Athlon FX-57 or Athlon 64 X2-4800+ DUAL CORE
Discussion
I have a choice and am not sure which way to go. I have been told that the FX chips are better for gaming. And thats what I want the most.
But have been reading reviews of the dual core CPU's will be getting used better by gaming companys in the next year and these will become the better chips in the future for games.
Any ideas or tips on which CPU is the best
or any usful links to reviews of either ?
But have been reading reviews of the dual core CPU's will be getting used better by gaming companys in the next year and these will become the better chips in the future for games.
Any ideas or tips on which CPU is the best
or any usful links to reviews of either ?
As far as I'm aware nothing uses 64 bit yet never mind multi cpu (farcry 64 is out but how nuch 64 stuff in it I don't know) so it will be a while before the games studios catch up. the dual core 4800 is built around 2 3700 hundreds I believe so if running single cpu application you only get performance of a 3700 but you have another cpu sitting doing basically nothing 
.
With the single core fx57 you get full pelt no matter what application.
So for gaming its probably the better chip now and for up to a year maybe 18months. If you do lots of multitasking multiple apps and smp aware stuff (usually high end software) the dual core will be hard to beat.
depends when you plan to replace it
If you can't decide - buy me one and I run it for a while and tell you what I think
. With the single core fx57 you get full pelt no matter what application.
So for gaming its probably the better chip now and for up to a year maybe 18months. If you do lots of multitasking multiple apps and smp aware stuff (usually high end software) the dual core will be hard to beat.
depends when you plan to replace it
If you can't decide - buy me one and I run it for a while and tell you what I think
Some suggested reading:
AMD dual-core preview
www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY2LDM=
Athlon64 FX57 review
www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Nzg3
The basic principle is this: to take advantage of a 64-bit processor, you need to have an operating system and program designed to take advantage of it - for instance WindowsXP Professional x64 and Far Cry with the 64-bit patch. Some upcoming games like Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl will be supporting 64-bit on release, so the era of 64-bit games is almost upon us. Similarly, to take advantage of dual-core processors, you need to use programs designed to use them - so-called "multithreaded" applications. No games as far as I know currently do so, nor have I heard of any in development that will be doing so on release. It is, of course, inevitable that eventually, dual-core gaming processors will become available, but currently there's no benefit in buying one as there are insufficient games to take advantage of dual-core chips or dual-processor (SMP - symmetric multi processor) systems.
Simply put, of the two chips you mention, the FX57 will annihilate the X2 in games. However, for SMP-aware applications like Photoshop, or when running lots of programs simultaneously, the X2 will eke out an advantage. However, I don't think it will be that much, due to the sheer number-crunching horsepower of the FX57. For gaming, it's the fastest x86 processor you can currently buy, bar none. Also, the FX57's seem to overclock quite well, whereas the dual-cores seem to be not so keen to run out-of-spec.
In terms of your other concerns...
Motherboard - I highly recommend you try an Asus mobo. I have used them for several rigs and they are excellent in terms of quality, features and stability. Some models are better at overclocking than others, but their current range of nForce4 boards is quite comprehensive.
Hard drives - Lots of potential options here. Assuming you go for an nForce4 motherboard, you can either run a single large drive, a number of independent drives, or several strapped together in RAID configuration. In terms of the drives themselves, I would look at the Western Digital Raptor series and the new Maxtor drives with the 16Mb cache.
You haven't mentioned memory, but this was a big concern for me when selecting parts for my rig. Selection of appropriate memory is very important in an Athlon64 system due to the memory controller being on-board the CPU. Consequently, some combinations of hardware are quite picky as to what memory they like and in what configuration, with implications for performance and stability.
Hope this helps!
[k]
AMD dual-core preview
www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY2LDM=
Athlon64 FX57 review
www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Nzg3
The basic principle is this: to take advantage of a 64-bit processor, you need to have an operating system and program designed to take advantage of it - for instance WindowsXP Professional x64 and Far Cry with the 64-bit patch. Some upcoming games like Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl will be supporting 64-bit on release, so the era of 64-bit games is almost upon us. Similarly, to take advantage of dual-core processors, you need to use programs designed to use them - so-called "multithreaded" applications. No games as far as I know currently do so, nor have I heard of any in development that will be doing so on release. It is, of course, inevitable that eventually, dual-core gaming processors will become available, but currently there's no benefit in buying one as there are insufficient games to take advantage of dual-core chips or dual-processor (SMP - symmetric multi processor) systems.
Simply put, of the two chips you mention, the FX57 will annihilate the X2 in games. However, for SMP-aware applications like Photoshop, or when running lots of programs simultaneously, the X2 will eke out an advantage. However, I don't think it will be that much, due to the sheer number-crunching horsepower of the FX57. For gaming, it's the fastest x86 processor you can currently buy, bar none. Also, the FX57's seem to overclock quite well, whereas the dual-cores seem to be not so keen to run out-of-spec.
In terms of your other concerns...
Motherboard - I highly recommend you try an Asus mobo. I have used them for several rigs and they are excellent in terms of quality, features and stability. Some models are better at overclocking than others, but their current range of nForce4 boards is quite comprehensive.
Hard drives - Lots of potential options here. Assuming you go for an nForce4 motherboard, you can either run a single large drive, a number of independent drives, or several strapped together in RAID configuration. In terms of the drives themselves, I would look at the Western Digital Raptor series and the new Maxtor drives with the 16Mb cache.
You haven't mentioned memory, but this was a big concern for me when selecting parts for my rig. Selection of appropriate memory is very important in an Athlon64 system due to the memory controller being on-board the CPU. Consequently, some combinations of hardware are quite picky as to what memory they like and in what configuration, with implications for performance and stability.
Hope this helps!
[k]
I did a bit of further research (whilst bored in the office!) and it seems that AMD's own position is that the FX range are primarily for enthusiasts and gamers. I am sure that when they consider the timing is right in terms of software availability and maturity of the new technology, they will release their dual-core FX.
Based on AMD's own processor roadmap...
www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_608,00.html
... it looks like the current FX chips based on the "San Diego" core will be supersceded by a new chip based on the "Toledo" dual-core design some time in the second half of the year. Based on the lead AMD has over Intel at this end of the market right now, I would guess it will probably be nearer the end of the year before this sees the light of day. I suppose it's possible that we may see one more single-core FX before the dual-core FX's arrive, but that will depend on the marketing and how well "San Diego" scales. Given some of the overclocks the FX-57's are getting, there is significant overhead, so it would be technically possible for them to bring out a single-core "San Diego"-based FX-59, before shifting the FX range over to "Toledo". AMD can afford to take their time and pick their moment, as Intel has nothing even remotely comparable to the FX-57, and their dual-core design is (I'm told) significantly less refined than AMD's implementation.
On a related note, it's generally IMHO never a good idea to buy the first iteration of a new technology. Let others adopt it first, find the faults and allow the manufacturer to address them before buying. Look at SLI for instance - the first generation of motherboards were a bit hit-and-miss, whereas the more recent ones have addressed the shortcomings identified by the early adopters. For me, this means that I will probably skip the current "Manchester" and "Toledo" dual-cores and buy one of the dual-core FX's when they appear.
[k]
Based on AMD's own processor roadmap...
www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_608,00.html
... it looks like the current FX chips based on the "San Diego" core will be supersceded by a new chip based on the "Toledo" dual-core design some time in the second half of the year. Based on the lead AMD has over Intel at this end of the market right now, I would guess it will probably be nearer the end of the year before this sees the light of day. I suppose it's possible that we may see one more single-core FX before the dual-core FX's arrive, but that will depend on the marketing and how well "San Diego" scales. Given some of the overclocks the FX-57's are getting, there is significant overhead, so it would be technically possible for them to bring out a single-core "San Diego"-based FX-59, before shifting the FX range over to "Toledo". AMD can afford to take their time and pick their moment, as Intel has nothing even remotely comparable to the FX-57, and their dual-core design is (I'm told) significantly less refined than AMD's implementation.
On a related note, it's generally IMHO never a good idea to buy the first iteration of a new technology. Let others adopt it first, find the faults and allow the manufacturer to address them before buying. Look at SLI for instance - the first generation of motherboards were a bit hit-and-miss, whereas the more recent ones have addressed the shortcomings identified by the early adopters. For me, this means that I will probably skip the current "Manchester" and "Toledo" dual-cores and buy one of the dual-core FX's when they appear.
[k]
Pigeon said:
As far as I'm aware nothing uses 64 bit yet never mind multi cpu
That is only true if you limit your considerations to some crap excuse for an OS produced by some bunch of morons in Seattle...
Remal said:
I have a choice and am not sure which way to go. I have been told that the FX chips are better for gaming. And thats what I want the most.
I wasn't talking about OSes. I admin a whole bunch of AIX servers so know exactly how good unix can be. I also admin a bunch of Windows servers and have no axe to grind either way. I use whats best for the customer and their budget.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff