thepunisher001 Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 So it'd be better to spend money on an FX-51 or 53 and then OC it from there on? 521968[/snapback] no i think hes inferring that its better to just not get a FX at all cause u could get a regular 64 chip an OC it further then a FX 57 and pay about 800 dollars less. but bigred if u do have the money is it worth going that one step further so then u would have a good chip to begin with and then u could OC it to 4-5 ghz using watercooling? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigred Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 you have NO clue how hard it is to start pushing beyond 4ghz with an AMD chip. throw your water cooling kit away and keep saving up. you'll need to spend $1000+ on your cpu and at least another $1000+ on a phase change kit just to SNIFF 4ghz. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
apostolics Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 and at the moment why would you spend 2000+ just for a system that sits there with no real purpose.no games tax a system to that point. instead buy two nvidia 7800s and sli and a decent amd 64 (3500 and higher). you wont need any further than that for some time Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kendellrt Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 you have NO clue how hard it is to start pushing beyond 4ghz with an AMD chip. throw your water cooling kit away and keep saving up. you'll need to spend $1000+ on your cpu and at least another $1000+ on a phase change kit just to SNIFF 4ghz. 522016[/snapback] In your opinion, then, what would be the way to go if someone was looking to buy a new CPU now and wanted the best bang for the buck? Would you still recommend a single core CPU like he 3700+ SD, for example, or dual core? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamikaze_Badger Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 As red has stated before, dual cores are a waste of money unless you're using multi-thread applications ALOT. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kendellrt Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 As red has stated before, dual cores are a waste of money unless you're using multi-thread applications ALOT. 522163[/snapback] Multithread apps, or would that also include multitasking or content creation, i.e. DVD encoding, etc.? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamikaze_Badger Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 Multitasking != multi-threading, I believe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kash Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 There's a slight difference. You can have ONE program be able to run multiple threads. Most of these tend to be CPU intensive, such as video editing software. You could have one thread, say encoding a video, sent to one core while having another thread, importing video in real-time, sent to the other core. Granted, neither thread will run very fast as they share several parts of the motherboard, but at least it'll save time since you don't have to wait for one thing to finish before starting another. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FxXP Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 The problem with these dual core CPU's is that both cores still have to travel through the same BUS to get tasks done. I find this is to be a bottleneck compared to true dual-CPU systems. But then again, the X2 is marketed for workstation usage, not server usage like the Opteron. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigred Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 The problem with these dual core CPU's is that both cores still have to travel through the same BUS to get tasks done. I find this is to be a bottleneck compared to true dual-CPU systems. But then again, the X2 is marketed for workstation usage, not server usage like the Opteron. 522235[/snapback] FINALLY!!!! There is a god, and he has allowed a wise OCC'r to post something smart Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kendellrt Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 What is the actual definition of a workstation? I have always heard different things. Is it just the name for a home PC, or for a box that is going to be used in a network domain environment only? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imm0rt41 Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 What is the actual definition of a workstation? I have always heard different things. Is it just the name for a home PC, or for a box that is going to be used in a network domain environment only? 522308[/snapback] Think of someone's PC at a graphics design studio, that could be a use for a workstation chip right there. We all know PCs are used for gaming though so who needs dual core? >_> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now