AMD Athlon FX vs X2

Y

YoMoma

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
201
I`m working on a gaming rig that will be running a Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe mobo with 2 cards running & 2 gigs of dual channel memory. I like the thought of the X2 being able to run multiple processes without a slowdown in speed, but are the X2 chips going to make my rig run faster when it comes to gaming?
Which should I purchace for my rig?
This is my first time into AMD gaming.
 
If your not going to be doing a crapload in the background while playing your games i'd say go with the FX it will run the games faster unless the games support SMP. If you wanna burn a cd, while encoding video, while ripping dvd's while playing your games then you want X2. :p
 
I would highly recommend getting an opteron 170 or 165...I finally gave in to the dual core temptation this week. Well, monarch sent me a gem. So, I am now prime testing this 170 overclocked at 2.9Ghz each core. I ran benchies last night. It blows the fx60 out of the water on most benchies (those that I have available).
So, save yourself some money, and purchase an opteron 165 or 170, overclock it. Even at stock vcore, you should still get near to the fx60 speed (2.6Ghz). Mine went to 2.7 Ghz at stock voltage.
 
I say get the X2, soon games will be programmed to take advantage of dual core. X2 or opteron all the way, unless your thinking about getting an FX-60 ;)
 
I love my FX-60 it's like an x2 only it's multiplier is unlocked it's it's 200 mhz more than the current x2...in other words you can OC it higher than the current x2 depending on your cooling solution.

You get people that tell you that it's not worth the money...but I would pay it all over again over OC'ing an x2...why try an emulate the best when you can have it...albeit for a steep price
 
magnuspah said:
I would highly recommend getting an opteron 170 or 165...I finally gave in to the dual core temptation this week. Well, monarch sent me a gem. So, I am now prime testing this 170 overclocked at 2.9Ghz each core. I ran benchies last night. It blows the fx60 out of the water on most benchies (those that I have available).
So, save yourself some money, and purchase an opteron 165 or 170, overclock it. Even at stock vcore, you should still get near to the fx60 speed (2.6Ghz). Mine went to 2.7 Ghz at stock voltage.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, and I don't want to start a war here, but the thread specifically states x2 vs. FX...there is no metion of opterons

Did you compare you're OC'd opty to an OC'd FX-60? it would only be fair to compare the chips at the speed
 
Ya know guys, I never considered an opteron. And I really dont know anything about overclocking yet. I want to know what I`m doing before my system goes fubar on me.
For the sake of this thread, lets now consider FX, X2 and opteron for a gaming chip without overclocking them.
Thanks guys.
 
Can someone explain the diffence between a X2 and a FX chip. isnt the FX 60 kinda both? since its a dual core.
 
D!Z said:
Can someone explain the diffence between a X2 and a FX chip. isnt the FX 60 kinda both? since its a dual core.
Click to expand...

Ok...the only huge difference is that the FX60 has an unlocked multiplier...which makes overclocking easier and much higher (depending on the cooling that you use)...also the FX is 200 mhz higher in freq than the newest x2...other than that they are the same Toledo core...however...FXs are supposed to be handpicked processors which I suppose means they have higher quality silicon and probably run cooler (not sure).

Also a difference....price
 
YoMoma said:
Ya know guys, I never considered an opteron. And I really dont know anything about overclocking yet. I want to know what I`m doing before my system goes fubar on me.
For the sake of this thread, lets now consider FX, X2 and opteron for a gaming chip without overclocking them.
Thanks guys.
Click to expand...


Haha this is off topic...but did you put the part number of your graphics card in you sig?
 
D!Z said:
Can someone explain the diffence between a X2 and a FX chip. isnt the FX 60 kinda both? since its a dual core.
Click to expand...
well the fx 60 has slightly better benchmarks than the X2 4800

so far the FX 60 is the only dual core from the FX series
 
For the sake of this thread, lets now consider FX, X2 and opteron for a gaming chip without overclocking them.
Click to expand...

Ok, lets clarify here....

There are now two kinds of FX CPU's dualcore and singlecore. FX-53 to FX-57 are single cores while FX-60 is the only dualcore FX.

FX-53 isn't worth the trouble right now. It uses ECC and, you're better off getting just a plain old Athlon64 then messing with it.

The FX-55 and FX-57 are worth it if all you care about is gaming. They are higher clocked San Diego cores. They have unlocked multipliers, and that is really what they are. They are the top-line Athlon 64 Processors. The Athlon 64's tape out at 2.4GHz while the FX-55 and FX-57 are both 2.6Ghz and 2.8Ghz respectively. That's really how the achieve higher benchmarks.

The FX-60 and the Athlon X2 are the EXACT same core, just like the single core FX series is the same core as the regular Athlon 64's. The highest X2 (the 4800) is 2.4Ghz while the FX-60 is 2.6Ghz.Again the FX has the unlock multiplier.

There are many different opterons out there, the ones that you should be looking at is the Socket 939 100 dualcore series (160-180 in 5 step incrments). These use 'Denmark' cores, which, are almost idenicly to Toledo cores. They are technically different because they are meant for a harsher enviroment (servers and such). As a result they tend to OC a bit more (usually).

So...

FX-55 and 57 use the same San Diego core as most of the Athlon 64's.
And the FX-60 X2 and S939 100 Serices Opterons use the Toldeo core.

Now, which is BEST for gamming? Anything with a higher clock speed, which is why the FX series always win, because they have the higher clock speed. That's why everyone is telling you to buy a cheaper CPU and OC it. You can have the EXACT same core as an FX and OC to math or exceed the FX series clock speeds. Granted, you could buy an FX and overlock it as well, you'd get a higher OC because you're starting off at a higher speed as well.

The only advantage the dualcore has is that you can multitask while playing a game. If you plan on keeping this rig for 3-5 years, go for a dual core. It can't hurt, and you're future proofing yourself. And, if you are getting a dualcore CPU, get an opteron, as they tend to be marginally cheaper.
 
Pardon my ineptness with cpu`s , but if I wish to overclock I should get a chip with an unlocked multiplier? Can you overclock a chip with a locked multiplier?
 
YoMoma said:
Pardon my ineptness with cpu`s , but if I wish to overclock I should get a chip with an unlocked multiplier? Can you overclock a chip with a locked multiplier?
Click to expand...

yes you can its just a bit more to it

to the OP if your going the shell out for an FX get the FX60 as it is Dual core like the X2s and pretty much faster then every thing else out atm
if your not overclocking any time soon that would give you be best of both highest clock speed and dual core
 
Pardon my ineptness with cpu`s , but if I wish to overclock I should get a chip with an unlocked multiplier? Can you overclock a chip with a locked multiplier?
Click to expand...

Well, here's the thing, with all the Athlon 64 chips you can change the multiplier Down but not up. With the FX series you can change the myultiplier both Up and Down.

Yes, you can overclock with a locked multiplier, you just have to raise the FSB which is what every overclock is based on. So, in all reality, it doesn't matter if you have a locked multiplier or not.

BTW. Did everything I say in my previous post make sense to you?
 
YoMoma said:
Pardon my ineptness with cpu`s , but if I wish to overclock I should get a chip with an unlocked multiplier? Can you overclock a chip with a locked multiplier?
Click to expand...

If you get a proc without an unlocked multiplier...make sure you have some good overclockable ram
 
EQTakeOffense said:
If you get a proc without an unlocked multiplier...make sure you have some good overclockable ram[/quotes]

Not always. It depends if the OP minds using a divider.
Click to expand...


theres no penlety for for using a divider with the A64s as nothing is realy in-sync to start with
Click to expand...
 
EQTakeOffense said:
Ok, lets clarify here....

There are now two kinds of FX CPU's dualcore and singlecore. FX-53 to FX-57 are single cores while FX-60 is the only dualcore FX.

FX-53 isn't worth the trouble right now. It uses ECC and, you're better off getting just a plain old Athlon64 then messing with it.

The FX-55 and FX-57 are worth it if all you care about is gaming. They are higher clocked San Diego cores. They have unlocked multipliers, and that is really what they are. They are the top-line Athlon 64 Processors. The Athlon 64's tape out at 2.4GHz while the FX-55 and FX-57 are both 2.6Ghz and 2.8Ghz respectively. That's really how the achieve higher benchmarks.

The FX-60 and the Athlon X2 are the EXACT same core, just like the single core FX series is the same core as the regular Athlon 64's. The highest X2 (the 4800) is 2.4Ghz while the FX-60 is 2.6Ghz.Again the FX has the unlock multiplier.

There are many different opterons out there, the ones that you should be looking at is the Socket 939 100 dualcore series (160-180 in 5 step incrments). These use 'Denmark' cores, which, are almost idenicly to Toledo cores. They are technically different because they are meant for a harsher enviroment (servers and such). As a result they tend to OC a bit more (usually).

So...

FX-55 and 57 use the same San Diego core as most of the Athlon 64's.
And the FX-60 X2 and S939 100 Serices Opterons use the Toldeo core.

Now, which is BEST for gamming? Anything with a higher clock speed, which is why the FX series always win, because they have the higher clock speed. That's why everyone is telling you to buy a cheaper CPU and OC it. You can have the EXACT same core as an FX and OC to math or exceed the FX series clock speeds. Granted, you could buy an FX and overlock it as well, you'd get a higher OC because you're starting off at a higher speed as well.

The only advantage the dualcore has is that you can multitask while playing a game. If you plan on keeping this rig for 3-5 years, go for a dual core. It can't hurt, and you're future proofing yourself. And, if you are getting a dualcore CPU, get an opteron, as they tend to be marginally cheaper.
Click to expand...

A few things wrong with your info

First off is that the Very first FX was the FX51 and then a FX53. Both did require ECC memory and wer based on the socket 940 as Opterons were at that time. Then came the Hammer cores. First 939 FX was a FX53 and it did NOT use ECC memory it ran @ 2.4ghz speed. At the time the FX53 939 was the only way to get unlocked Multi and 1 meg L2 Cache. It owned pretty well any A64 from that area of time. Then came the Claw hammer FX55 130nm core with SOI and Strained silcon. (These FX55 were not sandiego cores) they are among still some of the best Ocing CPU's around due to their abillity to NOT have the cold bug and do very well on -100 cooling. It was the first CPU from AMD that any overclcoker hit 4ghz with. The FX55 came in @ 2.6 ghz and a 1m L2 cache. It was then shortly after the made a 90nm part that is based on the Sandiego cores. Same speeds and cache and still unlocked but lower wattage of cpu with newer instructions then previous models. revised memory controler as well. Has cold bug issues on most. The FX57 is a 2.8 ghz speed of the FX55 90nm part. Also another improved mem controler was added. So far these have been the highest best running FX cpu in single core form. From there then you have the FX60 a dulcore FX.. as far as from there the FX will beat any of the X2 clock for clock. ( Casue the FX60 will oc better then X2) and you have the Opty dual core. IN essance the same as the FX60 core as far as quality and ocing But has a locked Multy. The FX 60 or the Opty dual core would be great choices. Still yet the FX60 is still the king.
 
Well... a few things here. I know I`m looking for a good gaming rig, but I dont want to pay more than $500 for a processer, at this time. [I`m not rich...LOL]. And sounds like, and from the reviews I have been reading that dual core is the way to go, and that a few games are benefiting from the dual cores already.
I currently own a P4 2.53Ghz socket 478 processer, so within my price range, with a new processer I wont get near the processing speed I do with my P4, but I`m hoping that moving to a AMD processer with 1mb L2 cache [possibly x2 if I go dual core] and the improved bus speed from my new A8N32-SLI Deluxe mobo, that I will be happy with a processer within my price range.
 
theseeker said:
May we ask what your total budget is?
Click to expand...

Not sure yet, but I will be pushing it to get the rig shown in my sig, paid for by May.
But I wont be doing any heavy duty multitasking. I would rather not pay more than $500 for a cpu, so that prob would count out any FX processer.
 
L2 isnt a big a deal as some ppl make it out to be imo go with the 3800+X2 if you dont want to spend alot there about 300 now
 
Yea, but those processers will be at a premium price. I`m not wishing to spend that much on a processer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top