fx-55 or 4800+ x2?

[Motoxrdude]

Yuep, I agree with getting a X2 4800+. The fx-55 were great processors for their day, but are pretty outdated. With the x2 4800+ you are preparing for the future because you have a dual core processor. I think you would be a lot happier with the 4800+.

 

[Jet]

Go for the X2 4800+. You won't regret it.

 

[Mankz_91]

i canat be bothered to read most of the tread...

but i think i would go for the FX-55, im only saying this because ive allready got a dual core PC, and cos FX-55 hae unlocked mutli's and love going uder water...


anyone what to tell me where to get one ??

 

[ckfordy]

i canat be bothered to read most of the tread...

but i think i would go for the FX-55, im only saying this because ive allready got a dual core PC, and cos FX-55 hae unlocked mutli's and love going uder water...


anyone what to tell me where to get one ??

Why would you go with the FX-55 it is a single core. The x2 is a dual core so it will be much better for in the future when games are going to start going multithreaded. And the FX-55 is outdated so it isnt worth the money to get it.

 

[Geoff]

Why would you go with the FX-55 it is a single core. The x2 is a dual core so it will be much better for in the future when games are going to start going multithreaded. And the FX-55 is outdated so it isnt worth the money to get it.

The only good thing I can see about the FX-55 is the unlocked multiplier, thereby allowing you to OC higher. However I agree with ckfordy, alot of new games and programs are multi-threaded, so having a dual-core processor will be much more of an improvement. So deffinetly go with the X2 4800+.

 

[Mankz_91]

Why would you go with the FX-55 it is a single core. The x2 is a dual core so it will be much better for in the future when games are going to start going multithreaded. And the FX-55 is outdated so it isnt worth the money to get it.

to be entirely honest, ive got a dual core PC, ive got a single core PC, and my family has a three year old Athalon XP 1800 PC...

the Athalon XP boots quickest, and seeing as i either game, or work, Dual core doen't really have any massive beefits, and also, seeing as ive found a beast of a deal on an DFI SLI-DR i feel like doing some OC'ing, as so the unlocked multi is lovely, cos i can go for some low latency 3200 or 3500 Ram, instead of some blooming expensive TCCD or BH-5..

 

[thealmightyone]

1) Dual cores ARE the future. Future games and applications will use both cores.

2) You want to overclock? It's been known for X2's (ignoring the FX60) to hit 3.0GHz. I got my 3800 X2 up to 2.74 GHz OCCT stable, (with very high voltages, nevertheless, still oc-ed it high).

3) You can overclock your CPU, whatever model/edition it is, as far as you want without it affecting your memory. Simply put your memory on a divider so it operates at/under it's default speed.

4) The time a computer takes to boot is pretty much completely down to the hard drive speed. The CPU speed doesnt kick in until you get past the loading screen, and then all your start-up programs get loaded up.

 

[Mankz_91]

1) Dual cores ARE the future. Future games and applications will use both cores.

thats simply rubbish... Quad core and beyond... is the future, seeing as they are out by the eng of the year

3) You can overclock your CPU, whatever model/edition it is, as far as you want without it affecting your memory. Simply put your memory on a divider so it operates at/under it's default speed.

Thats also complete rubbish... Over clocking is primarly if you Mobo can rase the FSB or the multiplier, then its based on the CPU and ram..

because you cant OC if you cant change stuff in the BIOS.

 

[Archangel]

you mentioned the fx-60, wich appearantly is a dual core.. is it much better as the 4800+ Toledo? because i can buy a fx-60 for a bit more money than the Toledo.

 

[mrjack]

The FX-60 has a default clock speed of 2.6GHz while the X2 4800+ is 2.4GHz, so it's a bit better. But it also has the unlocked multiplier which makes it even more appealing. And if you can get it for a bit more money I'd go with it seeing as the FX-60 is over 400$ more expensive than the X2 4800+ so you'd be making a good deal.

Read this article as it is about the FX-60 but also compares it to the X2 4800+.

 

[Geoff]

to be entirely honest, ive got a dual core PC, ive got a single core PC, and my family has a three year old Athalon XP 1800 PC...

the Athalon XP boots quickest, and seeing as i either game, or work, Dual core doen't really have any massive beefits, and also, seeing as ive found a beast of a deal on an DFI SLI-DR i feel like doing some OC'ing, as so the unlocked multi is lovely, cos i can go for some low latency 3200 or 3500 Ram, instead of some blooming expensive TCCD or BH-5..

CPU's dont effect the boot time, it's mainly based off of the hard drive and RAM.

I've had both as well, and if you run multiple programs, it's much faster on a dual-core.

 

[PC eye]

CPU's dont effect the boot time, it's mainly based off of the hard drive and RAM.

I've had both as well, and if you run multiple programs, it's much faster on a dual-core.

I find that to be a little off there. Just imagine two boards(same brand), the same 2x512mb memory and type(same brand), one has a 512mb AGP card with the other having a PCI-E 128mb. Both take almost a full minute to get through the post tests. Both Asus boards there have VIA chipsets. One has the AMD64 3200+ while the other with the 512mb AGP card has the 3500+. Along comes the Asus model board with the nForce 4 chipset and 3500+ cpu. The 256mb PCI-E card is the same brand as seen on the others. This board however goes through post tests in something like 20 seconds. What is delaying the other two? The third has 2x1gb of memory(same brand). Answer is more ram? nooooo! Faster chipset!

 

[Geoff]

I find that to be a little off there. Just imagine two boards(same brand), the same 2x512mb memory and type(same brand), one has a 512mb AGP card with the other having a PCI-E 128mb. Both take almost a full minute to get through the post tests. Both Asus boards there have VIA chipsets. One has the AMD64 3200+ while the other with the 512mb AGP card has the 3500+. Along comes the Asus model board with the nForce 4 chipset and 3500+ cpu. The 256mb PCI-E card is the same brand as seen on the others. This board however goes through post tests in something like 20 seconds. What is delaying the other two? The third has 2x1gb of memory(same brand). Answer is more ram? nooooo! Faster chipset!

When I refer to boot times, I mean the time it takes for Windows to load, since every computer has different options for what goes on in the POST test.

 

[PC eye]

When I refer to boot times, I mean the time it takes for Windows to load, since every computer has different options for what goes on in the POST test.

XP itself has the record for loading to the desktop faster then any previous version of Windows. Most drives ide or SATA run at 7,200rpm unless someone is booting from a WD Raptor drive at 10,000rpm there. I can tell you from working with older versions that a big difference can be seen in loading time between different model cpus. The boost from memory can be seen with a faster fsb. So it's just one or two things. XP just happens to geared for newer hardwares.