Fx55

[habitual geek]

Bigred knows everything about proccessors so what he says is right and don't argue with him he will win.

591506[/snapback]

 

maybe Bigred can answer himself instead of his loyal gimps doing it for him??

 

heh, for all you guys know, Bigred is a little 14 yr old kid sitting in moms basement with this completely made up fantasy life, and you guys are suking it all up.....ROFL, i mean, truth be told, none of you KNOW any of his claims are true

Edited December 7, 2005 by habitual geek

[Nerm]

I tell ya what habitual. You go buy yourself any dual core cpu you want (3800, 4400, whatever) and you can challenge my inferior single core and single channel 3400+ lol.

 

Dual core will have it's day when they are more wide spreadly utilized, but that time is not now and I personally don't think it will be anytime soon either. I could be wrong though.

[bigred]

Windows XP does have the ability to schedule threads to affinity's, it's not anywhere the same as true software code level multithreading of course, but even a P4 with HT will share the load when using more than one app

 

are you saying the results in the review i posted were completely made up?

 

and a 3800+ X2 at 2.4Ghz should be performing at or near the same level as a 3800+ single core CPU i believe, no?

591500[/snapback]

 

 

at 2.4ghz they're at the same speed. did that much occur to you? 2.4ghz vs 2.4ghz... wonder why they scored so close. stock vs stock (this is what I'm talking about)... the single core chip will on average have the advantage over the dual core (stock speed is 2ghz). that's the point I'm trying to make here. if you want to put 400mhz OC into the mix then why not take the 3800+ single core to 2.8ghz?

 

sure you can set affinity to a program. BUT it's still not handled right. this is one of the things that MS is fighting with in vista... true load balancing handled by the OS not by the app.

 

Honestly I actually didnt know fx-55's ran really hot....like how hot we talking?

591502[/snapback]

 

NO NO NO NO

 

 

 

 

fire_storm... don't get me started on you again. Mr X2 is god

[habitual geek]

I tell ya what habitual. You go buy yourself any dual core cpu you want (3800, 4400, whatever) and you can challenge my inferior single core and single channel 3400+ lol.

 

Dual core will have it's day when they are more wide spreadly utilized, but that time is not now and I personally don't think it will be anytime soon either. I could be wrong though.

591513[/snapback]

 

i agree, the single cores are still in their heyday, but i can get a 3800+ X2, overclock it to 2.4-2.5Ghz easy on air, which will run single threaded apps at the same level as a 3800+, which will run as well as anyone could want, and then it will shine whenever multithreaded apps are presented

 

i do alot of DVD decoding/encoding, nearly as much as gaming, and being able to leave a video encoding while playing a game or doing other stuff is useful to me, the FX55 can't do that well.....

 

so what if a FX55 can do 235fps in Doom3, if the 3800+ X2 can do 195fps.........you get my point, you won't see or feel the difference in the single threaded apps, pure number benchmarking is different, but i don't own a computer to have the biggest e-penis on the proverbial block

[Nerm]

i agree, the single cores are still in their heyday, but i can get a 3800+ X2, overclock it to 2.4-2.5Ghz easy on air, which will run single threaded apps at the same level as a 3800+, which will run as well as anyone could want, and then it will shine whenever multithreaded apps are presented

 

i do alot of DVD decoding/encoding, nearly as much as gaming, and being able to leave a video encoding while playing a game or doing other stuff is useful to me, the FX55 can't do that well.....

 

so what if a FX55 can do 235fps in Doom3, if the 3800+ X2 can do 195fps.........you get my point, you won't see or feel the difference in the single threaded apps, pure number benchmarking is different, but i don't own a computer to have the biggest e-penis on the proverbial block

[bigred]

but you're talking about overclocking a dual core chip a little and leaving an FX stock. that's the part that's bugging me. why assume that the FX won't be overclocked?

 

I have FX's and I push them HARD. I also have several X2's and I push them as hard as they can be pushed. the FX still wins out by sheer brute mhz in the long run. 4800+ vs FX -57... 1ghz difference in how far they're oc'd... it's a smash mouth, no holds barred fight to the finish in apps that support SMP, but the FX still takes the prize when BOTH chips are overclocked.

 

I also have NO problem encoding / decoding a dvd or two at once while doing other things on an FX rig... hell I didn't even have an issue doing that on my 3200+ clawhammer back in the day. I've played far cry while encoding 2 dvd's with encore (which does support SMP). never noticed on a FX-57. never noticed a difference while trying to do that with the 4800+ either.

 

 

also you talk about a price differnece. yeah that's cuz the FX has so much more overhead room to push it thru. the FX-55 can come so close to the 4ghz mark if you know what you're doing. and that's enough to more than offset the dual core difference even in supported apps.

[habitual geek]

Now for encoding kind of stuff I agree with dual cores. In all honesty for encoding right now I would probably go Intel.  lol.........As I have said time and time again yet you don't seem to be reading my posts. "It is not for everybody" You do encoding so you don't need or want something like an FX55, but if your a gamer an FX55 takes precidence(sp?) or FX57 or whatever your budget allows. If a person's budget is $1000 for a cpu and they are a gamer what is wrong with getting what is best for them and within their budget? I have nothing against X2's they are fine cpu's but different types of cpu's have different things that are their strong points. and this is what I am argueing. You came in here posting as if X2's were the almighty and no single core cpu could even come close.

591526[/snapback]

 

 

but you're talking about overclocking a dual core chip a little and leaving an FX stock.  that's the part that's bugging me.  why assume that the FX won't be overclocked?

 

I have FX's and I push them HARD.  I also have several X2's and I push them as hard as they can be pushed.  the FX still wins out by sheer brute mhz in the long run.  4800+ vs FX -57...  1ghz difference in how far they're oc'd...  it's a smash mouth, no holds barred fight to the finish in apps that support SMP, but the FX still takes the prize when BOTH chips are overclocked.

 

I also have NO problem encoding / decoding a dvd or two at once while doing other things on an FX rig...  hell I didn't even have an issue doing that on my 3200+ clawhammer back in the day.  I've played far cry while encoding 2 dvd's with encore (which does support SMP).  never noticed on a FX-57.  never noticed a difference while trying to do that with the 4800+ either.

also you talk about a price differnece.  yeah that's cuz the FX has so much more overhead room to push it thru.  the FX-55 can come so close to the 4ghz mark if you know what you're doing.  and that's enough to more than offset the dual core difference even in supported apps.

591528[/snapback]

 

 

yeah guys.......no nerm i did not act liek the X2's were better than anything else, go back and read bro, that was what you inferred from it

 

the thing is, i bet you as far as single threaded apps go, benchmarks, games, whatever, i bet you the actual difference you would feel or notice without having some sort of measuring tool would be minimal if at all, i bet the smoothness of playing Doom3 on a FX55 and on a 3800+ X2 @ 2.5Ghz is identical.........i bet you can't even tell without bringing up the FPS meter, so why in the hell would i spend $1000 without getting any real return on my investment

 

spending $1000 on a CPU becuase it overclocks like a god is rediculous for the average joe, and normal for the rediculously wealthy, it just doesn't fit in with most people, where as the 3800+ X2 does and will do everything fast enough you probably would never be able to tell the difference

[bigred]

those points are true. you WON'T notice the difference in many things. but the difference is there. but saying that the 3800+ overclocked can hang with a stock FX-55 is just silly. it's both oc'd or both stock to compair. just one of my pet peaves.

 

also as an FYI, Doom 3 like all other ID games since Q3A, supports SMP / dual core... just thought I'd let you know that.

[Nerm]

yeah guys.......no nerm i did not act liek the X2's were better than anything else, go back and read bro, that was what you inferred from it

 

the thing is, i bet you as far as single threaded apps go, benchmarks, games, whatever, i bet you the actual difference you would feel or notice without having some sort of measuring tool would be minimal if at all, i bet the smoothness of playing Doom3 on a FX55 and on a 3800+ X2 @ 2.5Ghz is identical.........i bet you can't even tell without bringing up the FPS meter, so why in the hell would i spend $1000 without getting any real return on my investment

 

spending $1000 on a CPU becuase it overclocks like a god is rediculous for the average joe, and normal for the rediculously wealthy, it just doesn't fit in with most people, where as the 3800+ X2 does and will do everything fast enough you probably would never be able to tell the difference

591535[/snapback]

 

No I couldn't tell the difference. Hell surfing the web I couldn't tell the differnce between an XP2500+ and an FX57 lol. In games yea I would see a difference between those too, but would I see a difference between an FX55 and a 3800? No I highly doubt my naked eye could tell a difference, but you are missing my point that some people want the best they can get. You obviously don't but there are some that do. You say the average joe doesn't need a high end cpu like an fx-55 well IMO the average joe doesn't need a 3800 either. A basic 3200+ will serve the average joe just fine. Here we go again back to the same point I keep making. Everybody is different and we all have different needs and wants in the components we put in our systems.

[LoArmistead]

speaking of not needing an FX55....I just got my 3700 Sandy back up to 2.9ghz without any struggle. Reason # 2,345 why it's really not worth it to spend $800-$1000 on an FX chip when all you really need right now, for practical purposes, is $250 for a 3700.

[habitual geek]

those points are true.  you WON'T notice the difference in many things.  but the difference is there.  but saying that the 3800+ overclocked can hang with a stock FX-55 is just silly.  it's both oc'd or both stock to compair.  just one of my pet peaves. 

 

also as an FYI, Doom 3 like all other ID games since Q3A, supports SMP / dual core...  just thought I'd let you know that.

591537[/snapback]

 

well, it's the whole price performance thing as far as the overclocked vs. stock comparison, my $320 investment nets me $1000 performance, yeah, the $1000 CPu can get you more, but what do you compare it to? seems pointless unless it actually made a difference in everyday computing

 

yeah, didn't realize that about UT games

 

but i guess thats where we are trying to make two different points, my point being i can invest much less money and get the same or near performance(as defined by how it plays/runs) as the much more expensive system, there's a point at which you don't get anymore USEABLE performance from extra money spent, unless someone considers having the highest benchmakr score in some apps to be USEFUL, i on one hand do not, i am not into getting my jollies off by saying "i have an FX55", but then again, i am also not one that sees the benefits from spending more for a clearly inferior LCD over a CRT, it doesn't bring me joy when guests come over and oogle over my "uber expensive cute LCD", that's why i stick with what is the best for the $$

 

if it impresses me, then i am golden, could care less what anybody else thinks

Edited December 7, 2005 by habitual geek

[bigred]

but again you fail to understand that the FX can overclock, and to a point where the X2 will fall behind. $1000 worth of ocn' potential.

 

 

and I did think of a few times when there is a difference between 3.4ghz and 4ghz+ on the AMD side that can actually be seen like right now sitting and WAITING for this god awful cad document to load. almost 6gb for one file it's taking forever. I miss my rig at home in detroit... nice overclocked FX and SCSI drives