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

**derthballs** · 05-07-2005, 11:41 AM

Neither would a 64bit intel with 2mb cache, cheaper than a 3700 san diego and just as good for dx9 games (dare i say it, if not a little better)

**Rys** · 05-07-2005, 12:32 PM

Think about it this way:

If I built you two identical systems, one with a 4200+ X2 and one with an Athlon FX-55, and let you play games and use the OS and apps as you normally would, then asked you to pick the one you wanted, you'd likely choose the X2 box.

I maybe put this across pretty badly in my CPU reviews, maybe I don't, but even though the FX-55 is 400MHz faster with twice the L2 (core for core), you'd absolutely not notice it in real-word PC usage.

Games are fast on the X2 and the only way you'll see the difference in those games is if you benchmark them to death. And for the sake of the frames per second difference you'd get, I'd still choose the dual-core processor.

Get the X2 4200+ at the cheapest price you can find. Single-core processors, especially the most expensive ones, have little appeal any more, unless you like to play with esoteric cooling, you're addicted to benchmarking and showing off on online forums, and you have deep pockets.

A dual-core CPU will simply give you a better overall computing experience while maintaining high gaming performance in the case of the X2. There's really no "if you're a gamer, get a single-core CPU" argument when you think about it.

That only applies if you're rolling in it, or you're seriously into your system tweaking and benchmarking and you like the thrill of challenging others in PC speed contests.

In my opinion.

**Smokey21** · 05-07-2005, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by derthballs

Neither would a 64bit intel with 2mb cache, cheaper than a 3700 san diego and just as good for dx9 games (dare i say it, if not a little better)

Now your having a laugh.

Well said Rys, thats my thinking as well, *scurries of the order 4400*

That link for the 4400 for 381 seems excellent to me, most places have the 4200+ for that, if not more.

**StormPC** · 05-07-2005, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Rys

Think about it this way:

If I built you two identical systems, one with a 4200+ X2 and one with an Athlon FX-55, and let you play games and use the OS and apps as you normally would, then asked you to pick the one you wanted, you'd likely choose the X2 box.

I maybe put this across pretty badly in my CPU reviews, maybe I don't, but even though the FX-55 is 400MHz faster with twice the L2 (core for core), you'd absolutely not notice it in real-word PC usage.

Games are fast on the X2 and the only way you'll see the difference in those games is if you benchmark them to death. And for the sake of the frames per second difference you'd get, I'd still choose the dual-core processor.

Get the X2 4200+ at the cheapest price you can find. Single-core processors, especially the most expensive ones, have little appeal any more, unless you like to play with esoteric cooling, you're addicted to benchmarking and showing off on online forums, and you have deep pockets.

A dual-core CPU will simply give you a better overall computing experience while maintaining high gaming performance in the case of the X2. There's really no "if you're a gamer, get a single-core CPU" argument when you think about it.

That only applies if you're rolling in it, or you're seriously into your system tweaking and benchmarking and you like the thrill of challenging others in PC speed contests.

In my opinion.

Are you calling AMD a liar when they say the FX line is the king of the hill for gamers and overclockers? AMD knows a little bit about these processors. You really need to read about them more.

I have been using FX's for years and I've had X2's since before they were released officially. The single-core chips SMOKE the X2's in gaming and overclocking, especially if you compare them dollar for dollar (or pound for pound if you prefer).

A better overall computing experience with an X2? Absolute nonsense! You sound like an Intel rep touting the virtues of Hyper-Threading.

If you didn't have use for a dual CPU machine (like an MP, Xeon or Opteron) then X2's should not be interesting to you because they will not do anything that dualies have not been doing for years. If you are crunching DC projects, or you just have to rip DVDs while playing Doom3 on the same computer at the same time then the X2 will help you.

Gamers and overclockers should (and will) spend their money on FX's and videocards. X2s will not offer anything useful (aside from appeal?

)...

Talk about "deep pockets?" You'd better have them to be able to afford to buy a second core that you will not even use.

Might want to look at this?

Notice who and what the X2 is designed for? Not gamers or enthusiasts.

**Scarlet Infidel** · 05-07-2005, 06:45 PM

Well i think the point he is making is that on paper an FX would give more fps, but in reality who'd notice that? (seriously, i dont know, i dont game so i cant say if theres a noticable difference between 70fps and 50fps) Unless of course you play the latest game on stupidly high settings, maybe youd get less slow down on the FX.

**StormPC** · 05-07-2005, 06:52 PM

It's not on paper, it's called real gaming.

Also, you don't need an FX to get more FPS. A 3700+ San Diego will destroy a 4800+ if you overclock theh 3700+ at all. Does it matter in most games? No. Will it matter in some games? Most definitely.

I don't play games so my main rig is a 4200+ X2. I do build high performance rigs for gamers though, and the X2 is not a cost effective choice for them. Do gamers buy them anyway? Of course. Everybody wants the lastest thing. Just goes to show you that most people have no respect for money. Do I mind? Not at all, but I feel it is my duty to help people make informed decisions since I am in the business.

By all means buy an X2, but understand that if you are a gamer or enthusiast you run the risk of getting slaughtered by rigs costing hundreds less.

**Scarlet Infidel** · 05-07-2005, 06:59 PM

Yeah, they are an expensive and unwise option for those who game.

Just out of interest what kind of games and situations are high spec cpus important? Are we talking 1600x1200 full AA and AF with big explosions in the latest game? Or are there more humble situations in which cpu makes a noticable difference?

**StormPC** · 05-07-2005, 07:22 PM

It depends greatly on the game. Like I said, I don't game but I get lots of feedback from gamers. They tell me that it's not just running 1600x1200 situations that cause a slowdown. Anytime there is a large area (especially outdoors) with lots of action and items moving around on the screen the framrates can drop substantially, even in resolutions as low as 800x600 and without maximum eye-candy. In these situations a strong CPU with lots of cache is very helpful.

**Smokey21** · 05-07-2005, 08:16 PM

How does someone run the risk of getting slaughterd by buying a x2? compared to a single core?

there is far far more emphasis on the video card in modern games. The FX-57 and 55, are a whole other ball park compared to the 4200 and 4400.

You gotta remember benchmarks comparing cpu's in games are run at low res, to put less emphasis on the VGA and more on the CPU.

Do you really think you are goin to notice the difference at 1600x1200 with full aa/af on a 7800, between a X2 at 2.5ghz and a FX-55 at 2.8ghz? or at least a difference you are talking about. And then the X2 will smoke it in everything else.

**StormPC** · 05-07-2005, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by Smokey21

How does someone run the risk of getting slaughterd by buying a x2? compared to a single core?

there is far far more emphasis on the video card in modern games. The FX-57 and 55, are a whole other ball park compared to the 4200 and 4400.

You gotta remember benchmarks comparing cpu's in games are run at low res, to put less emphasis on the VGA and more on the CPU.

Do you really think you are goin to notice the difference at 1600x1200 with full aa/af on a 7800, between a X2 at 2.5ghz and a FX-55 at 2.8ghz? or at least a difference you are talking about. And then the X2 will smoke it in everything else.

You are beyond help if you have to ask these questions with all the information I've given you. Knock yourself out, but don't say I didn't warn you.

**Shmee150** · 05-07-2005, 11:45 PM

Urmm guys the benchmarks don't show the FXs to be much ahead of the X2s and if you ever plan on playing a game and converting a dvd at the same time (something I wish I could do regularly) then the X2 wins. For pure gaming the FX wins. However the X2 can be compared to it's counter-part Athlon64 4000+ which is also v good for games, therefore the X2 4800 is good for games at an equalish level (presumably). The slower speed of each clock will never add up to the total max speed reached by the FX57.

Even bearing that in mind, I have now bought an Athlon64 X2 4800+ and am going to fit it into my system on Thursday, hopefully should be pretty nice!!!

ShMeE

**StormPC** · 05-07-2005, 11:55 PM

There are a lot of "the benchmarks" out there. The review sites are encouraged to recommend the newest technology, duhhhh...

I'm going to do some DVD ripping right now to see if this overclocked 4200+ can beat my overclocked FX-55.

Good luck ShMeE...just watch your case and ambient temps so you don't kill it in the first month. If you really plan to put all of that in your case I hope you've got air-conditioning and good case flow.

**Scarlet Infidel** · 06-07-2005, 12:01 AM

Out of interest Storm, what do you do with your immensly powerful computers? You have all these graphics benchmarks yet you dont game. Are they for more professional use?

**StormPC** · 06-07-2005, 03:37 AM

My X2 does SETI 24/7 and is my main Internet and general work machine (although it's at my home actually). I have a 3700+ San Diego in an SFF box that I use as a laptop practically. I take it with me sometimes if i need to use it for testing/repairs or other diagnostic stuff. One of my FX-55 boxes is just for benching if I feel like it or need to test some new hardware. The other is my ACAD box. I'm a Mechanical Engineer and CAD guy among other things.

I game occasionally on the SFF box and have taken it to a couple of LAN parties, but I don't get to game much these days. I am starting to get lots of interest in my high-performance AMD64 boxes. I build high-end servers, workstations and gaming rigs. I have been known to rip a DVD or two as well.

I build just about everything because it's the only way I can know for sure if something works well or not.

**Shmee150** · 06-07-2005, 09:21 AM