AMD talks

[bja888]

When I realised my old pc was about to kick the bucket a few months ago I decided to complete my 1/2 constructed 64bit computer. I originally had my eye on a $400 dual core ~2.4Ghz due to lack of money I settled on a Single core ~2.2Ghz for $185.99 (link) with hopes of upgrading when the dual got cheaper.

About 2 months ago AMD announced it was going to lower prices just to piss off Intel. It worked, and now I can get a dule core ~2.6 Ghz for about $300 (link).  Being a firm believer that you get what you pay for, I still had my hopes on spending $400 and getting the most power I can. So then I ventured over that the FX series.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103527
I think it would be safe to assume this would have more kick than a x64 X2. I was under the impression that the FX series was designed for gaming. My current processor works fine with gaming Its not worth the money to just play games.

So finally the question....
Will the Athlon x64 FX (single core) do better then an Athlon x64 (dual core) in a strictly application based environment? (specifically $122 better)

I'm planing to make this upgrade in about 2 months, video card and ram come first.

[Iridescent]

For applications you would do just fine with a single core. Unless you are a hardcore graphics developer person.
But if you are a writer or someone like that I'd go for a single core and save that money for something else.
However if the pc is dual purpose (if you have kids who like gaming) you should go for dual core as then you won't have to upgrade again spending more money in the long run.

Edit: I presume you don't have kids as you are 20.

[Bgretydews]

Wtf AMD suck, You want a E6600 Duel Core Conroe Processor
The AMD ones are like half as powerfull xD

[Iridescent]

I believe E6800 is even better.
I have the E6600 myself.
Theres also the E6300.

Yeah, if you go dual I'd go for the conroe's
Otherwise go for a single AMD.

[Mr. Domino]

For applications you would do just fine with a single core.

I agree. There's little benefit here to being an early adopter. It'll take some time before programs and games really start to take advantage of the new structure, and by the time that comes around, what you purchase now for more will be cheaper and outdated.

[bja888]

For applications you would do just fine with a single core. Unless you are a hardcore graphics developer person.
But if you are a writer or someone like that I'd go for a single core and save that money for something else.
However if the pc is dual purpose (if you have kids who like gaming) you should go for dual core as then you won't have to upgrade again spending more money in the long run.

Edit: I presume you don't have kids as you are 20.

I almost never open my All Programs. I usually have at least 3 of these programs open at once.


I want to be able to run all there programs at the same time and quickly switch between them for various tasks. Plus, I need to be able to play C&C 3 when it comes out



...no kids yet (knock on wood (no pun intended))

[FliesLikeABrick]

... if you intend to do very large amounts of multitasking, then definately go for the dual core.

[a-4-year-old]

ha ha... knock on wood... ha

i went with intel because:
they had bigger numbers
they were a respectable company
i wasn't going to pay for it
I wanted the power that the intel layout had, and it is so powerful, i really don't need to worry about poor game performance.

pentium 4 cpu 3.2 Ghz (2 CPUs)... s'what dxdiag told me.

[Dascoo]

INTEL SUCKS! just because there new processor is better doesnt mean all there processors are better.....

[Iridescent]

Hence I said get Conroe if its a dual. AMD if its a single.

[bja888]

Well, the board that I am using only supports x64 AMDs so Intel is not an option.

Long ago I questioned AMD or Intel. I made up my mind and I'm gonna stick with AMD for a while. I just wanted to know if FX had any special skills for apps.

[jrgp]

My pc has an amd athlon 64 x2 3800, and I can have several programs open at once: Fireworks, Photoshop, Media Player, Dreamweaver, Several Firefoxes, and minimized soldat, halo, keen, or battlefeild.

but me 2 gigs of ram might have something to do with this also.

Anyway i always go with amd because they are cheaper, overclockable, and run alot colder than intels do.

[Bgretydews]

Get a new board, the Conroe Is so much better

[xurol]

If you intend to multitask get a dual-core. I wouldn't go fort he fx-55, as it's almost purely a gaming processor and even at that is already being overshadowed by the newer dual-cores.

If you go dual-core, do yourself a favor and get one of the AMD x2s. The prices are dropping at a steady rate, and they offer good performance for the price. People rave about the conroe but right now the power is mostly wasted; if you get an AMD x2 you'll have a marginally less powerful processor for a much lower price. If you're willing to wait a while longer I imagine the prices will drop even more, and again when quad-core technology is released commercially.

I have the x2 4400+ myself, and it's a workhorse. I can run FEAR, firefox, HL2, messenger, mIRC, winamp, yadda yadda at the same time, alt-tab between them with no lag or anything. And it performs incredibly well in all my games.

[bja888]

Get a new board, the Conroe Is so much better

fuck no, this board has a crossfire chipset. I hope to be running 3 monitors within a year

If you go dual-core, do yourself a favor and get one of the AMD x2s. The prices are dropping at a steady rate, and they offer good performance for the price. People rave about the conroe but right now the power is mostly wasted; if you get an AMD x2 you'll have a marginally less powerful processor for a much lower price.

Thus why I stick with AMD.


New question.....
I have 4 slots on my board for dual channel RAM. Currently take up by 2, 512s. Is there a big difference in performance difference between 4, 512Ms and 4, 1Gs. Will windows do what is right with my RAM?

[Bgretydews]

Anything over 3GB or Ram on windows XP will cause it to run icredibly slowly and unstably, but if you get Vista 4GB would be good

[bja888]

Anything over 3GB or Ram on windows XP will cause it to run icredibly slowly and unstably, but if you get Vista 4GB would be good

XP Pro x64 Edition btw

[blackdevil0742]

I have a AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ it's nice to have a dual-core on the new games but the old ones are unstable and i have alot of crashes.

[Bgretydews]

Anything over 3GB or Ram on windows XP will cause it to run icredibly slowly and unstably, but if you get Vista 4GB would be good

XP Pro x64 Edition btw

I think it might be for all XP, but im nt certain