x2: Dual core or FX?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angie
  • Start date Start date
A

Angie

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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


--
____________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| City of Heroes, Basic Stamp, RPGs, War Games |
| (e-mail address removed) |
| 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.
 
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
 
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?
Click to expand...

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 |
| (e-mail address removed) |
| 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).
Click to expand...

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 |
| (e-mail address removed) |
| 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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
NoNoBadDog! said:
Since there are currently no multi-threaded games on the market, then
your response in that regard is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

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 |
| (e-mail address removed) |
| 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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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+.
Click to expand...
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 <[email protected]> General
Schvantzkoph said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DevilsPGD said:
In message <[email protected]> General


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.
Click to expand...

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

Bobby
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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/desktop/SideBySide.aspx?opn=ADA4000DAA5BN&opn=ADAFX57DAA5BN

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.
Click to expand...
You must be talking to yourself.:-)
 
Back
Top