AMD Athlon64 X2 CPUs - 4200? 4400? 4600? 4800?

[Shmee150]

Well I've been offered a 4800 for £600 so may well take that.

Jeesh this is difficult!

ShMeE

[Smokey21]

dam thats a good deal.

Iam really realy looking at a 4400 now, lol.

For 381quid thats not to bad, and if i grab a xp-120 should reach 2.5ghz which would own.

Just need a decent suggestion on a mobo for an x2.

[nez]

What exactly are you using the pc for?
there are not that many programs that make good use of the dual core processors at the moment and you already have a P4 with HT, why not go with an FX, they are the best you can get at the mo, if you have the money an FX57 is the best you can buy at the moment and there wont be another FX for a while now, unless you do use a lot of multithread apps then go for a dual core.


nez

[Smokey21]

Well i don't use multi apps, just game, and burn dvd's, but it would be cool to have a 4400+. I was looking at a 4000SD, so might as well get the 4400. At 2.5ghz it will be fast as hell for single core as well.

[nez]

Games? then you have to go for an fx 57,

lol i say that then i found this quote on Hard|OCP:

The AMD Athlon FX-57 owns the high-end computer gaming space. There is not another processor that can touch it. Couple an Athlon 64 FX-57 with the likes of a new GeForce 7800 GTX or two and you will have the most power desktop gaming computer in the world. Be advised that you will likely have to be a hardcore gamer to even appreciate the raw gaming power that the FX-57 packs though. If your budget allows, and you are not a super hardcore gamer, I would highly suggest looking into an Athlon X2 Dual-Core for your next upgrade. I know I love my X2 and it does an admirable job of gaming.

so i dont really now :S

nez

[derthballs]

if your a gamer and your getting a new card like the 7800, it really dosent matter what cpu you put on it, as long as its suitably meaty. My setup (see sig) outscores my friends 3700 san diego @ 2.75ghz (FX56.5 ) with the same graphics cards in there by a couple of hundred points in 3dmark 2003, and we score similarly in any of the new games. Of course, he leaves me behind in older DX8 games, where all round system performance gets a boost, but for dx9 stuff, dont get drawn into the hype, a good card and a good cpu will get you within 5% of a super dooper powered one.

[Smokey21]

exactrly derthballs.

not to mention the FX-57 is double the price of even 4400, which is stupid, and the 4400 will overlockc ok, nd be ownage for anythin you throw at it.

[Chemical_Ali]

the speed difference between fx-57 and 4800+ in terms of single threaded applications is rather small, but the speed difference between both processors whilst running multi-threaded applications is massive. so i would personally go for the dual core if i had that kind of money

[StormPC]

Well i don't use multi apps, just game, and burn dvd's, but it would be cool to have a 4400+. I was looking at a 4000SD, so might as well get the 4400. At 2.5ghz it will be fast as hell for single core as well.

Any A64 at 2.5 GHz will be a rocket. The point is, do you really want to spend twice as much for a slower CPU only to let one of the cores sit around and do nothing?

My 4200+ at 2.5GHz (2.49 is actually my 24/7 SETI crunching speed) is a monster cruncher but it is utilizing both cores 100% of the time. In games my 3700+ kills my 4200+ for half the price. The 3700+ runs at 2830MHz 24/7 stable on the same cooling the X2 runs at 2500MHz on.

Not saying X2s are bad but they are no bargain if you don't use the dual cores.

[Smokey21]

Any A64 at 2.5 GHz will be a rocket. The point is, do you really want to spend twice as much for a slower CPU only to let one of the cores sit around and do nothing?

My 4200+ at 2.5GHz (2.49 is actually my 24/7 SETI crunching speed) is a monster cruncher but it is utilizing both cores 100% of the time. In games my 3700+ kills my 4200+ for half the price. The 3700+ runs at 2830MHz 24/7 stable on the same cooling the X2 runs at 2500MHz on.

Not saying X2s are bad but they are no bargain if you don't use the dual cores.

How do you get a 3700+ for 190? Cause the cheapest i have seen is 220.

I want te rig to be future proof, and it will just be cool. i won't be overlocking much ona 3700+ anyway if i got one.

[StormPC]

You're missing the point. The 3700+ is way cheaper (sometimes as much as double depending on your area) and slaps the 4400+ around in most applications. The 4400+ will only beat the 3700+ in multi-threaded apps and heavy multitasking. In EVERYTHING else the 4400+ will lose badly.

[Smokey21]

Im not really botherd about the price, 220? whats 380?

And if i got a 3700+ id only overclock it a bit, i can do the same with a 4400, and have awesome multitasking abilty, and be better of with future games.

[ed^chigliak]

How long before games start to use the dual cores. Go for a cheaper CPU and when the games can use x2 upgrade the processor. The price will have dropped by then. If 2nd core is sitting idle most of the time it's a waste of money IMO. OK your background task may not bug your performancce but x2 is a very expensive solution compared with closing them down. My vote is a cheap CPU & sensible overclock then upgrade to x2 later.

[Smokey21]

yeah maybe. I can get a 4000+ SD for 270 few days old so might go for that instead.

[StormPC]

yeah maybe. I can get a 4000+ SD for 270 few days old so might go for that instead.

Now you're getting it. It will be a long time before games require dual-core CPUs, or even start supporting them. The reason is that most people do not have multiple CPUs or cores. Until multi-core CPUs are as common as single-cores they will likely not bother to code games in a way that will utilize more than one core.

[Smokey21]

Indeed, but in saying that, the x2, can clock nicely as well. it's still a blasing fast cpu, and will own at everything.

I mean my thinking is, i play my games at 1600x1200 with full aa/af, i will with 7800 anyways, i doubt a 4400 at 2.5ghz thereabouts is going to sruggle and 4000+ wouldn't.