Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

fx-55 single vs opteron dual?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 19, 2008 10:25:57 PM

Hey guys. I currently have an amd fx-55 which is basically a 2.4 ghz single core cpu but I overclocked it to 2.8 ghz. How much of a performance boost would I expect in games if I did a final upgrade to an opteron 180 (2.4 ghz dual core)? Thanks for any help

More about : single opteron dual

February 19, 2008 10:38:31 PM

You won't see significant performance gain on most daily programs, except the ones that do take advantage of multi-cores. On the other hand, it may improve your system's responsiveness, as more than one programs can be executed at the same time.

I would make the switch, then OC it to 2.8Ghz to obtain better performance :kaola: .
February 19, 2008 11:13:10 PM

It's a cheap, effective upgrade.

I moved from single core A64 to an overclocked Opteron and it is much more responsive in Windows, plus games are more and more using dual cores now.

Don't spend a lot though - otherwise it might be worth making the jump to an Intel platform.
Related resources
February 19, 2008 11:30:27 PM

Thanks for all the replies. Ethel, how much would you spend on a new 939 dual core cpu before making a switch to a new intel upgrade?
a b à CPUs
February 19, 2008 11:57:08 PM

A good rule of thumb when moving to a dual core processor over what is already an arguably fast single core for gaming- you need to get a dual core that is just as fast Mhz wise as possible. The dual core will seem slower at most games right now if it is not clocked very close to what you had as a single core. In other words, if you drop in a dual core CPU clocked at 2.4Ghz, it is going to make your games seem like they took a small hit compared to your old 55FX at 2.8Ghz.
Games that can make use of a dual core will do better, and the rest of your system will be faster, smoother, but for raw game performance, take these words of advice!
If you go dual core, (and you should if you can find one reasonable) get something that will clock at least 2.8 as well, or you will feel like you did not get your moneys' worth.
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2008 12:18:19 AM

jitpublisher said:
A good rule of thumb when moving to a dual core processor over what is already an arguably fast single core for gaming- you need to get a dual core that is just as fast Mhz wise as possible. The dual core will seem slower at most games right now if it is not clocked very close to what you had as a single core. In other words, if you drop in a dual core CPU clocked at 2.4Ghz, it is going to make your games seem like they took a small hit compared to your old 55FX at 2.8Ghz.
Games that can make use of a dual core will do better, and the rest of your system will be faster, smoother, but for raw game performance, take these words of advice!
If you go dual core, (and you should if you can find one reasonable) get something that will clock at least 2.8 as well, or you will feel like you did not get your moneys' worth.

Of course this only applies to CPUs of the same architecture.
February 20, 2008 12:35:49 AM

I upgraded from an Athlon 3400 single core @ 2.4 gigs to an x2 4400 @ 2.2 gigs and it spanked the single core system completely. Not even close. I couldn't believe it actually ran 200 mhz slower. It really was quite dramatic. And I mean in games.
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2008 12:38:23 AM

My E6600 at stock (2.4) tripled my BF2142 framerates over my 3700 (2.6), although architecture comes heavily into play here as 2142 is single-threaded.
!