Dracula Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 Looking to upgrade my CPU....looking at the FX-55 sandy or the X2 4800...since they seem in the same ballpark price wise(expensive)....i use my pc for just about everthing[sic]...so im looking for good OC ability, gameability, and multitaskability....ive been reading many threads and have seen good/bad things on either one...but would like some recommends/thoughts from others....thanks! Travis is 100% right about the AMD A64 4000+ being the best "bang-for-the-buck". However, you have plainly indicated that you have the disposable income for and are willing to buy either the FX-55 or the X2 4800+. Click here, here, and here for some helpful topics. The really big question is, what do you mainly do with the computer you are using now? You shouldn’t the questions, "what I might do" or "what my friends do", but what ARE YOU DOING on your machine THE MOST. If your primary thing is over-clocking and gaming, you should get the FX-57. If your main thing is going on the internet, composing e-mails, posting on forums :nod: , running apps and progs, definitely get the X2. If it’s a mix of both gaming, multi-tasking and over-clocking, and you’re deciding between the FX-55 and the X2; go with the X2, to be sure. I found the choice between the FX-57 and the X2 4800+ to be tough. Since you are choosing between the 55 and the 4800+, to me that's a no-brainer; 4800+ ALL THE WAY! You should read all of the personal reviews of the 4800+ buyers by clicking on NewEgg. The most recent NewEgg reviewer had this to say: Why buy an FX-ANY, If you examine the specs and ignore all the hype, it becomes fairly obvious that the only real difference between the FX-57 and the X2's 4800+ is the clock speed (by .4 mhz) and of course 2 cpu's instead of the FX's one. Don't let anyone (especially the manufacturers) try and scam you, the number one performance enhancement any CPU manufacturer can make is to increase the size of the L1 and L2 caches (Intel is the same, the only real difference between the Xeon and the P4 is the cache size, same as their EE). And both the X2 4800+ and the FX-(ANY) have the exact same cache size per CPU. So, do yourself a favor, get the X2 4800+ and invest the $xxx.00 dollars you save into a decent cooling setup and overclock this badboy. You'll have up to 2 times the power for the same price. Don't buy the hype, buy the best. Fatal1ty AN8 SLI Athalon64 X2 4800+ 4gig Corsair Twinx2048-3200C2PRO 2X Hitachi T7K250 160gb Sata II (raid 1) 2X XFX 7800GTX OC (SLI) Enermax NoiseTaker 600W SLI PSU Koolance PC3-720SL Water cooled case They all seem to be positively delighted with their dual core CPU and have given it a perfect score. Alex Ross of CPU (Computer Power User) had this to say... "The X2 4800+ clearly plasters itself on the top of the benchmark leader board table in almost every category. Not only does it beat the FX-55, but Intel’s Extreme Edition 840 gets some good left, right, and uppercut combinations thrown at it." Alex "Sharky" Ross, CPU Magazine, July 2005 Here is a post of mine I hijacked from another website: The ultimate answer here rests SOLELY upon the “true and actual” needs of the user; which cannot and should not be summed up in terms of 3DMark and PCMark testing suites (with which I’ve noticed gamers are obsessed). I've observed, just in the past year, internet review-sites (i.e. – Tom’s Hardware, AnandTech, Hot Hardware, PC Perspective, etc) seem to be obsessed with PC gaming. Why? It may be the fad for now, but fads have a tendency to live up to their names. Even with this current and still growing fad, the overwhelming, vast majority of computer users in the world use computers for things other than and in addition to gaming. The fact is that unless you’re planning on doing no more than one single task at a time on your computer and intend on using it merely for gaming (like bare-bones), then most definitely the AMD FX-57 is the one for the “bleeding-edge, hardcore, PC gamer”. Notice the phrase, “bleeding-edge, hardcore, PC gamer”? Unless this title describes you to the hilt or understates your gaming enthusiasm, you should consider exploring other CPU possibilities; perhaps on a better price point or that serve better functionality. Maybe, if your name is Jonathan “Fata1ity” Wendel and you’re raking in 500-Large for PC Gaming World Tours, then I would say FX-57 or bust! Let’s be honest here for just a moment, I’m sure that you use your computer for more than just single tasks (ever had your tabbed Firefox web browser, Winamp and Adobe Acrobat Reader open at the same time) such as gaming and running 3DMark05 benchmarks all afternoon. I’ll bet there’s more than just one icon in your system tray at boot. Just because the FX-57 was fastest in the game-testing suites does not infer that it was overall superior to the Athlon 64 X2 4800+. The X2’s CPU scores decimated the FX-57’s far more in those testing suites, than the 57’s did to the X2’s in the gaming benches SharkyExtreme . Just because the X2 took 3rd (#1 FX-57, #2 FX-55) in the games testing, does not mean that it did poorly with games either. In fact, a number of the game test scores, among those top 3, were fairly close in some cases. Another relevant point is that Intel, AMD, nVIDIA and ATI have all said in unison that single threaded games will be a dying breed in a couple years time or less and that eventually single core CPUs will follow them, in tandem, not too long after that Tom's Hardware . This is especially true with the advent of new gaming platforms like the Xbox 360 and the PS3 which will be using muti-core CPUs (6 to 8 cores respectively). The 360’s availability will commence before years end. Multi-core processors WILL be the new cutting edge, computer standard in less than 5 years time. As usual, however, the Tom’s Hardware reviewer who wrote the article missed his own point – “gee, I don’t know ‘bout them new-fangled dually-whats-its. If it ain’t broke no 3DMark05 record, don’t buy it.” BOTTOM LINE: If you plan on using your computer for more than just gaming, give those X2’s a bit more consideration. With all this said, there's still more. Click on AMD to see a chart at the AMD website that juxtaposes all the processors in which you are interested. The FX-57 has one Level 2 Cache that is 1MB. The X2 4800+ has two Level 2 Caches, each of which are 1MB (1MB + 1MB = 2MB TOTAL). The FX-57 has 113 Million transistors. The X2 4800+ has 233.2 Million transistors. They can both be over-clocked but the FX can do so more easily. The FX also wins in memory-bandwidth performance, but the X2 can still hold it's own. Click on FX-55/FX-57 and on AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core for more detailed info on these CPU's at AMD. Finally, for reviews, click on X2 PART One, X2 PART Two and X2 PDF for some more good reviewing. Based on what you said in your first post, I think that the AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4800+ [ ADA4800CDBOX ] would be the best fit for you. It's at a better price point than the FX-57 and is comparable to the 55. The best price I found it for can be had by clicking on Monarch Computer Systems ($880 with free shipping). I hope this was helpful. Good luck! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :cool: DRACULA • MoBo = DFI LANPARTY nF4 SLI-DR • CPU = FX-57 (90nm process, San Diego core) [ADAFX57BNBOX] • Memory = 1GB of OCZ Technology (1T Mode), EL DDR PC-4800 Dual Channel Platinum Elite Edition (hand-picked, 100% TCCD chips), Qt.2 [OCZ6001024EEPE-K] • Hard Drives = a) 74GB WD Raptor, Qt.4 [WD740GD] B) 500GB Hitachi Deskstar 7K500 SATA II, Qt.4 [0A31619] *** Total SATA Storage: 2.296 Terabytes *** • BIOS = 702-2 with Change-Log Update • OS = Windows XP Pro SP2 and Windows XP Pro x64-bit • Video Card (single card, non-SLI Mode) = BFG GeForce 6800 Ultra OC™ PCIe 512MB GDDR3/TV-Out/Dual-DVI (Retail Box) [bFGR68512UOCX] • Video Driver (nVIDIA) = ForceWare v77.77 (non-Beta) • Monitor = ViewSonic VP191b (new 8ms revision) • Optical Drives = ASUS DRW-1608p, Qt.2 [DRW1608P] • Floppy Drive = MITSUMI 8 in 1, Multi-Media Drive [FA404M] • Case = Aspire X-Navigator, mid-Tower [ATXA8NW-BK] • Cooling (air only) = a) Thermalright XP-90C Heat-Sink B) 92mm Vantec Tornado (119 CFM - 4800 RPM's - 56.4 dBA) CPU Fan [TD9238H] c) Arctic Silver 5 compound • PSU = Thermaltake, 680 Watts, SLI-ready [W0049] • Audio = Creative Labs, GigaWorks S750 (700 Watts, 7.1 Channel Speaker System – Retail) [51MF7010AA000] "Feel however you want. Your opinion still has all the appeal of warm, flat beer." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry_Games Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 actually I say the 3700 and 4000 San Diego because they overclock farther than an FX will *if you have phase change, you might as well just buy whatever since it really doesn't matter at about -50°C, but for anyone with water or air cooling, the FX cpu does not clock as well as a good 3700/4000....hence the term bang for the buck* I have an FX-55 San Diego, and have had a couple FX-55 Clawhammers come through my hands. Not a single one of them clocked anywhere near as high as my 4000+ San Diego (top stable on air @ 2880Mhz, top stable on water so far @ 2974Mhz) my FX-55 San Diego...even under water it wont hold 2850Mhz...if i had bought the FX-55 for $900-ish and my 4000+ @ $400-ish...even if I was rich and had money to throw away...which one would I be more disappointed in? touche my X2 4400+ won't do a dot over 2651Mhz stable on both cores simultaneously. Thankfully 2 cores @ 2600-ish Mhz is just like having 2 FX-55 San Diego's...great for a lot of things (like dvd ripping, folding@home, etc) I get stuff for free thankfully. I wanted an FX-55 to see wtf the buzz was about. So you can go upwards with the multipliers...big yay (yawn). Its a 13x multi. A 4000+ has a 12x multi. A 3700+ has an 11x multi. I wouldn't go any lower than that. what I am getting at is that I get to test a lot of the top stuff, and in the end, I am always disappointed in the fact that IF i had had to purchase stuff, and thinking like 'we' think around here (that im gonna overclock the everloving #@$!@# out of it and then play games and download pr0n etc), I'd be pretty pissed off at spending $900+ for a processor that wouldn't even match the clocks of a $400 and now $300 cpu. All 3700+ and 4000+ San Diegos will instantly clock to 2600Mhz, the default FX-55 speed...if you have done your homework and bought a good psu, board, and memory to go with it. Every 4000+ I've touched whether it is mine or a customers has hit 2800Mhz without a problem, easily with BH-5 and TCCD (since you only have to do about 233x12, and any PC3700, BH-5, or TCCD can get you there quickly and easily. Every 3700+ I have seen or touched has hit 2600Mhz as easily as the 4000+ if you have TCCD or can pump BH-5 for all it is worth (or just drop it to a 180 divider and its easy to clock even beyond 2600Mhz....getting into easy 2800Mhz territory of the FX-57). now...if you got money to burn, and have to have the fastest stock speed stuff, and don't plan on, and are not interested in, overclocking at all...get the FX-57, or 4800+ X2. If you are even a bit interested in overclocking, buy a 4000+ (you can't possibly notice the speed between a 4000+ @ 2400Mhz vs an FX at 2600 and even 2800Mhz unless you benchmark them, and seriously...2400Mhz with 1MB L2 cache is so fast you honestly do not need more than that for any program at all that will run on a machine you build with this stuff). That extra $300-$500 you save by buying a 4000+ instead of an FX or expensive X2 4800+ can go towards getting one bad mofo case....or getting phase change (the great equalizer when it comes to overclocking), or getting a badder 7800GTX, or supa-monsta billazilliamega watt psu, etc...whatever you want. Heck, you can even get a 3800+ X2 or 4200+ X2 and clock it right up to 4800+ speeds (and you won't worry about that L2 cache...trust me...it requires benchmarks to see or feel the difference, and if anyone says that they can 'feel' the difference or tell the difference between 512k and 1MB L2 cache just by staring at a screen running a program...they been smoking some bad crack made of Sani-Flush crystals) our job here is to not only help you get your gear working...but to educate you as a consumer on how to get the best bang for your buck and enjoy it all. Most customers we have dealt with are extremely happy when we show them they can build a $3000 machine for about half that price (ie: buying stuff you know can and will overclock to those $3000 machine priced parts and beyond). That extra $1500 can pay bills, buy MORE crap for you computer, buy your girl a ring or some other present...who knows. I just prefer the 3700+ and 4000+ San Diego because they have big multipliers, they overclock like crazy, and they are half the price or less than the top FX/X2 cpu's are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracula Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 The X2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracula Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 Looking to upgrade my CPU....looking at the FX-55 sandy or the X2 4800...since they seem in the same ballpark price wise(expensive)....i use my pc for just about everthing[sic]...so im looking for good OC ability, gameability, and multitaskability....ive been reading many threads and have seen good/bad things on either one...but would like some recommends/thoughts from others....thanks! Travis is 100% right about the AMD A64 4000+ being the best "bang-for-the-buck". However, you have plainly indicated that you have the disposable income for and are willing to buy either the FX-55 or the X2 4800+. Click here, here, and here for some helpful topics. The really big question is, what do you mainly do with the computer you are using now? You shouldn’t the questions, "what I might do" or "what my friends do", but what ARE YOU DOING on your machine THE MOST. If your primary thing is over-clocking and gaming, you should get the FX-57. If your main thing is going on the internet, composing e-mails, posting on forums :nod: , running apps and progs, definitely get the X2. If it’s a mix of both gaming, multi-tasking and over-clocking, and you’re deciding between the FX-55 and the X2; go with the X2, to be sure. I found the choice between the FX-57 and the X2 4800+ to be tough. Since you are choosing between the 55 and the 4800+, to me that's a no-brainer; 4800+ ALL THE WAY! You should read all of the personal reviews of the 4800+ buyers by clicking on NewEgg. The most recent NewEgg reviewer had this to say: Why buy an FX-ANY, If you examine the specs and ignore all the hype, it becomes fairly obvious that the only real difference between the FX-57 and the X2's 4800+ is the clock speed (by .4 mhz) and of course 2 cpu's instead of the FX's one. Don't let anyone (especially the manufacturers) try and scam you, the number one performance enhancement any CPU manufacturer can make is to increase the size of the L1 and L2 caches (Intel is the same, the only real difference between the Xeon and the P4 is the cache size, same as their EE). And both the X2 4800+ and the FX-(ANY) have the exact same cache size per CPU. So, do yourself a favor, get the X2 4800+ and invest the $xxx.00 dollars you save into a decent cooling setup and overclock this badboy. You'll have up to 2 times the power for the same price. Don't buy the hype, buy the best. Fatal1ty AN8 SLI Athalon64 X2 4800+ 4gig Corsair Twinx2048-3200C2PRO 2X Hitachi T7K250 160gb Sata II (raid 1) 2X XFX 7800GTX OC (SLI) Enermax NoiseTaker 600W SLI PSU Koolance PC3-720SL Water cooled case They all seem to be positively delighted with their dual core CPU and have given it a perfect score. Alex Ross of CPU (Computer Power User) had this to say... "The X2 4800+ clearly plasters itself on the top of the benchmark leader board table in almost every category. Not only does it beat the FX-55, but Intel’s Extreme Edition 840 gets some good left, right, and uppercut combinations thrown at it." Alex "Sharky" Ross, CPU Magazine, July 2005 Here is a post of mine I hijacked from another website: The ultimate answer here rests SOLELY upon the “true and actual” needs of the user; which cannot and should not be summed up in terms of 3DMark and PCMark testing suites (with which I’ve noticed gamers are obsessed). I've observed, just in the past year, internet review-sites (i.e. – Tom’s Hardware, AnandTech, Hot Hardware, PC Perspective, etc) seem to be obsessed with PC gaming. Why? It may be the fad for now, but fads have a tendency to live up to their names. Even with this current and still growing fad, the overwhelming, vast majority of computer users in the world use computers for things other than and in addition to gaming. The fact is that unless you’re planning on doing no more than one single task at a time on your computer and intend on using it merely for gaming (like bare-bones), then most definitely the AMD FX-57 is the one for the “bleeding-edge, hardcore, PC gamer”. Notice the phrase, “bleeding-edge, hardcore, PC gamer”? Unless this title describes you to the hilt or understates your gaming enthusiasm, you should consider exploring other CPU possibilities; perhaps on a better price point or that serve better functionality. Maybe, if your name is Jonathan “Fata1ity” Wendel and you’re raking in 500-Large for PC Gaming World Tours, then I would say FX-57 or bust! Let’s be honest here for just a moment, I’m sure that you use your computer for more than just single tasks (ever had your tabbed Firefox web browser, Winamp and Adobe Acrobat Reader open at the same time) such as gaming and running 3DMark05 benchmarks all afternoon. I’ll bet there’s more than just one icon in your system tray at boot. Just because the FX-57 was fastest in the game-testing suites does not infer that it was overall superior to the Athlon 64 X2 4800+. The X2’s CPU scores decimated the FX-57’s far more in those testing suites, than the 57’s did to the X2’s in the gaming benches SharkyExtreme . Just because the X2 took 3rd (#1 FX-57, #2 FX-55) in the games testing, does not mean that it did poorly with games either. In fact, a number of the game test scores, among those top 3, were fairly close in some cases. Another relevant point is that Intel, AMD, nVIDIA and ATI have all said in unison that single threaded games will be a dying breed in a couple years time or less and that eventually single core CPUs will follow them, in tandem, not too long after that Tom's Hardware . This is especially true with the advent of new gaming platforms like the Xbox 360 and the PS3 which will be using muti-core CPUs (6 to 8 cores respectively). The 360’s availability will commence before years end. Multi-core processors WILL be the new cutting edge, computer standard in less than 5 years time. As usual, however, the Tom’s Hardware reviewer who wrote the article missed his own point – “gee, I don’t know ‘bout them new-fangled dually-whats-its. If it ain’t broke no 3DMark05 record, don’t buy it.” BOTTOM LINE: If you plan on using your computer for more than just gaming, give those X2’s a bit more consideration. With all this said, there's still more. Click on AMD to see a chart at the AMD website that juxtaposes all the processors in which you are interested. The FX-57 has one Level 2 Cache that is 1MB. The X2 4800+ has two Level 2 Caches, each of which are 1MB (1MB + 1MB = 2MB TOTAL). The FX-57 has 113 Million transistors. The X2 4800+ has 233.2 Million transistors. They can both be over-clocked but the FX can do so more easily. The FX also wins in memory-bandwidth performance, but the X2 can still hold it's own. Click on FX-55/FX-57 and on AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core for more detailed info on these CPU's at AMD. Finally, for reviews, click on X2 PART One, X2 PART Two and X2 PDF for some more good reviewing. Based on what you said in your first post, I think that the AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4800+ [ ADA4800CDBOX ] would be the best fit for you. It's at a better price point than the FX-57 and is comparable to the 55. The best price I found it for can be had by clicking on Monarch Computer Systems ($880 with free shipping). I hope this was helpful. Good luck! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :cool: DRACULA • MoBo = DFI LANPARTY nF4 SLI-DR • CPU = FX-57 (90nm process, San Diego core) [ADAFX57BNBOX] • Memory = 1GB of OCZ Technology (1T Mode), EL DDR PC-4800 Dual Channel Platinum Elite Edition (hand-picked, 100% TCCD chips), Qt.2 [OCZ6001024EEPE-K] • Hard Drives = a) 74GB WD Raptor, Qt.4 [WD740GD] B) 500GB Hitachi Deskstar 7K500 SATA II, Qt.4 [0A31619] *** Total SATA Storage: 2.296 Terabytes *** • BIOS = 702-2 with Change-Log Update • OS = Windows XP Pro SP2 and Windows XP Pro x64-bit • Video Card (single card, non-SLI Mode) = BFG GeForce 6800 Ultra OC™ PCIe 512MB GDDR3/TV-Out/Dual-DVI (Retail Box) [bFGR68512UOCX] • Video Driver (nVIDIA) = ForceWare v77.77 (non-Beta) • Monitor = ViewSonic VP191b (new 8ms revision) • Optical Drives = ASUS DRW-1608p, Qt.2 [DRW1608P] • Floppy Drive = MITSUMI 8 in 1, Multi-Media Drive [FA404M] • Case = Aspire X-Navigator, mid-Tower [ATXA8NW-BK] • Cooling (air only) = a) Thermalright XP-90C Heat-Sink B) 92mm Vantec Tornado (119 CFM - 4800 RPM's - 56.4 dBA) CPU Fan [TD9238H] c) Arctic Silver 5 compound • PSU = Thermaltake, 680 Watts, SLI-ready [W0049] • Audio = Creative Labs, GigaWorks S750 (700 Watts, 7.1 Channel Speaker System – Retail) [51MF7010AA000] "Feel however you want. Your opinion still has all the appeal of a warm, flat beer." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLi_dog Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 Firstly, WOW Dracula. Not only is that the most thorough opinion that I have heard on the subject but it was put eloquently and intelligently. Not to mention the 14 web links. I agree that the X2 is the alround best choice. However, I recently had to make this choice myself for a gaming rig and decided on the FX-57 for the reason you stated here. Another relevant point is that Intel, AMD, nVIDIA and ATI have all said in unison that single threaded games will be a dying breed in a couple years time or less and that eventually single core CPUs will follow them, in tandem, not too long after that The X2 probably won't be fully utilised by most software (gaming or otherwise) for a year or more yet. By then, there will most likely be a better/cheaper/faster dual-core CPU available for you to upgrade to. That's what I intend to do. In the meantime though I've been running my FX-57 stable at 3.45GHz with a VapoLS even though I'm using a $hit MSI K8N Diamond (DFI SLi-DR board is on order as we speak). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joki Posted September 12, 2005 Posted September 12, 2005 Well ... first let me say thanks to AG/Dracula for giving good adivce/info on helping and educating me on my buying decision process....definately your inputs were weighing on my mind...i ruled out the FX's...as AG has experienced... unless you have something like phase cooling (another expensive item) the FX appearently won't give the OC ability like the 3700/4000 SD would on air or liquid....so it came down to saving bucks with the 4000+ or dropping some bucks with the X2 4800 SD ......as i said when i first started this....i will use this rig for many things....browse, rip/encode media, OC, game, use MS office/dev studio, etc.).... so with this i think am going for the X2 4800+....seems to be an overall solid performing CPU and good with multitasking from what i have seen people say or read....i will still try to OC it as far as i can with liquid...and i know it probably won't OC as much as the 3700/4000 (man that kinda of sucks)...but thats ok....for now at least... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fst h2o Posted September 12, 2005 Posted September 12, 2005 I too am (had been?) debating between an FX-57 and X2 4800+, but after reading this topic, I am not so sure. I am completely new to overclocking, and am interested in trying it out. I have decided to dive head first into the OC game by getting a DFI, and hope to enjoy hours and hours of tweaking to get the most out of my components (see sig). Being new to this, how likely is it that I can get similar results to many of the users here? I have no experience with overclocking at all, and don't want to sacrifice too much performance to indulge my new hobby. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
day187 Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 I have a 4800 x2 i'm Very:) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewbabcock Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 Why do you like Sandy's so much? I thought venice was the best, especially for ocing... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts