• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

FX-57 Vs Intell C2D

W

whiskeybullets

n00b
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
5
I am looking a building a game specific computer that will be running a single core supported game with no future dual core support for it. Would a FX-57 knowing that its the fastest processor for single core games be faster than one core of a C2D.
 
With the current speed that my E6300 is running at, it would smack around an FX-62 like an unwanted step-child. :D
 
No, the C2D's are very fast and really run rings around the fastest Athlon 64 chips currently. But, I just picked up one of the last OEM San Diego FX55's from The Egg for $130 and quickly OC'ed it to ~2.8 with my current setup! I will try for more Mhz tonight. In the mean time, I put my X2 4800 into my Linux server until I see games take advantage of the dual core chips (upon which time I will put back in the X2 4800 or hopefully by then ...have a C2D!)

$130 was a much better option for me than $700 for 2GB DDR2 memory, C2D 6600, and the DFI Infinity 975X board that I would indeed like to buy...someday...
 
Indeed, $130 is quite reasonable but in no way is it anywhere near the C2D in raw performance. But for the price its a reasonable upgrade and should run quite well in your gaming rig.
 
Hmm... so even if windows Xp doesnt support dual core processors on a single socket leading to timing issues it would still be faster than a FX Single core chipset running a game thats only design to use one core ? Ive seen benchmarks were the FX-57 was faster in FPS on single core games againts FX-62 and the other 4800.
 
whiskeybullets said:
Hmm... so even if windows Xp doesnt support dual core processors on a single socket leading to timing issues it would still be faster than a FX Single core chipset running a game thats only design to use one core ? Ive seen benchmarks were the FX-57 was faster in FPS on single core games againts FX-62 and the other 4800.
Click to expand...

Windows XP does support dual core. Besides, why would you specifically want single core and single core games? If next gen gaming is optimized for dual core, why not take advantage?
 
whiskeybullets said:
Hmm... so even if windows Xp doesnt support dual core processors on a single socket leading to timing issues it would still be faster than a FX Single core chipset running a game thats only design to use one core ? Ive seen benchmarks were the FX-57 was faster in FPS on single core games againts FX-62 and the other 4800.
Click to expand...

The only reason not to get a c2d over a fx57 is that you dont have the money for the upgrade to C2D.
All of the benchmarks i find all favor either the C2D or the fx 62 over the fx 57, with the C2D leading almost all the tests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top