x2: Dual core or FX?

Hi all,
Have had my old Athlon 1900+ for over 3 years now and been very happy with
it but I think it's getting a little tired. Looking at the new stuff
avaiable, was wondering if folks have practical experiences and/or
suggestion to share.

I've looked at the x2 3800+, 4400+, 4800+ and FX-57 processors and haven't
quite figured out why the prices are so far apart. Well, it seems like a big
difference to me anyway for the increment in rated speed and cache.

This machine is primarily for gaming (75%) and some tinkering with
Microsoft Visual Studio, SQL Server, Oracle, etc... Of course, there's the
usual web browsing, MS Office application and some Adobe. Gaming is most
important though. :-)

Any thoughts will be much appreciated.

Thanks.


aK.

"Angie" wrote in message
news:%Vx9f.2065$0d.1389@trnddc03...
Hi all,
Have had my old Athlon 1900+ for over 3 years now and been very happy with
it but I think it's getting a little tired. Looking at the new stuff
avaiable, was wondering if folks have practical experiences and/or
suggestion to share.

I've looked at the x2 3800+, 4400+, 4800+ and FX-57 processors and haven't
quite figured out why the prices are so far apart. Well, it seems like a
big difference to me anyway for the increment in rated speed and cache.

This machine is primarily for gaming (75%) and some tinkering with
Microsoft Visual Studio, SQL Server, Oracle, etc... Of course, there's the
usual web browsing, MS Office application and some Adobe. Gaming is most
important though. :-)

Any thoughts will be much appreciated.

Thanks.


aK.


Since there are no multi-threaded games, the FX processors are your best
bet. They will best anything else on the market for gaming. In the future,
when the game developers begin developing
multithreaded games, then the X2 will be better for gaming, but that is down
the road.

Bobby

"NoNoBadDog!" wrote in
news:2rz9f.3544$9d.1694@trnddc05:


"Angie" wrote in message
news:%Vx9f.2065$0d.1389@trnddc03...
I've looked at the x2 3800+, 4400+, 4800+ and FX-57 processors and
haven't quite figured out why the prices are so far apart. Well, it
seems like a big difference to me anyway for the increment in rated
speed and cache.

This machine is primarily for gaming (75%) and some tinkering with
Microsoft Visual Studio, SQL Server, Oracle, etc... Of course,
there's the usual web browsing, MS Office application and some Adobe.
Gaming is most important though. :-)
Since there are no multi-threaded games, the FX processors are your
best bet. They will best anything else on the market for gaming. In
the future, when the game developers begin developing
multithreaded games, then the X2 will be better for gaming, but that
is down the road.

Unless you like to multi task and game. Then the dual cores rule.


--
____________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| City of Heroes, Basic Stamp, RPGs, War Games |
| |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
\____________________________________________/

Thanks for responding Bobby & David.

I am curious what's unique about the FX processor. It costs a LOT more than
even some of the dual core units. Does it really make that much of a
difference if I have a decent graphics card? I read the stuff on AMD's
website and it was a little fluffy. I'm digging through Tom's site right now
to find out more. So far, I gather it is good but is it $200 more good?


aK.


"David Simpson" wrote in message
. 97.131...
"NoNoBadDog!" wrote in
news:2rz9f.3544$9d.1694@trnddc05:


"Angie" wrote in message
news:%Vx9f.2065$0d.1389@trnddc03...
I've looked at the x2 3800+, 4400+, 4800+ and FX-57 processors and
haven't quite figured out why the prices are so far apart. Well, it
seems like a big difference to me anyway for the increment in rated
speed and cache.

This machine is primarily for gaming (75%) and some tinkering with
Microsoft Visual Studio, SQL Server, Oracle, etc... Of course,
there's the usual web browsing, MS Office application and some Adobe.
Gaming is most important though. :-)
Since there are no multi-threaded games, the FX processors are your
best bet. They will best anything else on the market for gaming. In
the future, when the game developers begin developing
multithreaded games, then the X2 will be better for gaming, but that
is down the road.

Unless you like to multi task and game. Then the dual cores rule.


--
____________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| City of Heroes, Basic Stamp, RPGs, War Games |
| |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
\____________________________________________/

Angie:

The FX series is optimized for gaming (sort of like a turbo charger for a
car engine). If you are a serious gamer, then yes it is worth the extra
$200. Nothing else comes close (far gaming).

Bobby

"Angie" wrote in message
news:v2N9f.86$zU2.66@trnddc07...
Thanks for responding Bobby & David.

I am curious what's unique about the FX processor. It costs a LOT more
than even some of the dual core units. Does it really make that much of a
difference if I have a decent graphics card? I read the stuff on AMD's
website and it was a little fluffy. I'm digging through Tom's site right
now to find out more. So far, I gather it is good but is it $200 more
good?


aK.


"David Simpson" wrote in message
. 97.131...
"NoNoBadDog!" wrote in
news:2rz9f.3544$9d.1694@trnddc05:


"Angie" wrote in message
news:%Vx9f.2065$0d.1389@trnddc03...
I've looked at the x2 3800+, 4400+, 4800+ and FX-57 processors and
haven't quite figured out why the prices are so far apart. Well, it
seems like a big difference to me anyway for the increment in rated
speed and cache.

This machine is primarily for gaming (75%) and some tinkering with
Microsoft Visual Studio, SQL Server, Oracle, etc... Of course,
there's the usual web browsing, MS Office application and some Adobe.
Gaming is most important though. :-)
Since there are no multi-threaded games, the FX processors are your
best bet. They will best anything else on the market for gaming. In
the future, when the game developers begin developing
multithreaded games, then the X2 will be better for gaming, but that
is down the road.

Unless you like to multi task and game. Then the dual cores rule.


--
____________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| City of Heroes, Basic Stamp, RPGs, War Games |
| |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
\____________________________________________/

"Angie" wrote in
news:v2N9f.86$zU2.66@trnddc07:

Thanks for responding Bobby & David.

I am curious what's unique about the FX processor. It costs a LOT more
than even some of the dual core units. Does it really make that much
of a difference if I have a decent graphics card? I read the stuff on
AMD's website and it was a little fluffy. I'm digging through Tom's
site right now to find out more. So far, I gather it is good but is it
$200 more good?

The FX-57 is just the fastest CPU AMD makes, so it is the highest price.
If you are single tasking, using it, you will have the fastest computer
based on the athlon you can make. Some times you need (projest is VERY CPU
intesive) or want (bragging rights) the fastest you can buy. On some
project, even a 1% increase would save you a lot of time.

Friend of mine NEVER buys the best, and it saves him money, but means a
brand new system isn't the fastest it could be.



--
____________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| City of Heroes, Basic Stamp, RPGs, War Games |
| |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
\____________________________________________/

"NoNoBadDog!" wrote in
news:EQN9f.38$5R2.24@trnddc08:

Angie:

The FX series is optimized for gaming (sort of like a turbo charger
for a
car engine). If you are a serious gamer, then yes it is worth the
extra $200. Nothing else comes close (far gaming).

It is also 17% faster (2.8G vs. 2.4G) than the fastest dual core CPU.


--
____________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| City of Heroes, Basic Stamp, RPGs, War Games |
| |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
\____________________________________________/

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 16:51:39 +0000, Angie wrote:

Thanks for responding Bobby & David.

I am curious what's unique about the FX processor. It costs a LOT more
than even some of the dual core units. Does it really make that much of a
difference if I have a decent graphics card? I read the stuff on AMD's
website and it was a little fluffy. I'm digging through Tom's site right
now to find out more. So far, I gather it is good but is it $200 more
good?

There's only 3 things unique about it. 1, it's multiplier unlocked, which
really doesn't mean much these days with MB's that will go over 300MHz
system clock speeds. 2, it's got the highest default clock speed of all
the K8 cpu's at the time of its release. And 3, the price. If money's not
an object, then go for it. If it is, buy a slower part with the latest
core and clock it up to the same speed of the FX or even higher. A 939
cpu with 1M cache, clocked to the same clockspeed of the FX should perform
the same as the FX. So, $235 (3700+ San Diego core) or $985 (FX57 San
Diego core) for the same performance. The choice is yours. Be aware that
there's no garauntee that the 3700+ will will clock to 2.8 GHz, but it's
basically the same cpu as the FX57.

--
KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:45:08 +0000, NoNoBadDog! wrote:

Angie:

The FX series is optimized for gaming (sort of like a turbo charger for a
car engine). If you are a serious gamer, then yes it is worth the extra
$200. Nothing else comes close (far gaming).

Bobby

Nonsense, the FXes aren't any different then the other single core
Athlon 64s. The FX series is merely the highest speed grade of the Athlon
64 series. The highest speed grades always carry a huge premium, thus the
FX 57 costs $957, the slightly slower (15%) 4000+ is $334. If you are
going to buy a single core processor then avoid the FX57 and buy a 4000+
or a 3800+. Speed differences of 15% aren't noticeable. The dual core
4400+ is $495, about half the price of an FX57. The single thread
performance of the 4400+ is 22% less than the FX57 but the multithread is
throughput more than 50% greater.

"General Schvantzkoph" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:45:08 +0000, NoNoBadDog! wrote:

Angie:

The FX series is optimized for gaming (sort of like a turbo charger for
a
car engine). If you are a serious gamer, then yes it is worth the extra
$200. Nothing else comes close (far gaming).

Bobby

Nonsense, the FXes aren't any different then the other single core
Athlon 64s. The FX series is merely the highest speed grade of the Athlon
64 series. The highest speed grades always carry a huge premium, thus the
FX 57 costs $957, the slightly slower (15%) 4000+ is $334. If you are
going to buy a single core processor then avoid the FX57 and buy a 4000+
or a 3800+. Speed differences of 15% aren't noticeable. The dual core
4400+ is $495, about half the price of an FX57. The single thread
performance of the 4400+ is 22% less than the FX57 but the multithread is
throughput more than 50% greater.

Then how do *YOU* explain the significant differences in benchmarks between
the FX and it's non-FX brethren?

The information you have posted is completely wrong...I would be curious to
know the source, as the source obviously is completely clueless.

Since there are currently no multi-threaded games on the market, then your
response in that regard is irrelevant.

The OP stated their main emphasis was on gaming, therefore the FX *IS* the
best choice. The FX will outperform (in gaming) any of the other AMD64
lines, including X2.

Bobby