FX-57 or X2 4800+?

[churcheo]

I mostly do gaming, but I use my computer for a lot of things and would like the best performance in all areas. It will be watercooled. Just want the top of the line, money isn't the question. The gaming performance of the X2 is nearly that of the FX-57, no? Any opinions would be appreciated.

 

[thegimp03]

Hmm, the 4800+ will future proof you once games that utilize both cores come out. Plus you could probably overclock it to more than FX-57 speeds with watercooling.

 

[PKing1977]

X2 4800+ hands down. I cannot even begin to understand why anyone would recommend a single core chip.....

PKing

 

[theMan]

id have to go with the 4800 also. all indications are that the fx57 has almost no overhead, and wont overclock very well at all. i doubt the 4800 can reach fx57 speeds. but it can reach fx55 speeds at least. once games start using the 2nd core, it will kill the fx57.

 

[enwar3]

yes definitely the 4800+, two cores will soon come in handy.

 

[shira]

I'd go with a 4400+ for $500 less and do a mild, easily achievable overclock.

 

[BillyBobJoel71]

4400 is the best price for performance.

 

[monster64]

The real answer would first be to ask you how long you would plan on keeping this computer for without upgrading. If its atleast 2-3 years, then definately dual core. If you are an extreme enthusiast and upgrade/get a whole new system every 1-2 years, go with the FX-57 as games will not utilize that second core for quite some time. Then again, with watercooling, youll probably reach 2.7+ and it'll be near FX-57 speeds.

 

[churcheo]

Thanks for all the answers guys.

 

[Hard Ball]

Go with the 4800+, it should be better in a majority of the situations during normal usage;

unless, if you are planning a big overclock, then FX-57 would be the way to go; since the unlocked multiplier would give you a substantial advantage. I have heard guys that have done the FX57 upto 3.8-4.0 on water, although I'm sure that will depend on luck. The 4800+ would be lucky to hit 2.8 .

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: shira
I'd go with a 4400+ for $500 less and do a mild, easily achievable overclock.

QFT

 

[Xephian]

Go for the X2.

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: shira
I'd go with a 4400+ for $500 less and do a mild, easily achievable overclock.

 

[caz67]

i just bought an 4800+..highly recommended ..

 

[Matt2]

Then again, if money is not an issue, by the time games start becoming multi-threaded, he can upgrade to the current generation dual core CPU.

Best gaming CPU is a 3700+ San Diego with a good overclock.

 

[Shimmishim]

i say go with the fx-57 if gaming is all you're doing.

its going to be a while before both cores are utilized in all games...

the 2.8 ghz 1 meg L2 in gaming would own!

and of course a 2.8 ghz chip won't have very much overhead.... but i'm pretty sure it should hit 3.0 with decent air cooling...

image a 3.0 ghz amd chip running on air.... you won't see lots of people bragging about that...

my vote goes for the fx-57

 

[Pabster]

Unless an FX-57 magically drops out of the sky, I'd go with the 4800+.

 

[PKing1977]

Nobody just uses a computer only for gaming. Windows is by nature a multitasking enviroment where many diffrent programs are running all the time. Any X2 processer will fly though any game out on the market and remain very competitve in future games. As for being "a while before both cores are utilized" The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion comes out in november and takes advantage of multiprocesser cores. For me.. I have HL2 running with winamp running in the background, and maybe even encoding a DVD at the same time. I truely do not understand how anyone could recommend a single core chip over a dual core chip if cost is equal...

PKing