fx-55 or 4800+ x2?

Archangel

Archangel

VIP Member
well,.. since the flash of my mobo kinda screwed my overclocking capabillities on the processor, i'm going to buy a new one.
now, i was thinking of going for a 4800+ X2 first,. but now i found a fx-55.
so i'd like to know, wich one would be the best for my pc?
( oh yes, i mainly use my pc for gaming,.. but you might have guessed, however, i run WoW, ventrillo, Winamp and Filezilla at the same time usually )
 
shady said:
get the 4800+
because seems like you're not gonna overclock
and you are multitasking
Click to expand...

I can readily agree on the 4800+ X2 dual cored model for the multiple programs you have running at one time. The FX60 is also a dual core cpu to consider. Some like the FX57 for OCing however.
 
well... not overclocking is a big word..

with the old bios, i had the fsp set to 300 ( 200 original) so a 50% overclock.
now i cant get passt the 247MHz, so it isnt enough for the 3000+ to run fast enough (2,2GHz atm,. but i could overclock both of the new processors quite a bit.

i cant get the fx-55 for 120 euro, and the 4800+ for 160 euro, im not sure how much that is in USD, but at least you can see there is a price difference.
( altough,.. atm i have the money spare for it ;) )
 
well... re flash your BIOS to the older one again???

but id say its a toss-up... id say get the FX because its still a nice chip... but the 4800+ is dual core... and in USD its like $60-80 more expensive then the FX... but it depends if you think you'd utilize dual core or not
 
Instead of the 4800+, I'd go for the 4600+ it'll be closer to the price of the fx-55 and you get 2MB of cache instead of 1MB
 
Last edited:
Duel core? I thinking about the new AMD Quad core models that will be coming out some time. Then I can put a server case on the dsl router. That way the 24/7 host gets a break. The FX series was intended more for gaming then the dual core models. But you are trying to run several things at once. In other words multitasking. Here I look at the Opterons for stabilty when heavy loads are put on the cpu. Gamers apparently like the Opt 165 for OCing.
 
uhm, first off, the 4600+ has the Manchester core, so it has 1MB L2, not 1GB, and definatly not 2MB like the 4800+ which has the Toledo core..

Toledo=2x1MB=2MB
Manchester=2x512KB=1MB
 
PC eye said:
Duel core? I thinking about the new AMD Quad core models that will be coming out some time. Then I can put a server case on the dsl router. That way the 24/7 host gets a break. The FX series was intended more for gaming then the dual core models. But you are trying to run several things at once. In other words multitasking. Here I look at the Opterons for stabilty when heavy loads are put on the cpu. Gamers apparently like the Opt 165 for OCing.
Click to expand...

okay... lets see, I'll pick out relevent things in your post..

PC eye said:
The FX series was intended more for gaming then the dual core models. But you are trying to run several things at once. Gamers apparently like the Opt 165 for OCing.
Click to expand...

even then, you never really answered the question, as usual.... besides, the 4800+ equivalent Opteron is about 45 MORE euros than the 4800+...
 
Last edited:
Ku-sama said:
uhm, first off, the 4600+ has the Manchester core, so it has 1MB L2, not 1GB, and definatly not 2MB like the 4800+ which has the Toledo core..

Toledo=2x1MB=2MB
Manchester=2x512KB=1MB
Click to expand...

I prob should have looked that up... i took him for his word.
 
Ku-sama said:
okay... lets see, I'll pick out relevent things in your post..



even then, you never really answered the question, as usual.... besides, the 4800+ equivalent Opteron is about 45 MORE euros than the 4800+...
Click to expand...

Apparemtly you weren't paying much attention there. I've already pointed out the 4800+ over the FX model between the two models discussed. :rolleyes: I was explaining the differences between the types. I wasn't advising anyone to go out and buy an Opteron here. That's where you are lost.
 
Ku-sama said:
well... re flash your BIOS to the older one again???
Click to expand...

tust me, i would. but i flashed it because they removed some RAM unstabilities with the latest bios, and i have had some problems with random blue screens occasionally, wich is completely gone now.

but what i get from it, you people suggest me the 4800+ ( or at least a X2 ) over the fx-55 any time?
( 4800+ 'toledo' 2x 2,4GHz core, 1mb L2 cache.. fx-55 'Clawhammer' 2,6GHz core, 1mb L2 cache )
the 4800+ has 1 extra core ( duh ) but runs 200MHz slower, with the same chache size.
but, if i would run a game with this, would window,s winamp etc run on 1 core and the game on the other core? or how would it be divided?
i"m sorry if that looks like astupid question, but im quite curious now.
 
Last edited:
You generally choose the type and model by what type of system you are running in order to see the best match up. If you are simply going to OC then there are plenty of single cored models along with several dual cored for that. Your mention of running several programs at the same puts your needs into a different catagory from OCing alone. Simply put it multitasking is what implies running more then one program all at the same time.

The dual core cpu concept was developed with that in mind. The FX series was however intended more for performance when running apps like games were you want a little extra performance. The only dual core Socket 939 model in the FX series is the FX60. The FX62 is an AM2 type. So don't get those two confused. For running 4 or 5 things at once the 4800+ X2 would be the one there.
 
Just get the 4800+ X2,1)It'll last longer than the FX-55,2)You can GAME and MULTITASK so its not just for 1 thing.FX series is overrated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top