x2: Dual core or FX?

"NoNoBadDog!" wrote in
news:3oU9f.1499$W%2.990@trnddc06:
"General Schvantzkoph" wrote in message
Since there are currently no multi-threaded games on the market, then
your response in that regard is irrelevant.

One point I'd like to make on the anti-dual core I've seen some have people
posted (not picking on anyone), is the next version of NVidia's video
drivers will be multi-threaded, which should help on all games!

Plus, if you run something like teamspeak (or ANY other program) while
gaming, the dual cores would help some. I'm not saying you SHOULD get a
dual core, just saying don't count them out. If I had $1000 to spend on a
CPU, I'd get the 4800+, not the FX.


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

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.

Show me one benchmark where an FX57 is more than 16% faster then a 4000+.
The only difference between the FX57 and the 4000+ is clock speed, the
FX57 is 2.8GHz, the 4000+ is 2.4GHz, both have 1M caches. If you take the
ratio between 2.8 and 2.4 you get 1.16 so that's the absolute maximum
possible difference between the two. Of course you'll only see that on a
completely CPU bound application. The DDR memory speeds are identical, the
IO speeds are determined by the disk so that's identical, and the graphics
speed is mostly dependent on the graphics card so there is no difference
there. Given that games are graphics bound you'll barely see any
difference between an FX57 and a 4000+.

"General Schvantzkoph" wrote in message
news

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.

Show me one benchmark where an FX57 is more than 16% faster then a 4000+.
The only difference between the FX57 and the 4000+ is clock speed, the
FX57 is 2.8GHz, the 4000+ is 2.4GHz, both have 1M caches. If you take the
ratio between 2.8 and 2.4 you get 1.16 so that's the absolute maximum
possible difference between the two. Of course you'll only see that on a
completely CPU bound application. The DDR memory speeds are identical, the
IO speeds are determined by the disk so that's identical, and the graphics
speed is mostly dependent on the graphics card so there is no difference
there. Given that games are graphics bound you'll barely see any
difference between an FX57 and a 4000+.

The best advice I can give you is you need to do a little more research.
The FX series is significantly different from the Athlon64 and the Athlon64
X2. The core logic and algorithms included on the chip are significantly
different. The best starting point is the AMD website, but sites like Toms
Hardware are also worth checking out.

We all need to be careful about the information we post here. Posting
inaccurate information as you have done is not a good thing for those who do
not know that what you are posting is just plain wrong.

Bobby

In message General
Schvantzkoph wrote:

If you take the
ratio between 2.8 and 2.4 you get 1.16 so that's the absolute maximum
possible difference between the two.

Not at all, there is more then just clock speed involved.

If you've ever compared a 386/33MHz with a 486/33MHz you'd see it very
obviously, although with modern CPUs the difference is usually less
striking.

--
A cheap shot is a terrible thing to waste.

"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
...
In message General
Schvantzkoph wrote:

If you take the
ratio between 2.8 and 2.4 you get 1.16 so that's the absolute maximum
possible difference between the two.

Not at all, there is more then just clock speed involved.

If you've ever compared a 386/33MHz with a 486/33MHz you'd see it very
obviously, although with modern CPUs the difference is usually less
striking.

--
A cheap shot is a terrible thing to waste.

Don't waste your time...the General seems to be brain-dead and incapable of
a coherent thought...

Bobby

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 09:58:32 +0000, NoNoBadDog! wrote:


"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
...
In message General
Schvantzkoph wrote:

If you take the
ratio between 2.8 and 2.4 you get 1.16 so that's the absolute maximum
possible difference between the two.

Not at all, there is more then just clock speed involved.

If you've ever compared a 386/33MHz with a 486/33MHz you'd see it very
obviously, although with modern CPUs the difference is usually less
striking.

You don't seem to understand, the A64FX and the A64 are exactly the same
core they aren't different processors like a 386 vs a 486. In fact all of
the AMD64 products are basically the same (there are small differences
that have been introduced with each revision but those apply across the
product lines). The difference between Athlon64s and Opterons have to do
with the coherency logic on the hypertransport buses, which is disabled on
the Athlon64s, and support for registered DIMMs and that's it. The
difference between the FX and the A64s is clock speed, that's it. The FXs
all have 1M caches but so do some A64s, the 4000+ for example.

Don't waste your time...the General seems to be brain-dead and incapable of
a coherent thought...

Bobby

What's wrong with you? Instead of posting insults why don't you post
something to backup your ridiculous assertions. If you think you've seen a
benchmark where the FX57 is more than 16% faster then a 4000+ post a link
to it. If you think that there is any difference between an FX and a
regular Athlon64 then name one single feature that an FX has that a
regular A64 doesn't. You won't be able to do either because the FX is just
a marketing designation, it's aimed at convincing the ignorant that a 16%
performance difference is worth a 200% price premium.

Because of all the discussion on this topic and my own interest, I just
reviewed the AMD technical information on the FX Series and the AMD 64 (939)
series (not the X2). AMD's documented processor Architecture shows no
hardware architectures differences at the top end of the lines.

I counld not find any information on the instruction set architecture that
would suggest there are or are not changes to the ISA with respect to each
other. If there were such, I would have expected AMD to emphasize the ISA
changes to the FX in their literature.

That being said the only differences in performance of the actual CPU can
only be accounted for by the differences in its clock speed and cache size.
Note I am only talking about the CPU not the rest of the system. To many
variables enter into determining overall system performance all of which
have been discussed many times on many sites.

John

P.S.

The information on the X2 was not of sufficient detail to make any kind of
judgement.


"NoNoBadDog!" wrote in message
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).

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 |
\____________________________________________/

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:32:56 +0000, NoNoBadDog! wrote:


"General Schvantzkoph" wrote in message
news

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.

Show me one benchmark where an FX57 is more than 16% faster then a
4000+. The only difference between the FX57 and the 4000+ is clock
speed, the FX57 is 2.8GHz, the 4000+ is 2.4GHz, both have 1M caches. If
you take the ratio between 2.8 and 2.4 you get 1.16 so that's the
absolute maximum possible difference between the two. Of course you'll
only see that on a completely CPU bound application. The DDR memory
speeds are identical, the IO speeds are determined by the disk so that's
identical, and the graphics speed is mostly dependent on the graphics
card so there is no difference there. Given that games are graphics
bound you'll barely see any difference between an FX57 and a 4000+.

The best advice I can give you is you need to do a little more research.
The FX series is significantly different from the Athlon64 and the
Athlon64 X2. The core logic and algorithms included on the chip are
significantly different. The best starting point is the AMD website, but
sites like Toms Hardware are also worth checking out.

And the best advice I could give you is to learn wtf you're talking about
before letting your fingers hit the keyboard. There are no differences
between the cores. the only differences are clockspeed and an unlocked
multiplier on the FX series. This shows the 2 to be the same. The BN on
the end of the part number indicates the San Diego core. AMD has been
doing this for years, as does Intel. Same core, just add to cache or
increase clockspeed or some other little thing they can do to get more
money.:-)

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desk...DAFX57DAA5B N


We all need to be careful about the information we post here. Posting
inaccurate information as you have done is not a good thing for those who
do not know that what you are posting is just plain wrong.

You must be talking to yourself.:-)

--
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