Good Dual Core or Better Single Core?

[Rur0ni]

The FX57 is due out next week, probably retailing for $950~ or so. Under a phase change setup it'll likely(and does) hit 3.6~Ghz(Source: XtremeSystems).

Toledo X2s retail for the same price. We're talking 2.9~Ghz under water.

The question is, considering many developers actually frequent these forums, would one be better off with a dual core setup at slower speeds? Or would another 600~Mhz of AMD power be better? Only interested in how it would relate to gaming. I would think, considering how cpus arent scaling anymore(and seem that they never will), and with the multicore setups in the new consoles, that dual core would actually be of some use in the next year if developers have to tap into extra cores because 2.4Ghz off a single core(for people who dont OC, that being the main market) is all they're getting.

So instead of a mean single core chip(FX57 under extreme cooling), maybe two chips at 3Ghz would be the better option?

I ask because a grand is alot to invest in anything computer wise.

 

[jvd]

What do u want to do with it ?


the dual core would be great if you do video editing or stuff like that . Where ucan put it on the second core and then play a game or do other things .


The single core at higher speeds will be better for games for most likely another year or two.


The 3.6 ghz for games will be faster than the 2.9 ghz

 

[Moloch]

Even at 2.2ghz (4200) it's as fast as a 4000+ games (far cry, UT2004, doom3 is a bit slower though) I wouldn't worry about being cpu limited in games as 2.9ghz with high res gaming with fsaa.
And the x2 setup will be much better when you're not gaming for multitasking.
You can be encoding a dvd and playing a game with no fps hit

 

[The_Wolf_Who_Cried_Boy]

The single core at higher speeds will be better for games for most likely another year or two.

With NVidia introducing multithreaded drivers and obviously ATI doing the same soon is that really going to be the case?

I'm looking to finally upgrade once R520 makes an appearance, and the 4800X2 is my preference over an FX57.

 

[ANova]

Why blow a grand when you can get the 4400+ and just overclock? Sure you may be able to get an extra 100-200 MHz out of a 4800+ but is that really worth $400 extra?

Yes get an X2, they are better overall and just under the FX in games.

 

[Guden Oden]

Why blow a grand when you can get the 4400+ and just overclock?

Maybe he wants to make the people at AMD happy?

Personally, I think anyone spending upwards of a thousand dollars on what is essentially a tiny piece of refined sand should get a signed letter of appreciation from the people who sold me the darned thing!

 

[ANova]

Why blow a grand when you can get the 4400+ and just overclock?

Maybe he wants to make the people at AMD happy?

Personally, I think anyone spending upwards of a thousand dollars on what is essentially a tiny piece of refined sand should get a signed letter of appreciation from the people who sold me the darned thing!

Couldn't agree more. When was it again that cpu prices increased ten fold? Seems like yesterday that the most expensive was around $500. GPU prices have increased 33% over the last 2 years as well.

 

[The_Wolf_Who_Cried_Boy]

Why blow a grand when you can get the 4400+

My personal experience with a limited amount of overclocking is two dead R9800's. Playing with such expensive toys is not something I am going to do again.

Stock speeds has a warranty, that to me is worth the added expense.

 

[Rur0ni]

Well yes, I was wondering about multithreaded drivers, that pushes me toward the X2 platform(yes after further research, the 4400 is a toledo(1MBx2) chip as well). I think im sold on the X2.