Discussion in 'Processors and motherboards AMD' started by kh0rn3, Jul 6, 2005.
FX-57 or Athlon 64 X2 4800+ for SLI 7800 GTX? I have searched and have seen no comparisons.
I would take the FX-57, for the simple fact that its better right now, and going to be better for games for the near future. You gonna be spending alot of money, and if its going to be a gaming machine, you must as well enjoy it now, and worry about dual cores in the future when they actually are being utilized, by not just 1 or 2 games that may come out, but alot of games.
Also you are going SLI, which means games. So unless you like to run 10 programs while running a game, FX-57 will do great.
Ive got a FX-55 myself, and extremely proud of it. Its not worth it to me to go for a 57, and for sure not yet for a dual core processor.
*sinks in the lava with a "thumbs up"*
well i got the dual core, its great but the fx-57 is better for gaming for now, not by much tho.....but if dual core is taken advantage of, nothing can compare.....
Yeah, an FX-57 is better for gaming that the 4800+, but even an FX-55 is better in most gaming situations, and to be honest, the FX-57 is WAY overpriced for the small performance increase over the 55. Grab a San diego core FX-55 and overclock it would be my advice.
Are any games confirmed to use the dual core in the future like UT7k or Quake 4?
Yeah, Unreal 3 engine will be optimised to use dual core CPU's, so any game based on that will... so quite a few... but remember, its unikely we will see any unreal 3 engine games for at least another year... and I havnt heard of any other engines utilising dual core yet.
wait to buy a dual core when they produce the .65 micron chips and they will be cheaper. i would go with the fx-57 now
Go for the x2.
With 7800 GTX cards you there wont be a NOTICABLE difference either way. The X2 theough can handle 2 things at once so will speed up a lot of other things you may wanna do...
Hmmm, would duel core help an SLI config over an FX? I know that SLI 7800 gtx rapes any processor and sits around bored since it can process much more.
i would go for the x2 simply because the gaming performance isnt noticeable, also i like to render movies / do stuff while im plyaing games..my 3000+ can handle it but not great if you wanna do stuff like virus scanning when you're on the computer but also wanna play some games..get the x2
if all you wanna do is play games and do 1 thing at a time, go for the 57..or san diego 55
The only applications that benefit from dual core tech is applications written to take advantage of it, No game out yet does that so there is no point of the x2 (the same way that applications have to be written with smt to take advantage of intels ht technology) . However seeing as though they perform virtually identical and the prices are similar you may as well go for the x2 for future use.
Keep in mind that just because games come out that support multiple cores does not mean it will improve performance much... still may be a smallish boost. Keep in mind that dual-core for desktop has more to do with the necessity of releasing new models than the technology being needed in itself. If you think you'll do anything else that you know would favor the X2 then I'd say get that, otherwise the FX.
I have heard rumors that nVidia will make their drivers to take advantage from HTT or DualCore....
Seriously? And where did you hear this? Is it reliable information?
That's the exact reason why I chose the X2 over the FX-55.
I do know that the new version of Falcon 4.0 that was just released (can't remember the exact title) was written to support the dual core processors. I am currently looking into the same thing trying to decide on a new chip. Anyone have any suggestions on mobos? Also am I correct in assuming (hate to do it) that any of the socket 939 mobos will work with the dual core chips (as long as they support the clock freq?)
go with the FX-57, it will be another year untill you see any real reason to go with duel core, and since the FX-57 is even on your list, i suppose you have money and can afford to upgrade in the future - if im wrong go with the x2
Dual core is the way to go. I game a lot, but honestly, ive had an fx chip. Great chips they are, but if your not on watercooling or better, id go with a dual core. The main reason get a fx is to overclock it. Thats what your paying for. The 4800+ has been known to clock to 2.8 and 3.0, anand has his at 2.8 on air, so there is basically 2 fx-57 cores on one chip, and with the price being the same, go for the dual core.
Anytime you unrar or unzip, surf the web while ripping a cd or a dvd, youll thank me, and yourself, for making this choice.
Besides, Nvidia and ATI are making multithreaded graphics drivers, and multithreaded games have been around for awhile and with the new cores coming out, they are here to stay.
There wont be another big cpu made until 06, and then you can see your dual core for a REAL legit dual FX core, the REAL cpu to get.
For now, get the 4800+, its a sounder choice than a fx-57.
Well, a FX will likely clock still higher. Though I will admit the X2 4800+ is a lot more processor for your $1000. However, I would say one should not buy a 4800+ unless one would be happy with the gaming performance of a 4000+ instead of FX-57 for the same money, because that's all you're *guaranteed* to get out of a 4800+ as things stand now. Here the FX-57 has maybe +10% over the 4000+:
Now SLI dual-core optimization may change the equation, and at the very least I'd say there's a good chance of at least closing the gap within the next year or so. Dual-core will offer an immediate boost with multitasking and may well even become the top gaming performer sometime within the next year or two. So I guess I'll change my vote on that one to X2.