fx-57 vs. X2 4800 in games

[OvaKilla]

i kind of brought this up in another thread but i need to know, by tonight, what cpu i should get because my pc should be ready to ship tommorow. i had it built with the fx-57 cuz i figured that by the time programs take advantge of multiple cores, quad cores will be here in 2007 so i opted not to get the X2 4800. but someone brought up that computers may slow down with quads if not all cores are being used and that sounds like to me, you can run into a bunch of problems with the quads. so im back to square one with should i go with the 4800 now? all i do is game.

 

[Nexus Realized]

If the only thing you are going to do with your system is game then you are better off with the FX.

 

[OvaKilla]

ya, games will be taking advantage of multiply cores pretty soon, but i figured if i need it, i'll go with the quad.

 

[Yuriman]

If ALL you do is game, the FX will be better, but I'd still take a 4800+ any day. The dual cores generaly overclock very well. Adding in a third option, the 4400+ should be able to hit at least FX-57 speeds (2.8ghz) and with the $500 you save you can move to 7800gtx sli, or 1tb of hard drive space, or perhaps 8gb of ram. Is an 8.3% speed increase at stock worth $500 to you?

 

[OvaKilla]

the speed increase is worth it to me now, im just a lil concerned that a 4800 will outperform the fx-57 in a year when games are utilizing it.

 

[ronaldo]

im just a lil concerned that a 4800 will outperform the fx-57 in a year when games are utilizing it.

you can be sure about that, plus new nvidia drivers will suport dual-core and they say 5-20% improvement with those. (only in SLI)
plus new games build on Unreal 3 engine suport dual-core, Fm2005 and Fm2006 suport it..
i dont see a reason to get single-core that cost so much..
why ? look here why :

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=401735
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/athlon_64_geforce_7800_gtx_scaling/

read carefully the review, they test the diference in games betwen a A64 3000+ up to FX-57
if you dont have time to read it heres is the conclusion:
As we see, the 2.2 ghz A64 is enough to keep up with the fastest video card (SLI not tested) and people dont need more than that in higher resolution...

 

[OvaKilla]

you read something wrong there. 2.2 ghz is the minimum youwould want to get for a 7800 but to elimate the cpu bottleneck completely, you need around 3.0ghz.

 

[Sucka]

If you're looking for a long term investment go with a 4800+

If you want to play games at the highest possible FPS for the next few months, go with an FX-57.

I can only conclude that by your choices you aren't on a budget, so why not get the FX and sell it when games fully take advantage of Dual Core? For gaming alone and overclockability you aren't going to beat the FX with todays games. There's really nothing more to be said about it. The choice for a gamer is really cut and dry. It's those budget minded folks that are making a decision that need them to last 5 years that should really think this one through.

 

[Yuriman]

2x2.4ghz, or 1x2.8ghz? 2.4 + 2.4 > 2.8.

 

[khaotik]

you read something wrong there. 2.2 ghz is the minimum youwould want to get for a 7800 but to elimate the cpu bottleneck completely, you need around 3.0ghz.

In SLI maybe. Certainly not on a single GTX.

 

[unusualfire]

I think you will see more multitread games when the new Xbox 360 is released. Remember it has 3 cores, so the developers are getting use to making multithread games.

 

[c627627]

2x2.4ghz, or 1x2.8ghz? 2.4 + 2.4 > 2.8.

Huh? He said:

... all i do is game.

So...:
2.4 + 0 < 2.8

 

[Janus67]

exactly. I would do as advised, get the FX-57 (for some unknown reason that you can afford it) the sell it when games take advantage of the dual-cores, or just wait til quads come out.

 

[c627627]

The quads are nowhere on the horizon though, this is just talk (...in the future, there'll be...)

There is nothing specific on them for desktops. It will take many years for games to take advantage of quad cores... which won't even be used in desktops for years...

 

[unusualfire]

Here is a quad core article for you all to read.
quad core

 

[Sucka]

If you play the waiting game you'll never get what you want. People have been waiting for r520 for how long now with no end in sight? It just doesn't pay to wait things out all the time, get something now and enjoy it. I'm not even going to consider quad core until dual core is even important. I can't think of a single reason to have quad core with todays software it just boggles my mind. That is a server CPU if i've ever seen one. I don't even want to think about price, and imagine the heat those things are gonna put out. Intel might as well ship Mach II's with their current Dual Core offerings.

 

[c627627]

Yeah, I read that back in June, those are Server chips.

They're right in saying not before 65 nm chips start showing, the 90 nm part is pure speculation... It may happen but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[OvaKilla]

thnx for your advice guys. ima fx it.

 

[darksparkz]

Yeah, FX-57 is for pure gaming, it'll work better then the X2 for games for at a year or so. The only problem is that the FX-57 is not a great price/performance ratio, the price is a bit high.

 

[Sucka]

the price is a bit high.

That's an understatment! There's no way i could ever justify an FX unless i was using sub zero cooling. 4000+ San Diego for air/water should be more than enough for any gamer.