PDA

View Full Version : San Diego 4000+ or Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 90 nm?


Hex
07-30-05, 09:38 PM
Cant decide.
The 4200+ dual is not that much more, but will it be like in the intel dual cores where the 4200+ dual will be slower than the 4000+ SD single?

The system will honestly be used mostly for gaming but I do have a tendency to leave alot of crap running and toy in photoshop and dvd burning and whatnot.


Edit: now that I have seen a few benchmarks it looks like the 4000+ is about 8-10 better in every gaming situation but the benches are a bit old.

toxikneedle
07-30-05, 09:41 PM
I'm having a similar problem, I don't know if I should get a X2 4400-4600 or a FX55 San Diego. I will mostly be gaming but at the same time I'm scared that X2 might be much better for the future, like Vista and stuff and getting an FX will only be good in the short-run. Anyone can help me decide?

jAkUp
07-30-05, 09:42 PM
The single core is better for gaming, next year games will start taking advantage of mutliple cores on a CPU, that is when you will see dual core CPU's outperforming single core cpus in gaming. If you don't have the intention of upgrading in the near future, I would recommend a dual core.

toxikneedle
07-30-05, 09:49 PM
jackup, what about which dual-core is best to get? I heard that as far as the best performance to cost ratio its the 4400. Money isn't a huge issue, I just don't want to waste money on a not worthy performance upgrade. Which would you recommend to get?

borntosoul
07-30-05, 10:24 PM
jAkUp nailed it, dont expect to see a big difference in games that dont support dual core, if what u have now is too slow for you and money isnt a problem then go for the 4400. great alround cpu.

BrianG
07-30-05, 11:22 PM
jackup, what about which dual-core is best to get? I heard that as far as the best performance to cost ratio its the 4400. Money isn't a huge issue, I just don't want to waste money on a not worthy performance upgrade. Which would you recommend to get?
The 4400 and 4800 have the advantage of the 1MB L2 caches. You will see that the 4400+ is usually the only one with supply issues with the e-tailers and rightfully so.

Dudes__Geof_
07-31-05, 12:30 AM
get the Dual Cores, they may not get the best performance right away, but as long as they cut it good for now, and are better within the next year, it's more cost efficient to get the Dual core now, instead of getting a single core, and having to upgrade again within the next year

angshuman
07-31-05, 01:36 AM
I have serious reservations about games being able to effectively utilize multi-core architectures in the near future (1-2 years). Of course, the X2 would give you a significant benefit in day-to-day multitasking and other throughput-based and multithreaded tasks. But if gaming is your primary concern, then by the time you have game engines that can take advantage of multi-cores, you'll have faster CPUs, and more importantly, far more bandwidth and advanced interconnection networks between the CPU(s) and memory/IO.

Of course, the X2 shouldn't be *that* much slower than the FX, so if I were you I would probably go for the X2 simply because of its versatility.

BrianG
07-31-05, 10:19 AM
I have serious reservations about games being able to effectively utilize multi-core architectures in the near future (1-2 years). Of course, the X2 would give you a significant benefit in day-to-day multitasking and other throughput-based and multithreaded tasks. But if gaming is your primary concern, then by the time you have game engines that can take advantage of multi-cores, you'll have faster CPUs, and more importantly, far more bandwidth and advanced interconnection networks between the CPU(s) and memory/IO.

Of course, the X2 shouldn't be *that* much slower than the FX, so if I were you I would probably go for the X2 simply because of its versatility.
If NVIDIA releases the rumored and hinted multi-threaded driver, all games will take advantage of the extra core. In shader and geometry limited situations, the new driver will push calculations to the second "idling" core. The head honcho at software development, Ben DeWaal hinted towards a 5-30% gain in performance for games that do not get updated or built around multi-core architectures.

angshuman
07-31-05, 11:12 AM
That's interesting... thanks for the info. I still have my reservations, though :)

BrianG
07-31-05, 11:26 AM
That's interesting... thanks for the info. I still have my reservations, though :)
Honestly, I will sacrifice the maximum FPS for how this system runs with the dual core. It is so hard to quantify the effect of the dual core on the OS and every task you ask it to perform. Saying the system runs smooth does not do it justice. Little things like installing software with out hogging resources or gaming while ripping music or video. It changes how you use the computer on the same level as broadband internet.

I just installed Office XP in the background while typing this message. Heh.

MrSavoy
07-31-05, 12:00 PM
I will be in the same boat in a couple of months when I build a new system as well. Caught between going for the fx55-57 or the X24400-4800. I am leaning toward the X2 dual core cpu setup for more future proof gaming. However can anyone point us a link to current benchies showing how these 4 procs go head to head in current games? I mean I know for now the Fx57 will beat an X2 4800, but by how much?

I also was thinking of waiting on the new socket M cpu's to come out from AMD, since I think I read they will replace all socket 939. I figure if I wait for the socket M MB's and cpu's to launch I can have a longer shelf life out of my next MB purchase and thus can upgrade to a faster cpu say 12 minths after my next upgrade. Thoughts?

angshuman
07-31-05, 12:42 PM
Honestly, I will sacrifice the maximum FPS for how this system runs with the dual core. It is so hard to quantify the effect of the dual core on the OS and every task you ask it to perform. Saying the system runs smooth does not do it justice. Little things like installing software with out hogging resources or gaming while ripping music or video. It changes how you use the computer on the same level as broadband internet.

I just installed Office XP in the background while typing this message. Heh.
Absolutely. I agree with you 100%. I do not care about the negligible FPS drop myself. The only thing I was doubtful about was whether the cores can be harnessed to give FPS boosts ("future-proof gaming" as the above poster put it), and that completely was from a technical standpoint. From a gamer's perspective, I do not care about 5 frames per second.

FraGTastiK
07-31-05, 12:59 PM
like BrianG said apart from expected gaming performance boost either from future nvidia drivers or games with multi-threaded engines,the whole experience is much much more smooth even when not gaming.

still have'nt seen the system choke on anything under very heavy load,wich I used to see on my higher clocked 3400+ @2.6

BrianG
07-31-05, 02:45 PM
like BrianG said apart from expected gaming performance boost either from future nvidia drivers or games with multi-threaded engines,the whole experience is much much more smooth even when not gaming.

still have'nt seen the system choke on anything under very heavy load,wich I used to see on my higher clocked 3400+ @2.6
Especially when not gaming is more like it...

I use to get little glitches while in the middle of Quake sessions and realize I left outlook open or whatever. Those days are gone.

Am I becmong a dual-core evangelist or what? Listen to me good people of nV News, I have seen the light of the two cares and it is good. :angel:

jAkUp
07-31-05, 02:47 PM
jackup, what about which dual-core is best to get? I heard that as far as the best performance to cost ratio its the 4400. Money isn't a huge issue, I just don't want to waste money on a not worthy performance upgrade. Which would you recommend to get?

I would recommend the 4400+

It has the 1mb of L2 and can be decently OC'd. The 4800+ is just too expensive for little performance increase.

MrSavoy
07-31-05, 10:18 PM
^^
That was my thoughts as well. The 4800 doesnt offer enough performance over the 4400 to justify the extra cost imo.
But just to clarify, in single threaded games right now....how much faster given 2 identical high end rigs does the FX57 get over a X2 4800? Are we talking 5 -10 fps or alot more or what?

angshuman
07-31-05, 10:43 PM
I think it's closer to 0 fps difference in higher resolutions, at least in BetaField 2.

Blacklash
08-01-05, 01:47 AM
Dual cores are fantastic at multi tasking. My question would be, will this make X2's a better MMORPG CPU? Most run a firewall, anti virus, the game itself, then you have sound card stuff going on, and your networking/communication.

I have thought hard about the 4800 and decided it just isn't worth it right now considering I already own a 4000. I will probably go dual core next year. If I were buying right now I'd would go dual core. Especially if your games of choice tend to be on line rather than single player. Not to mention, nVidia will be releasing drivers to take advantage of dual core in the near future.

I think the advantages of dual cores make up for whatever few FPS they might be behind high clocked single cores in single player games. Also you can OC your dual core to make up lost ground.

So to answer your question if I were buying right now I'd grab a 4400 and OC just a tad.

Over at Anandtech here are "gaming multi task" benches for the 4200 and 4800:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=13

When other tasks intrude note how the single core can get emasculated by comparison. Even Intel beats the FX 55 here with a lot going on in addition to the game.

jAkUp
08-01-05, 02:01 AM
Here are some quick benchies of the difference in CPU's

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=12755&stc=1

Riptide
08-01-05, 09:09 AM
Wow the 4800+ only scores 2000 more points in 3dmark01 than the 4200+. I would save the money and get the 4200+ by far. Judging by those graphs the extra cache in the 4400+ probably isn't worth the extra either.

Blacklash
08-01-05, 08:24 PM
Oh noes! Don't do this to me!

http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20050801PR206.html

*Runs and hides*