I know this has been asked alot and your probally tired of hearing it. Im trying to decide which is better for gaming. The FX has been said by alot to be better for todays games. But how long will that last? I would hate to buy such an exspensive single core cpu than get over whelmed by multi thread utlitys/games in the next year or two. Whats some of your personal suggestions, with price not being an issue?
AMD X2 4800 + or AMD FX 57
- Thread starter barnak
- Start date
You're probably better off with a San Diego based 3500+ or faster part. You won't spend a small fortune and you'll have time to see how well developer support for dual cores grows next year before committing to that route.
Well, for the same price you can go dual-core and get some sweet overclocking in at the same time. And I'm of the opinion that dual-core does have a large number of benefits now, including:barnak said:
1. Background processes won't impact your game. Once I even had a full-system virus scan running while I was playing a game and didn't notice, except that level load times dramatically increased.
2. Multitasking is massively better.
3. Some programs already make excellent use of multicore, such as MPEG-4 encoding.
Granted, the Athlon FX is a better overclocker just because its multiplier is unlocked, but I don't think you'll really notice the performance difference that much in today's games. If you got a dual-core processor with some nice, fast RAM, I don't think you'd be disappointed.
I actually put this to bit-tech's readers not long ago - amazingly 67% of them would opt for an X2 4800+ in their next gaming rig given an unlimited budget.
I'd go with the X2 without a second thought - the extra 400MHz doesn't make up for the orgasmic silky smoothness of a dual core CPU.
I'd go with the X2 without a second thought - the extra 400MHz doesn't make up for the orgasmic silky smoothness of a dual core CPU.
The kicker is the thread started asked which is better for gaming for the immediate future. And, honestly, my desktop is just as snappy with a FX-57 as it was with the 4800+ installed.
geo said:
Apps don't go bad with the FX-57; they sure did with the 4800+ installed.
As a gamer, I'm soo glad I've got that FX-57. Yes, the dual cores multi-task like grandma's woolen pajamas but, you know, it's really rare that I say to myself, "Hey, I need to run a virus scan right now, but I can't wait to start playing EQ2 again."
Besides the notoriously cpu limited EQ2, games simply aren't limited by such powerfull cpus at the res you game at, as opposed to that 640x480 "gaming performance" bullshit all the reviewers opt for.John Reynolds said:
What app "went bad" with a 4800+
I find it hard to believe a dual core A64 running at 2.4 ghz is less responsive than a single core at 2.8 ghz.
In my experience, that's most often a system configuration issue. My roommate's P4, which has a very cheap SiS motherboard, seems to hang routinely for no good reason. In the past, I had a system that would hang routinely, and found it was due to the way I had partitioned my hard drive for dual-booting with Linux.geo said:
Oh, I definitely agree. And it's a problem that can be fixed with software patches. Since the two games that I know of that had that issue, World of Warcraft and Everquest 2, are online games, those patches are expected (haven't tested either one recently to see if it's still an issue, but WoW just had a big patch not too long ago, and EQ2 had that expansion pack, so I"m willing to bet it's been nixed by now).radeonic2 said:
And just what are the odds of getting older or even recent yet not very successful games patched by their publisher if there's compatibility and/or performance issues with a dual core CPU? Answer: none.
Similar threads
- Locked
