I looked into the FX-55 vs 4800+ debate After some research I decided that the X2 was far better choice for me personally as I
DON'T just use my PC for gmaing, but I use it for a tonne of other stuff too. I mean I open 8 tabs of FF, MSN, XFIRE, 2 x F@H cores, Fireworks MX and have iTunes running at the same time. Thats just an average days stuff too! Basically you have to ask yourself: am I 100% Gamer. Is gaming
ALL I do on my PC, or do I do other stuff too? Then you see sense and get an X2
Here's the best post I saw on the issue:
quote="Dracula (DFI forums)"
joki said:
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 , 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:
eric2971 on 9/8/2005 at 10:57:59 AM said:
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me On A Different Website
[QUOTE="Dracula]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
Toms 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.[/QUOTE]
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 55/57 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!
That took me a awhile to get all the links in properley so you'd better read it
Hope it helps mate :wavey:
