AMD X2 Duel Core Vs FX Single Core? 2

[JSD7878]

Im trying to gain some understanding of which chip would offer me better performace for gaming.

AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 San Diego 2.6GHz Socket 939 Processor Model ADAFX55BNBOX (Single Core)

or
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Toledo 2.4GHz Socket 939 Processor Model ADA4800CDBOX (Dual Core)

Thanks Again,
STM

 

[paparazi]

As nearly all games at the moment don't take advantage (were not written) for Dual core, the FX-55 would be better for gaming.
That will change as games developers see the trend towards multicore processors and take advantage of the technology.

I have however got to question anyone buying such an expensive AMD processor as Intel have AMD completely beat at the higher end at the moment.

I might be talking out of turn here as I do not know what you are buying your FX55 at but if it is anything close to the price of a E6600 Core2 Duo? you are making the wrong choice.

At standard clock the Intel Core2 Duo is on par with AMD's FX60, overclocked the Intel part soundly beats the AMD.

At the moment there is only one choice for a top gaming/desktop machine and it isn't an AMD.

And this comes from a real AMD stalwart.
Martin



We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[JSD7878]

Well to add to my original post I have an AMD motherboard and currently I don't have the time it would take to back up everything to another drive. As changing the MB normally means reloading windows.

So I would like to boost performace on my system with the confines of staying with my existing MB.

The AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 processor is not super expensive as it is selling for $239 and the AMD X2 4800+ is $242. So what your saying is for Games eventhough the FX is a single core processor it will still out perform the X2 Dual core?

To reaffirm is the FX the way to go if staying within the confines of a socket 939 AMD MB?

Thanks in advance.

 

[JSD7878]

Maybe the right question to be asking here is if I stay with my current 939 MB which has an AMD Athlon 64 3200+ processor in it now, which processor should I be considering for the best gaming experience? (doesn't have to be one of those I mentioned either.)

 

[paparazi]

At that price then yes it is.
When gaming, think of the X2 4800 as being a plain Athlon64 4000 (this has the same clock speed and L1/L2 cache) as one of the X2 4800 cores and as I said, if the game is not written for dual core only one will be used.

To compare:
FX55 2.6ghz 128kb L1 with 1mb L2
X2 4800 2X 2.4 64kb L1 with 512 L2 So slower core with less cache when using the one core (as most games do)

The only spanner in the works is: how many future titles will be introduced that DO take advantage of the second core.
Martin

We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[cdogg]

Also consider that the processor is not the biggest factor for gaming in your system. Upgrading the video card usually has the biggest impact.

In addition, the idea surrounding dual-core is not quite as simple as it may seem. There is a lot of intricate multithreading that the OS is able to do, even when all the apps running on it are single-threaded. When you boot into Windows, there are dozens of processes running in the background. The more 3rd-party apps you have installed, the more likely this number increases even more. What dual-core brings to the table is the ability to better manage these processes between multiple cores.

So even though the game won't use more than one CPU, it will see the benefit of not having to fight with EVERY background process over the same CPU. You are essentially dedicating more CPU time to the game. And don't forget, Vista is right around the corner. Dual-core helps in the same way there too.

Just as an FYI for future reference, the moderators of this site discourage questions about gaming (though I'd say this is borderline acceptable as it's more about the CPU).

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[ASG0856]

The thing to consider is what the processor is doing.

A Single core running at 2.6GHz is giving you just that.

A Dual Core running at 2.4Ghz you would think was equivalent to a single running at 4.8GHz. However, the cores are sharing data buses and cache etc. So the net output is about 3.6GHz. So for programs that can recognise Dual Processors say, there would be one program run by one processor and another by the other. So both are running at about 3.6GHz (50% better).
However, as stated, there are not many, if any, games that recognise dual processors. So only one processor is 'running' so to speak (at 2.4GHz). so you end up at lower performance.

 

[cdogg]

ASG0856,
I think you just talked in a few circles there! You are right that the cores share the frontside bus in Intel's dual-core design, but in AMD's, there is a cross-connect that connects both cores directly at on-die speeds.

Also, I'm not sure how you magically came up with the "net output" of 3.6GHz, but it brought a smile to my face nevertheless!


~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[ASG0856]

cdogg.

Think of it like this

1 processor @ 2.4Ghz = equivalent output performance of 2.4GHz

2 processors @ 2.4Ghz = equivalent output performance of 1 processor @ 4.8Ghz (each doing its own thing)

1 Core Duo at 2.4GHz. 2 processor cores on a common die and bus cannot produce 4.8Ghz, there is a performance loss because of shared bus as one processor has to 'wait' whilst the other uses the bus.) The actual increase in performace therefore is about halfway between 2.4 and 4.8 (3.6GHz!!)

Paraphrase of article on C-Net
Of the three parts, the Core Duo CPU seems to be making the most waves since it's the first mobile processor to feature two physical cores. In a nutshell, this could theoretically produce double the performance of a single core chip since two cores can perform independent tasks in parallel with one another. Of course, real-world performance gains will likely be closer to 30 percent than 100 percent due to efficiency issues.

I gave a bit more @ 50%

 

[JSD7878]

Hi Cdogg, thanks for heads up about gaming phrasing of my original question,(although it appears to have spawned some interesting debate) next time I will phrase the question to be a little more technical and a little less self serving.

This is my current system:
ASUS MB A8N-E
AMD Athlon 64 3200+
2GB Dual Channel DDR400
ATI 512MB X1800XL

So to me it seemed my real bottleneck issue was the CPU?

 

[paparazi]

Interesting!
OK, cat amongst the pigeons time.

As the graphics card has the greatest overall effect on gaming performance I will pose another question and answer:

If I already owned an X1800XL and had $240 to spend, which component should I buy to give me the largest improvement "in game"

Answer: Sell your X1800XL and put that money together with the $240 towards an Nvidia 8800GTS

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=327710

The jump from your Athlon 3.2 to the FX55 would probably see a 10-15% gain in your frame rate (same graphics card but faster CPU)

Change to a the Nvidia 8800GTS and see at least a 50% gain in frame rates with the bonus of DX10 compatibility and eye candy.
CPU bottle neck? sure! the 3.2 will restrict it slightly but on a pure dollar against performance gain the graphics card swap is the better bet.
Martin

We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[JSD7878]

Thanks paparazi, so are you also saying that Nvidia has ATI beat at the moment as well, in the sense of price per performance gained?

Thanks in advance...

 

[cdogg]

ASG0856,
Yes, the consensus is that a dual-core processor will not increase performance two-fold. You won't find anyone here who disagrees with that.

However, you should re-evaluate your "theory" that a shared Frontside Bus will limit each CPU to 75% of its potential. While a shared FSB is not the best design and will make it impossible to operate totally independent of one another, it doesn't mean there is a magic upper limit increase of 150%. That is bizarre to say the least. Please point me to a formula that calculates this if it exists.

I think when you've spent some time researching the role of the FSB, you will find that the CPU does a lot with data stored in L1/L2 cache before it even goes to access main memory again. In fact, there could be hundreds of consecutive clock cycles in the CPU before it even uses the FSB to access main memory. Remember, the FSB acts as a transport bringing in large chunks of data to fill the cache as requested. The CPU does most of its processing, however, directly out of the on-board cache which is not shared and operates at full-speed (the same speed as the CPU).

Hope that helps you refine your theory!


~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[paparazi]

JSD7878
I try to keep up with new releases but occasionally a few weeks pass by when I don't visit toms or buy a new magazines so it's easy to miss something new.
As far as I know Nvidia are the only card manufacturer who has released a DX10 card and going on what Toms Hardware advise, The 8800GTS is best value in this upper price band.
Please see:

http://tomshardware.co.uk/2007/01/05/the_best_gaming_video_cards_for_the_money_uk/

Martin

We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[cdogg]

Martin,
It's quite amazing how well you keep up with this stuff! With the extremely fast change of pace in the video card market, being only one or months off is no easy feat either. Last I was paying attention, the 6800GT and dual 6600GT were considered top-of-the-line! Yeah, it's been a really long time for me!
[LOL]

JSD7878,
Good luck, and hopefully you'll have the ability to upgrade both the CPU and video card from the money selling off your old components. That of course is the ultimate solution. Cheers to Martin, once again, for providing excellent advice in a category many of us fail to keep up with.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[JSD7878]

You guys are wonderful thanks so much for your help...

 

[paparazi]

Happy New Year to you both.

JSD7878
I would be interested to hear what idle and in game temps are for the GTS when you get it.

My friends GTX appears to be running hot but I am told that this is normal for these cards (59C idle and low 80's maxed)
Completely stable I might add and smooth as silk.

The GTS should be lower obviously.
Just interested.
Regards:
Martin


We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.