San Diego 4000+ or Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 90 nm?

[angshuman]

Originally Posted by BrianG

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]

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]

Originally Posted by |White|Mute|

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.

[jAkUp]

Originally Posted by toxikneedle

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]

^^
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]

I think it's closer to 0 fps difference in higher resolutions, at least in BetaField 2.

[Blacklash]

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...px?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]

Here are some quick benchies of the difference in CPU's

[Riptide]

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]

Oh noes! Don't do this to me!

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

*Runs and hides*