• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

4800 X2 vs FX-57 - Which is Overall Better?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Sneaky

Skulltrail Junkie
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Location
Milwaukee, WI
I have a chance to get either of these CPU's, a 4800 X2, or a FX-57 for relatively cheap (no figures will be discussed)


moving from an intel 660 w/ HT, what do you think would be an overall better choice for me based on the following questions?:

for desktop/everyday use?
for multitasking?
for benchmarking/gaming?
overclockability?
heat output/power consumption?
future proofing?


i'm basically AMD-illiterate for the most part, but know a few things, and have finally made the deicion to switch over, as intel's netburst architecture is starting to annoy me (they've dragged it out way too long), plus i really need a new toy to play with :bday:


any help/suggestions/comments are greatly appreciated

thanks in advance
-Justin :thup:
 

Janus67

Benching Team Leader
Joined
May 29, 2005
for desktop/everyday use? Probably either will do fine, since neither will require too much power/process speed to accomplish either - TIE

for multitasking? The X2 should quite handily beat the FX-57, so that goes in here in my books.

for benchmarking/gaming? This will depend on your benchmark, I am going to assume (since I haven't looked at the ORB recently) but that PCMark scores are being won by dual-core setups, while 3dMark/gaming benches are being won by FX-57.

overclockability? With the unlocked multiplier with the FX-57 it should give you a good amount of overclockability, assuming you will have good cooling, a good motherboard, and some good RAM to go with it. That isn't to say that the 4800+ can't be overclocked well, but if you are an avid gamer and overclocker then I would get the FX-57

heat output/power consumption? I am not quite sure on this one, but I believe that the FX should output a little less heat because of only being single core.

future proofing? This is hard to decide upon, by future to you mean: 1 year? 3 years? Personally, I have only seen plans for maybe a handful of games that will take advantage of having dual-cores. All the rest should be handled fine by the FX-57. As I stated before, if you are more of a gamer than a multitasker, and more of an overclocker I would go with the FX-57. If you do not plan on ocing and just want good overall performance I would get the 4800+.
 

SteveLord

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
the 4800 is a waste of money in the dualcore department. and whether dualcores are taken advantage of quickly or slowly...they ARE the future.
 
OP
Sneaky

Sneaky

Skulltrail Junkie
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Location
Milwaukee, WI
how do the fx-57 and 4800's OC so far? are they fairly consistent as far as overclocks go? or is it hit-or-miss?

what overclocks can i expect to get with either processor w/ the water cooling loop in my sig
 

toddm27

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Location
Smyrna, TN
get the fx-57 if it is truly a deal and sell it as its bringing more money and buy a dual core opteron :D and pocket the extra cash.
 

Janus67

Benching Team Leader
Joined
May 29, 2005
addiarmadar1 said:
The 4800 x2 is better, period.
u want to give some reasonings behind this, or just going to make a random comment that holds no weight?
 

Scott9027

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Location
NC
I would go dual core because it's more future proof. It's not long before games start taking advantage of the multiple threads, at which point the x2 4800+ will definitely out perform the FX-57.
 

darksparkz

Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Location
Chicago, IL
Here's a better answer to backup my statement for those who want explanations.

Anyways, the dual cores are much better in everyday usages then compared to single cores, especially the FX series. I'd recommend the FX series if your planning to play games 95% of the time or you want to spend $1000 on extreme cooling to be able to OC the full potential out of it. The FX-57 clocks to around 3.1-3.2ghz on air, but I'd rather have the AMD X2 4800+ clocked at a little lower speed but having the benefits of two cores.

Yes, the FX-57 currently probably beats the X2 4800+ in gaming, but not by a LOT, more around like 10-15fps in some games. But that is improving, even looking at the new 80 series forceware, there have been some noticeable benefits, even in benchmarking. As time goes along, dual cores will eventually be much more useful then single cores in gaming. That also gives the advantage of future-proofing with dual cores.

Plus, the FX-57 will only beat the X2 4800+ in gaming if theres pretty much nothing running in the background. But if you run winamp, a virus scan, downloading movies, burning a DVD or whatnot, the X2 4800+ won't notice too much performance decreases as the FX-57 would.
 

Nexus Realized

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Location
FL
If you're a heavy gamer you'd probably be better off with the FX, if you like multi-tasking, or a media happy person the X2 will manhandle the FX. Which ever road you choose they're both a waste of money IMO unless you're getting a sick deal on them.
 

toddm27

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Location
Smyrna, TN
in comparison from a 146 opteron to a 165 dual core the dual core totally blows the 146 away, with a 300mhz slower speed, in everyday applications it flies compared to the 146 and I don't notice any difference in gaming, [email protected] 311x9, [email protected] 310x10. definatly go dual core
 
Last edited:

spydeymon

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Location
montreal
Id get the dual core i saw a review how in q4 best cpu was dual cores the x2 4800 beat the fx-57 in fps for q4 i dont know how they do in other games but for me thats good enough cause im a quake fanatic :)
i just got my dual opti gonna post my results
 

IWasHungry

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Location
Seattle, WA
We have several threads on this topic already; dual core is better than single core in my opinion. Use the search function, or simply look for threads with titles such as Should I buy a single core or dual core?, etc.
Now whether the low price of the FX justifies getting it over the X2 is up to you.
 
Last edited:

edma2

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
FYI, there is the new FX-60 coming out soon...

Its a dual core clocked at 2.6 ghz, best of both worlds, I guess.
 
OP
Sneaky

Sneaky

Skulltrail Junkie
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Nexus Realized said:
Which ever road you choose they're both a waste of money IMO unless you're getting a sick deal on them.
which i am... :)


theres only a $20 difference between the FX and the X2, so its basically down to which processor would better fit my needs


i'm beginning to lean towards the X2, because after all, i multitask alot, and i'm coming from an intel 660 which has hyper threading (2 logical processors)
 

Aphex_Tom_9

Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Location
Brooklyn
The X2 fares suprisingly well in games compared to the FX. See Tomshardware's latest CPU roundup, in game benchmarks you can see some nice results from the X2's.
 

OkydOky

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Location
Calgary, AB, Canada
Sneaky said:
for desktop/everyday use?
The X2
Sneaky said:
for multitasking?
The X2
Sneaky said:
for benchmarking/gaming?
The X2 - People will argue with me... but games are starting to be able to use both cores, such as F.E.A.R.
You also should remember, that windows does use both cores, so when gaming, you can have the other core, doing the other things, such as your firewall/antivirus and other processes, dedicating most if not all of one core to the game.
Sneaky said:
overclockability?
The FX, but the X2 4800 does overclock but not much.. on the other hand the X2 3800 overclocks quite nicelly and so do the dual core opterons 1xx :)
Sneaky said:
heat output/power consumption?
About the same.. The x2 4800 uses about the same a Fx 55, shoudl be about same as Fx 57
Sneaky said:
future proofing?
The X2
 
Last edited: