AMD FX 57 or Athlon X2 4800

[EXtreme-Gamer]

For now the best proccessor is the FX 57 but I have a theorem WIndows support Dual core CPUs , but not and very good so I believe that when The Windows Vista arrive the X2 will ,ithink have better performance from the FX57 What do you think?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Overclock the X2-4800+

 

[mdd1963]

I'd rather have the "slower" dual core over the fastest single core avail, for slightly less money spent, for it's multitasking...

As Nvidia/ATI drivers and various games (Quake4, so far, as COD2 SMP patch sux) are already becoming more optimized for dual cores, an most high res gaming is gpu limited anyway, the extra core is very nice.

Example: A $220 3500+ scores only 1 or 2 fps less in FEAR than a $1000 FX57 at 1024x768/4xAA/16xAF...

But look at Quake 4 once SMP patched....a $280 Pentium 820D spanks a $1000 FX57....

 

[Heyyou27]

That being why I own an X2 4800+.

 

[Admiral_Cecil]

Hello,

Get an Opteron 175 dual core. Oc's better than the X2, lower voltage, runs cooler, and all comes in 1 mb cache. Works with any 939 mobo that takes dual core (some may require bios update).

Opteron's may cost more than their single (ie 3700, 4000)/ dual core equivalents (ie X2), but you are getting FX quality for considerably in some cases less than a FX.

 

[raven_87]

Well, I'm almost tempted to agree.
By right though, the FX line have unlocked multi's - good overclocking.

Then again, there's the 146 & 148 939 Opterons that are comparable to
the 2500M (In terms of OC'ing)

To be honest, I would sink that much in a chip, right now I'd way for AM2
then make your decision.

 

[ltcommander_data]

No need to act so scandalized. Intel has been working with games manufacturers to introduce multithreading and the co-operation has resulted in the recent HT and dual core support patches for Call of Duty 2 and Quake 4. The Call of Duty 2 patch appears to have some problems but the Quake 4 patch works very well. In Quake 4 the Pentium D 820 manages 125.5 fps which is confortably ahead of the vaunted FX-57 gaming chip's 115.4fps. Higher end dual cores like the X2 4800+ and the 955EE are even better at 147.4 fps and 142.3 fps respectively.

The results are found on the chart at the bottom.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2658&p=6

Granted many games are still single threaded, but really the single threaded performance difference between the X2 4800+ and the FX-57 isn't that great. Without the SMP patch in Quake 4, the X2 4800+ manages 114.9 fps to the FX-57s 115.4 fps. It isn't just in Quake 4, in Call of Duty 2 without the SMP patch the X2 4800+ scores 79.8 fps to the FX-57s 80.6 fps. With such small differences there's no reason not to get a X2 4800+ over the FX-57. Besides GPU choice is far more important in gaming performance.

 

[gtr]

Why not get a FX 60 since you plan to spend a grand and get a best of both worlds?

 

[illicitsc]

tru dat

 

[ltcommander_data]

I'm not specifically sure if he wants to spend a grand but that isn't the budget range of the chips he is asking about. The X2 4800+ current costs $803 while the FX-57 has dropped to $827 after the FX-60 launch. Obviously the FX-60's performance would make the dual core vs single core debate moot, but it costs $200 or 25% more.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html

In any case, the X2 4800+ will likely be the more attractive option as rumour has it that AMD is looking to drop its price by around $150. AMD has declined to comment but we'll know before the end of the month.

 

[skankinred]

I would wait before I buy a new processor. AMD is bringing the 939 socket to and end very soon and you will see the new generation of processors in a couple months all starting off with at least 2 cores. Even the FX versions.