Choice between an FX55 and X2 4800 for gaming

B

brachy33

Gawd
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
567
I understand that I am putting money into a dead technology and could spend a tad bit more on a C2Duo setup for a nice performance jump, but I want to stick with my Socket 939 rig for the time being.

If the FX55 chips drop to ~$300 I am considering picking one up and OC'ing. The only thing I do is game on this machine, so would this be a nice upgrade versus picking up say, an X2 4800 for $300?

Again, I really don't want to have to buy a new mobo and another 2Gb of memory when my current S939 board and DDR Pc3200 memory work great! I do not want to spend another $200 on 2Gb of DDR2 and another $200-$250 on a decent Socket T board right now.

I am currently using a 4000+ San Diego. Please give any advice you all might have in regads to my decision between the FX55 and X2 4800.

Thanks!
 
I would go for the 4800x2, it is only 200 mhz slower but its dual core, if you could overclock it 200 to equal the fx 55 and you have the dual core for any multitasking. My opinion, the 4800 is also a newer revision i believe
 
In most games the FX 55 would be a MUCH better choice. The 4800 barely has any headroom for overclocking. There are only a few games that would take advantage of dual core. As far as future gaming goes (next 2 years), I would say 4800. If you plan to upgrade again in a year, then FX 55.
 
Its only 200 mhz... the dual core offers so much more, and a 200 mhz oc is so easy to do
 
Jasonx82 said:
X2 4800 :)
Click to expand...

Agreed.
Can't wait till after work.. my 1st Real day to play around with the new 4800+
and.. a 200MHz overclock is VERY easy. You do not have to up the voltage.?
 
Crucible1001 said:
In most games the FX 55 would be a MUCH better choice. The 4800 barely has any headroom for overclocking. There are only a few games that would take advantage of dual core. As far as future gaming goes (next 2 years), I would say 4800. If you plan to upgrade again in a year, then FX 55.
Click to expand...


In all honesty this makes more sense to me in that I probably will upgrade the entire rig in another year, in which case I would 100% go dual core.

The one thing I don't think I would enjoy having to do is installing all the dual core patches and fixes for the X2 and gaming. Since, again, this machine would be a gaming rig 99% of the time, I am thinking that the highest possible clock on a single core would do me a littler better.

Also, I am running 2 - 7800GTX cards in SLI, so I suppose one has to take into account the dual core optimizations in nVidia's newer drivers, unless those optimizations are negligible?
 
HDBox2d1 said:
Agreed.
Can't wait till after work.. my 1st Real day to play around with the new 4800+
and.. a 200MHz overclock is VERY easy. You do not have to up the voltage.?
Click to expand...


Thats what im saying the dual core will offer a lot more then the fx55. You can say anything about waiting by this time next year you will have quad cores easily.
 
HDBox2d1 said:
Agreed.
Can't wait till after work.. my 1st Real day to play around with the new 4800+
and.. a 200MHz overclock is VERY easy. You do not have to up the voltage.?
Click to expand...

Duly noted. This is, however, what keeps my decision from being an easy one.
 
brachy33 said:
Duly noted. This is, however, what keeps my decision from being an easy one.
Click to expand...

maybe go higher than FX-55? FX-57 is really fast, and the FX-60 is 2.6GHz dual core.
Those are alot of money though.
 
Crucible1001 said:
In most games the FX 55 would be a MUCH better choice. The 4800 barely has any headroom for overclocking. There are only a few games that would take advantage of dual core. As far as future gaming goes (next 2 years), I would say 4800. If you plan to upgrade again in a year, then FX 55.
Click to expand...
A couple of weeks ago I probably would have agreed with you...now that I have a X2 4400+ I can honestly say that games run just as fast if not faster than my Opty 148. 3DMark 06 score also increased with the dual core..

edit- btw my Toledo core X2 4400+ is currently at 2.7 on air...I had it @2.8 stable but the load temps were a little too high so I backed off. I agree that the 4800+ won't have as much headroom but a 200mhz increase should be easy with stock voltage.
 
3dmark06 is optimized for dual core isnt it? i would go with dual core at least thats what i did from a 3500+ to the 4200x2. Have yet to install it havent been home :(
 
Nevermind. I see you already have a 4000+ Sandy. I don't think the FX-55 will give you much, if any, improvement.
 
HDBox2d1 said:
maybe go higher than FX-55? FX-57 is really fast, and the FX-60 is 2.6GHz dual core.
Those are alot of money though.
Click to expand...

I would love to, but if I'm spending that much money on a chip I might as well upgrade everything and possibly move to trying a C2Duo setup. I can, however, justify spending $250 - $300 on a decent upgrade from my current chip, a S939 4000+ San Diego.
 
BigMacAttack said:
Nevermind. I see you already have a 4000+ Sandy. I don't think the FX-55 will give you much, if any, improvement.
Click to expand...

Even if I had the FX55 running at 2.8Ghz (vs. 2.4 for my 4000+) ? If thats the case, it sounds like the X2 4800 slightly OC'ed is going to give the best bang for the buck.
 
brachy33 said:
I would love to, but if I'm spending that much money on a chip I might as well upgrade everything and possibly move to trying a C2Duo setup. I can, however, justify spending $250 - $300 on a decent upgrade from my current chip, a S939 4000+ San Diego.
Click to expand...
The FX55 wouldn't be much of an upgrade from the 4000+...the only thing you'll gain is unlocked multipliers which may or may not help with overclocking.
 
the older, power hungry clawhammer would seem kinda of a step back to me if you already have the 4000+, going back to a 130nm tech wouldnt be that great of a choice
 
What resolution do you game at? What video cards do you have? Seriously, I doubt you'll notice any difference going from a 4000+ to an FX-55. Haven't you read [H]'s real world gameplay performance and CPU scaling articles? Your video card is easily the bottleneck unless you have two top of the line cards in a multi-GPU solution.

On the other hand, you'd notice the buttery smoothness that comes with SMP by going to the 4800+. I vote for the dual core. You'll notice another processor in general usage and gaming sooner than you'll notice another 400 MHz in GPU-limited games.
 
I couldnt see paying more for the fx55 sorry just the way i see it, the 4800x2 is just in my opinion a better cpu
 
The very last review on newegg someone said they had to bump the voltage 3% to make it move to 2.8ghz for the fx55
 
These are great points people, thank you.

I am currently gaming at 1600x1200 on a Dell 2001FP, using 2 - 7800GTX cards in SLI, 2 Gb of PC3200 OCZ Platinum modules on a DFI SLI-D board.

Doesn't it make sense that my current 4000+ chip is the holding back the SLI cards a little?

I keep telling myself that going dual core is the wisest, most performance-enhancing change I could make for the money (and for staying in the socket 939 realm).
 
I'm rather surprised that the 4000+ San Diego can't get to 2.8 ghz with your list of equipment. Be that as it may, even if it could get to "only" 2.7 you wouldn't notice any difference between your 4000+ @ 2.7 and an FX-55 @ 2.8.
Probably the better move in the long run is indeed to the 4800+ dual core. Multi core is the wave of the future.
 
brachy33 said:
In all honesty this makes more sense to me in that I probably will upgrade the entire rig in another year, in which case I would 100% go dual core.

The one thing I don't think I would enjoy having to do is installing all the dual core patches and fixes for the X2 and gaming. Since, again, this machine would be a gaming rig 99% of the time, I am thinking that the highest possible clock on a single core would do me a littler better.

Also, I am running 2 - 7800GTX cards in SLI, so I suppose one has to take into account the dual core optimizations in nVidia's newer drivers, unless those optimizations are negligible?
Click to expand...

The optimizations are not neglible. I went from an overclocked 3000+ at 2.2GHz to a an X2 3800+ at 2.2Ghz and kept everything else equal. While not SLI my 3dMark06 jumped several hundred points, so the dual-core had an effect. Since there is even a greater CPU overhead for SLI, this should be counter balanced by dual-core.

That said, I don't agree about the FX-55 being the best decision. While it's true that a large majority of the games are single core, the driver optimizations of the nVIDIA drivers, the offloading of some XP house keeping to another core and whatnot will still have some impact on the overall experience. Early on before gamers developed the Dual-Core gaming thread, many had the impression that dual-core could impact your gaming in a negative maner but the thread has helped to solve that problem. You'll also find many new games, such as Oblivion, will take advantage of Dual-core for enhanced performance.

I don't know why there isn't a sticky on this thread yet: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=983781

Go X2 FTW!
 
Crucible1001 said:
In most games the FX 55 would be a MUCH better choice. The 4800 barely has any headroom for overclocking. There are only a few games that would take advantage of dual core. As far as future gaming goes (next 2 years), I would say 4800. If you plan to upgrade again in a year, then FX 55.
Click to expand...


Uh, my old 4800+ did 2.8ghz on air...
 
fhpchris said:
Uh, my old 4800+ did 2.8ghz on air...
Click to expand...
I need faster CPU than i have now. wtf :(
Unless my 1st gen raptor is much faster than the 2nd gen 74gb raptor.
 
HDBox2d1 said:
I need faster CPU than i have now. wtf :(
Unless my 1st gen raptor is much faster than the 2nd gen 74gb raptor.
Click to expand...

My FX-60 does 3.1ghz on air....:)

I would not settle for an old FX-55, but If you could find a nice Opteron 144/146, that might work.

Finding a nice CCBBE 0610 DPMW 165 would work as well .
 
there is a conroe board that supports DDR1 , btw

I wouldnt recommend upgrading to conroe however ... what with the rampant price-gouging and all
 
osalcido said:
there is a conroe board that supports DDR1 , btw
Click to expand...

VIA FTL

Plus it's a motherboard you have to buy on top of your CPU, it's best to just stay with 939.
 
Cheaper than a X2 3800+ for $165? (I've seen ads for $119 btw). I highly doubt that... :rolleyes: Plus the lower end Conroes are about equal to the X2's.
 
Well, I looked at the cart for several days now and...I finally said to hell with it. I bought the X2 4800 chip!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103544

CPU AMD|A64 X2 4800+ 2.4G 939 2x1MR - Retail

Extended Warranty Fee: $0
Subtotal: $307.00
TAX: $0
Shipping and Handling Charge**: $0
Total: $307.00
Click to expand...

I figure, $300 isn't so bad for that chip, especially if I get lucky and get a good OC'ing chip!
 
BigMacAttack said:
Congrats, man. Let us know how well it does. :cool:
Click to expand...

Thanks bro. I keep looking at all the current stats for the Conroe chips, however, and keep crossing my fingers in hopes that the 4800 will treat me good and OC to at least 2.6Ghz. We'll see what a couple 2-3 beers and some good 'ol FSB increases can get the chip to!
 
BigMacAttack said:
If it doesn't get to 2.6 I'll be amazed. Put some jelly on it and eat it if it doesn't! :p
Click to expand...

Woo HOO! Peanut butter and Athlons!! I'll eat and drink to that. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top