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

[Dougal]

I don't know about you guys, but

A) I think that X2s and FXs are out of most gamers budgets, such as Students (But willing to take freebie FX and X2s to test)

B) Any chance I can get a beer and watch you guys rip each other to shreds over AMD? Almost as fun as the Intel/AMD and Religion/Atheist debates

[Smokey21]

Actually i don't think AMD are ever going to release a FX X2, they want to keep the FX as the flagship single core.

[Rys]

Actually i don't think AMD are ever going to release a FX X2, they want to keep the FX as the flagship single core.

The FX will be dual-core eventually (in 2006 I'd imagine), I guarantee you.

[Smokey21]

I doubt it.

Think about it? it wouldn't make sense. The FX is the flagship core, with the 1mb l2 and multi unlocked.

What would be the point in one for a dual core?

AMD knows games are still single threaded, they have said they wan to keep the FX as the flagship.

[Rys]

I doubt it.

Think about it? it wouldn't make sense. The FX is the flagship core, with the 1mb l2 and multi unlocked.

What would be the point in one for a dual core?

AMD knows games are still single threaded, they have said they wan to keep the FX as the flagship.

AMD have actually said, in public, that when dual-core presents an advantage in modern games titles, the FX will be a dual-core processor. I'm not just making it up

You say yourself that FX is single-core while it makes performance sense. Surely you can see that when dual-core offers them the fastest performance for their target market with the FX, they'll switch.

Again, it absolutely will be dual-core in the future!

[Smokey21]

heh, we will see.

In my view, then they will only have Dual core cpu's, even in 2 years time most people wo't want that.

I think the FX, will keep going for a while.

We shall see............

bump this thread in 18 months.

[Scarlet Infidel]

In a couple of years time everything will use multithreading, a cpu with a single core will be left in the dust.

[Dougal]

Amds roadmap shows that they have a new socket coming out in 2006.

I'd be interested in seeing if that coincides with Microsoft shifting a dual core OS. Like Xpx64 previews were out a couple of months after s754.

[Shmee150]

I think in a couple of years time we will have far more than just the 2 cores that we are starting to get now and will be into 5+ cores per CPU

Leastways, I hope so anyway

ShMeE

[StormPC]

AMD markets the chips based on their strengths. X2's are good for multi-tasking and pro scientific and media-encoding applications. They are not good for games or overclocking and benching. They do well in multi-threaded benchmarks like PCMark04/05 but they suck compared to their single-core equivalents, even clock for clock, but especially if you consider the price.

Rys,

It's not just the number of threads. It's the number of CPU INTENSIVE threads. Check Windows Task Manager and you will see that EVERY computer running Windows is running at least 20 plus processes. They are low priority and not very demanding so they don't affect game play, etc. Since dual-cores have only 2 cores however, if you are running 3 or more CPU intensive applications you still have scheduling issues (though not as bad as with the single-core) and you will still experience the hourglass from time to time. The 3800+ at 2830MHz can keep up with many dualies in multi-threaded benches but in real life the multi-tasking will not be as smooth unless you play around with priorities.

No matter how many cores you run, 3D benchers and gamers will kick your arse with their single-core rigs unless single-core rigs just disappear one day, which is highly unlikely. Like I said before, if dual-core isn't the mainstream games will not be written to utilize multiple cores. It's simple economics.

[Smokey21]

While i do agree with some of you what you say, some of Storm is rubbish.

Ive sen plenty of benchies and an X2 clock for clock is exactly the same as the equivelent chip.

Infact every bench i saw had a 4400+ slighty faster than a 3700+. it's impossible for it to be slower, it's using 2 of the same cores.

[StormPC]

While i do agree with some of you what you say, some of Storm is rubbish.

Ive sen plenty of benchies and an X2 clock for clock is exactly the same as the equivelent chip.

Infact every bench i saw had a 4400+ slighty faster than a 3700+. it's impossible for it to be slower, it's using 2 of the same cores.

Actually it's using two superior cores, but it can still be slower. Stock they will be close and the 4400+ will probably win it's share of benches, but the 3700+ will overclock twice as high on the same cooling. Overclocked A64's are absolute rockets.

[Shmee150]

^ EXACTLY!!!!

Ur paying much more when you buy an X2, but there is no way it is worse than the equivalent single core.

So if your willing to pay loads for better performance in certain areas ... then X2 is better.

ShMeE

[Smokey21]

I don't agree that a 3700 will overlcock twice as well than a 4400 either. fFrom what ive seen every 2.2ghz x2 ive seen has done 2.5ghz easily on stock cooling, if not 2.6ghz. With a quality sink that thermalright, should get bit more out of it.

Obviously temps are more of a problem with 2 cores, but they stil do well.

If every 3700 can do 3000mhz on air, iam the pope.

Lets also take into account a 2.6ghz is hardly slow. To me it's just a better all cpu, that any single core, and if you can afford it, it's a nice option.

So let me feel good about myself and my purchase dammit.

[StormPC]

Whether you believe it or not is neither here nor there. It is a fact of life that dual cores will not overclock anywhere near as high as the single core CPUs. If you need to buy one to find that out then go for it. It is your money afterall. I'm just letting you know what I've experienced.

If you are using it for gaming alone you shouldn't feel good about it because you overpaid big time. If you multitask and/or crunch, or you do a lot of DVD ripping while still using your computer for browsing, etc then the X2 is a great deal.