Athlon 64 Dual Core: Question Answered

[Guest Raven65]

I have always thought and do still think that dual core is a waste if your using it for gaming. You are not taking advantage of the chip. Now if your running a game server and a website, psycho stats and a forum on the same build that's worth it in my eyes. otherwise just but an fx chip.

[fire_storm]

I don't know why this thread was dug up but raven as said earlyer in this thread not everyone can afford a fx-55 or 57 and dual core price range fit nicely with some people.

[Aielman]

I don't know why this thread was dug up but raven as said earlyer in this thread not everyone can afford a fx-55 or 57 and dual core price range fit nicely with some people.

542768[/snapback]

 

I'm responsible for "diggin up" the thread...I was looking for information in established threads before starting up a new one on an old subject, as was suggested in the welcome sticky.

 

Let's skip the dual core aspect of the question and answer the one about the difference between a 4000 and an FX53, and how much better an FX55 is than the former. I'm more concerned about this than any arguement over the utility of dual core.

 

From what I've read here, I may have the wrong idea about the comparison between AMD chips. I'll admit I'm not very experienced with them. I'm a computer geek, but one that runs a multimillion dollar data center...so I don't get to get down in the weeks and play with the hardware that much any more...and the ones I do play with are servers with Intel guts.

 

peace,

Aielman

[Verran]

You guys are making this so much more complicated than it needs to be.

 

The argument against dual core is not that they're horrible, as has been stated. Just not the -best- for games. The other thing is that people keep comparing them to FXs, then saying they can't afford an FX. That's not the point. Here's what's being said:

 

1) Ask yourself how much you're going to spend on your X2 chip

2) Find the BEST single core A64 you can get for that -same- price or less (FX or not)

3) Compare those two processors on gaming performance

 

Some people don't spend enough on their X2 to get an FX, so those people would be comparing against a beefy San Diego. Just pick your price, and find the best single core and the best dual core you can get for that price, and compare them.

 

I have no interest in X2s, so I don't even know what they cost. But my bet is that the single core will win pretty much everytime, since most games don't utilize dual procs. Now if you're not gaming, or at least not primarily, then the story is different.

[apostolics]

I agree with that I got my x2 because I don't got the cash for a fx-57 or fx-55 and its ready for dual core programs.

533009[/snapback]

 

 

same here my 3500 was nice but i can now fold and game at the same time. trust me the chip even boots up faster. i think windows assigns a process to each startup item

[fire_storm]

Its all about the F@H for me know I can run 2 F@H when I am not using my computer. Or use 1 F@H and then another core for games perfect combo for me.

[urvaius]

I bought the x2 3800 a couple of weeks ago. replacing my 3200 venice. I had the venice at 2.4 ghz and i have the x2 at the same. I also have 2 monitors setup. I must say I like the x2 alot. before when I used my tv tuner it would stumble and freeze sometimes when opening other programs and such. forget about playing a game and watching tv. Now with the x2 my tv tuner loads quicker and it does not stumble. I can also play world of warcraft and watch tv at the same time. I am not saying it is totally awesome for the price, but I am glad I bought it. i just dropped it in the same os install as my venice. I did do a couple of 3dmark benches and they seemed about the same as the regular venice which I asumed it would. for multitasking the chip is good. but just for gaming the single is just fine. I have that in my other rig now.

[robAP]

more often than not im doing several things at once. thats what your paying for. youre paying for gaming performance AND the ability to do something in the background without it impacting your game. and this brings up an interesting question. (if youre crazy enough) with a dual monitor setup can you play 2 games at once without impact with a DC chip?

 

in eying the DC chip im leaning towards the cingle core if you want gaming. thats all been said before but it seems pretty accurate. how often are you gaming tho? and look at your other activities. music. torrents. viral scans. multiple programs running are the norms now. how often are you doing that? heres the best thing to thinkof. the computers on, your working on encoding a new DVD with CCE or whatever. itll take a while to fully process that and you can play a game on full settings in the meantime....no performance hit. or run a full virus check....AND play a game at the same time. no problems.....or you can do both virus, encoding, etc. whatever...it gives you BIG increases in productivity AND leasure at the same time!!! you get alot done while you were playing a game....when were you able to do that before without having a second computer??

 

certianly something to think about...if M2 is 18 months away at least...then thats enough time fo rme to go with a single core and live with it. then get a duallie rig (not a truck) on an M2...and theyll prolly have quad SLi by then too or something magnificient like that.

[GregP24]

I'm responsible for "diggin up" the thread...I was looking for information in established threads before starting up a new one on an old subject, as was suggested in the welcome sticky.

 

Let's skip the dual core aspect of the question and answer the one about the difference between a 4000 and an FX53, and how much better an FX55 is than the former. I'm more concerned about this than any arguement over the utility of dual core.

 

From what I've read here, I may have the wrong idea about the comparison between AMD chips. I'll admit I'm not very experienced with them. I'm a computer geek, but one that runs a multimillion dollar data center...so I don't get to get down in the weeks and play with the hardware that much any more...and the ones I do play with are servers with Intel guts.

 

peace,

Aielman

542805[/snapback]

 

 

Here's the deal with FX chips: they have unlocked multi's. Whereas on a regular A64 you can adjust the multi down, on an FX it goes down AND up!

 

Now, at this point in the game, an FX-53 is a pointless expenditure of cash. They are based on 130nm Clawhammer cores and are very poor OCers. A 200mhz OC would be very good for an FX-53(I had one that OC'd by an astounding 130mhz). Performance wise, a 4000+ and n FX-53 should be identical.

 

The FX-55 is also based on the 130nm Clawhammer tech, BUT it is also made from strained silicon. THEY OC pretty well(400-600mhz).

 

The newer chips based on 90nm venice/San Diego cores are the best OCers yet. Many peoeple are getting 2.8-2.9ghz out of them on air/water setups.

[CoolMaster]

regardless, an x2 may be a little better for gaming (not sure if anyone's said this yet) but there are little applications running outside of the initial game your playing, so maybe the second core helps with the other stuff, while one core is focused on the game, and so it can devote all it's time and energy into that game, and let the other core handle the little crap going on outside of the game (system processes etc)

maybe that only made sense to me? lol

[bigred]

no not really

 

memory controller and memory are still tied up with the game. no ram for 2nd app, who cares about CPU?

 

 

 

besides, that dead horse doesnt' need to come out and be beaten again.

[fire_storm]

People forget that dual cores still share memory controler, system request queue and other things.