing pro level gaming systems you'd have to factor in the memory and disks
and the video card is going to make more differnect than the differnece between the FX and X2 (for most games)
I'd think that unless you're related to Daddy Warbucks then the 4400 would leave lots of $$$ for the rest of the system

time for some research

wyrmrider

 

[Viditor]

I know this is surprising, but if you read the reviews (just starting to come out), the FX57 beats the X2 4800+ by ~10% in gaming...that would seem to me to be a significant amount...

Edit: I should add that it absolutely SLAUGHTERS the P4 EE 3.73...!

 

[imported_Deadringer]

Thanks for the reply wym.

I know that many things go into the performance of games on a given system. I guess the review of the FX-57 vs. the 4800+ X2 vs. the P4 3.8Ghz EE answered my first question before I actually asked it.

But what I'm wondering now is when will games start taking advantage of multiple cores and any ideas anyone might have on how the 4400+ would fair against an FX-57 then, if only speculative numbers.

As for the cost of the system, at the risk of coming across as an ass, money's not an issue. I'm pretty much going 'all out' this time. I don't feel guilty about spending money on my favorite hobby, personally.

 

[imported_wyrmrider]

I think the final oc will be "the luck of the draw"
not enough info on either cpu to see a pattern yet- using the best san diegos and fsx55's as a model
I would think that they will each oc to about the same but individual chips may vary widely
maybe more of a sure thing with the FX as it must be veryhigh end binned
but I would think the 4400's are also- the ones that do not make it are 4200's
with the price difference you could go SLI
got a top of the line ps?
wyrm

 

[wseyller]

windows sluggish and feeling of lag with amd64? LMFOA. Mine runs like a champ with tons of apps open.

 

[jpeyton]

4800+ vs. FX-57...an age old question

Here are some scenarios. You make the decision.

Scenario 1: Playing HL2/CS:S @ 1600x1200 4XAA/8XAF...Winner: FX-57 by a slim margin (largely GPU dependent).

Scenario 2: Encoding DVD & Playing HL2/CS:S...Winner: 4800+ by a wide margin (largely CPU dependent).

Scenario 3: Playing Unreal 3 (or any game based on the next Unreal engine)...Winner: 4800+ by a wide margin (next-generation game engines will be multithreaded).

 

[Compddd]

Having a top end system with a FX-55 I can say what Sent said is true. This thing gets really laggy/jerky sometimes. I can't wait to ditch this thing for a X2 4800 Dual core is the future.

 

[Kermit]

I thought when multitasking, memory was the issue not the processor??? If you don't have enough memory, you'll start pagin into HD and this will be damn slow, no matter which system you use.

 

[imported_NoGodForMe]

You won't be able to get the FX57 for a couple months, as OEM and system builders get it first. Same goes for the new X2 chips. The Egg might have a few, but you'll have to order the second it appears on the site, because I predict they'll be gone fast.

In two weeks, you'll be looking to place your order, and the chip you want will say out of stock, ETA 1 month.

 

[JackBurton]

VERY nice!

 

[JackBurton]

VERY nice!

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: Kermit
I thought when multitasking, memory was the issue not the processor??? If you don't have enough memory, you'll start pagin into HD and this will be damn slow, no matter which system you use.

It would depend on how much CPU hunger the apps are, but the general complainings about the systems slowdowns in this forums have been more because I/O and memory hungry apps like DVD ripping, winrar archiving and stuff like that which are not CPU intensive apps but I/O and memory dependant. In those kind of tasks things like HT won't help.