x2 4800+ not as fast as a fx55 wow! read inside

A

andré2005

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
128
amd has now a newer cpu the X2 4800+ but even that, is not as fast as the fx55! what makes the fx55 so powerful anyone know? and how fast is the fx55 really?
 
The 4800+ is a dual core at 2.4ghz per core. So in purely single threaded apps, how could you expect it to keep up with a 2.6ghz cpu?

Also, the X2 PR isn't colinear with the A64 PR. They are different products altogether.

Though, the 4800+ is a much better CPU for the money than the FX55.
 
why do you think I made so many posts trying to say the same thing right here?: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=919272

Unless you need/want dual core, a single core will be far cheaper and better suited to your needs. I know they are cheaper then dual CPUs and AMD/intel will help lead developers, but don't see why they have gotten so much more popular just because they are in a single core package. Fundementally it is still the same thing, and dual cpus have been around for years. I am all for the support increasing for them, but until it does, it is a lot of cash to have tied up in something that has yet to reach maturity. Of course if you are overclocking, I would get one, because they will pump up to FX speeds, and give you an extra core for the same price. If they were cheaper, I would buy one.
 
robberbaron said:
The 4800+ is a dual core at 2.4ghz per core. So in purely single threaded apps, how could you expect it to keep up with a 2.6ghz cpu?
Click to expand...
because 4800 > 55, duh :p
 
that exactly the thing. it says 4800+ i thoght it was a 4800mhz cpu. new different pr huh that's confusing and not very honest.
 
PR is for marketing influenced users. Clock speed and operations per clock is for people who know their shit.
 
well.. it's impossible to really compare dual core to single core like that
to paraphrase USMC, the pr would be something like this:

"3400+ in single threaded apps, but when multitasking/threading is present 4800+!"


i'm sure that would work reeaaaaalll well :p
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
well.. it's impossible to really compare dual core to single core like that
to paraphrase USMC, the pr would be something like this:

"3400+ in single threaded apps, but when multitasking/threading is present 4800+!"
Click to expand...
Yeah, the "no more lonely cores" and the "2 is better than 1" are time proven marketing strategies.
 
people people people.
i know about the pr thing. it's old. i know. im not stupid.
but saying that the amd pr thing is not for comparnig it to intel processors, is silly, and stupid.
when amd says 4800+ in reality they are saying it is comparable to a p4 4.8ghz cpu. no matter what everybody want's to believe to feel good about your own amd processor. it's to compare it to a p4 equivalent. ok. so 4800+ it supposed to be a p4 4.8ghz.

now...

how fast is the fx55 really? anyone know? comparing it to a p4!
 
it's not really much faster clock for clock than it's non FX counterpart. The main thing is that FXs overclock really well, which only matters when you want to have a $600 cpu to go with your $600 phase change setup.
 
andré2005 said:
it's to compare it to a p4 equivalent. ok. so 4800+ it supposed to be a p4 4.8ghz.

now...

how fast is the fx55 really? anyone know? comparing it to a p4!
Click to expand...
no offense intended, but i've had a long day. you just tried to compare a single core p4 to a dual core a64. it doesn't work that way, and it makes my brain hurt.


and the fx-55.. well, there are plenty of reviews :p
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249
http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=614
http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/athlon64-fx55/index.x?pg=1
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=79
 
Ok Ok Ok OK... here it goes.

Of course with the programs you run right now, the FX55 will beat the 4800+.... The FX 55 is a Higher Frequecy (2.6Ghz) while each core of the 4800+ is (2.4Ghz)

In most applications today, they only use one core... so Its pretty much 2.6Ghz vs. 2.4Ghz... what do you think is going to be faster?

However I will be getting the 4800+ because:
1) Multitasking and the ability to excecute Multiple Threads at one time. Do not confuse this with a Multi Threaded application using both cores. But this allows me to use both of my cores, say 1 program is taking up a good chunk of my CPU, another program I am using can utilize the 2nd core. The FX55 cannot do that. It must alternate between threads on the same core.

2) The Frequency. As it is right now... the Dual Core is only 200Mhz slower than the FX55. Thats not alot for sure. Also, you have to look at it by how much power under the hood you are getting. Sure my core is only 2.4Ghz.. but I have 2 of them.

3) Future Proof... They are already programs out there (most professional) that utilize SMP well. However the time is now that programs are being coded for it, as well as games. Its only a matter of time. If I am spending a grand on a CPU (weather its the Latest FX or latest Dual core CPU) i want it to last LONG. You best beleive that when a awesome new game that everyone wants to play comes out, and is Multithreaded... you will be wishing you had a Dual Core CPU vise your FX.

So thats it for me :) The Smooothness of SMP and the Future of Running Multiple Threads.... Will outweigh a mere 200Mhz in my book. Any day of the week
 
It's like saying that there's an inline 4cyl engine that puts out 250 horsepower, so it's more powerful than another inline 4 that only puts out 220. But, when you stick ANOTHER inline 4 that does 220HP next to it and make a V8 that does 440, it's more powerful than the inline 4.

When you only use 1/2 of it (4 out of 8 cylinders), the more powerful inline 4 wins. But when you get to a situation where you can make both halves work to their optimum capability, it beats the single-core hands down.
 
andré2005 said:
people people people.
i know about the pr thing. it's old. i know. im not stupid.
but saying that the amd pr thing is not for comparnig it to intel processors, is silly, and stupid.
when amd says 4800+ in reality they are saying it is comparable to a p4 4.8ghz cpu. no matter what everybody want's to believe to feel good about your own amd processor. it's to compare it to a p4 equivalent. ok. so 4800+ it supposed to be a p4 4.8ghz.

now...

how fast is the fx55 really? anyone know? comparing it to a p4!
Click to expand...


Actually with Intel now using model numbers id say your wrong. The AMD numbers are no longer anything but model numbers, just like 660, of 840 are to Intel. You can only really use them to compare processors of hte same model range. I kinda think it was stupid for AMD to not use a totally different range for the X2 processors though. But as long as you take 30 seconds to do some research before buying, it doesnt really matter.
 
I spend a lot of time at my desktop working in photoshop, illustrator, dreamweaver and such while listening to mp3's or watching movies on my 2nd monitor. An X2 would be best for my situation. If I only worked on one thing at a time or were a more dedicated gamer the FX would be the best bet.
 
thanks. a dual core processor is only good for applications that can use it and runing multiple things at the same time. but just running only one thing, it is just as good as one single core processor huh.

? processors have slowed down lately huh. anything above 3.4ghz is very close to each other, do you agree ?
 
andré2005 said:
? processors have slowed down lately huh. anything above 3.4ghz is very close to each other, do you agree ?
Click to expand...

I don't think the CPU's are at fault. Usually they are just bandwidth limitted or other things are getting in the way. CPU's tend to scale linearly with clockspeed as long as the applications can take advantage of the speed.
 
This whole discussion is killin' me.

Wasn't Intel the CPU manufacturer that was singing the praises of hyperthreading and how much better Intel was for multitasking than AMD.

Sure in gaming AMD was giving Intel a biatch slappin' but a few apps used multi threading and Intel supporters sure played the benefit of the superiority of hyperthreading.

Now AMD has come out with dual core cpu's that'll out game and out multi task an Intel chip and even the AMD guys are slaggin' the X2! sheesh!

I currently get the best of both worlds now... gaming and multitasking. :D
 
LBJGH said:
even the AMD guys are slaggin' the X2! sheesh!

I currently get the best of both worlds now... gaming and multitasking. :D
Click to expand...

I'm about as "AMD guy" as you can get, and I have a 4200+ on order, heh.
 
robberbaron said:
I'm about as "AMD guy" as you can get, and I have a 4200+ on order, heh.
Click to expand...
I am about as much of an "intel guy" as you can get. And I will have a Athlon X2 when I come home. So what does that say
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
I am about as much of an "intel guy" as you can get. And I will have a Athlon X2 when I come home. So what does that say
Click to expand...

It means you're a dirty traitor!

In all seriousness, this generation is weird. Intel didnt make a quality dual core chip... they waited for the 9xx series before they started making decent ones. AMD however released the demons from the start.
 
it's just the bottom up vs. the top down
Intel is likely to sell a lot of dual cores to OEMs such as dell, and thus those clock speeds are likely to be very popular, though they are stupid IMO if they are dual core without HT, but hey it's always been about marketing with OEMs and their end buyers. Mmmm dual channel pc2-3200 and a celeron 2.53. 2 is better than 1, duh!
 
i think that with dual core, hyperthreading is largely redundant. i also think that the cheaper intel dual cores are best for dell because their users aren't running complex apps. virus protection and real time spyware protection can really slow down a pc so having an extra core for "background apps" seems like a good idea. if one core is for background apps and the other is for surfing the internet and playing mp3's (average user, hell that's me half the time), intel's cheaper, lower end stuff should do the job fine.

that said, there's no way i'd purchase them as an enthusiast ;). my main system is an axp and my mce system is s939. if i upgrade my main system in a year or so, it will likely be an m2 dual core
 
Intel's Extreme Edition dual core is maybe the most pathetic product for the price on Earth... it loses to the x2 4800+ at almost everything that Intel used to be better than AMD at. :eek:

Comparing single cores, Intel was better at some things than AMD, and only got owned in gaming... and this held more or less across both companies' product lines. So it was really a matter of what you were doing that dictated the CPU you used.

Now, Intel only owns "budget multitasking," since AMD has no affordable dual-cores right now. AMD owns all price points at games. And between the FX-57 and the x2 4800+, Intel has pretty much rolled over and died at the high end... it almost makes you wonder why they even bothered with the dual core EE. There must be a "rich mentally retarded enthusiast" segment to keep it alive.
 
FX series + game = serious gamer
X2 series + multitasks = serious multitasker

another way around

FX series + multitask = (syntax error) :eek:
X2 series + game = (syntax error) :eek:

jk :p
 
I would like to see AMD impliment a SMT "Hyperthreading" type of thing to their CPUs. It is complete BS if someone says HT needs a long pipe to work. They are just talking out of their ass. If you look into it, you will see IBM and the Power 5 utilize SMT and their pipes are short too.

I think it would be better for AMD. I mean why not.

It is already said that It will be implimented on the Future Revisions of Pentium M processors, espically when they go to the desktop next year. The pentium M's pipe is shorter than the Athlon 64s..
 
yeah, but then the market for the X2 would shrink a ton. If you look on these boards 9 out of 10 x2 recommendations are because the A64 doesn't have HT. If it did, the market for dual core might not be much bigger than dual CPU. More likely would be a more expensive non dual core HT enabled chip, while still keeping non HT chips on the market. At least that's how intel might do it. The A64 would be too powerful with HT imo.
 
well you cant deny that p4's with HT are better at multitasking than most single-threaded A64s, but DAMN the X2's are such amazing peices of technology. I will totally be getting one in my next computer (probably on an m2 socket tho), but for now my p4 3.0c is plenty of horsepower for me.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
I would like to see AMD impliment a SMT "Hyperthreading" type of thing to their CPUs. It is complete BS if someone says HT needs a long pipe to work. They are just talking out of their ass. If you look into it, you will see IBM and the Power 5 utilize SMT and their pipes are short too.

I think it would be better for AMD. I mean why not.

It is already said that It will be implimented on the Future Revisions of Pentium M processors, espically when they go to the desktop next year. The pentium M's pipe is shorter than the Athlon 64s..
Click to expand...
two things...

1. i had no idea P5's have something roughly akin to HT

2. i know K8 have a 12 stage ALU, but dothan is.. uncomfirmed, though many people believe it's 12 stages, but intel hasn't said anything. we know it's longer than 10, but shorter than 20. also, intel definitly won't stay with the current core.. i would expect to see some huge changes in the future.. effectively making the pentium m a completely different creature.

(note: i am not quite up to snuff on HT, so correct me if you know better ;))
as for HT itself, i'm sure you know that there are things where it decreases performance a bit. this is due to the cache conflicts that HT brings.. i think that dual core will a good replacement for HT... for a good while. yes, it may not be as smooth in some cases, but those are cases many users will probably not run into for a while. when that happens more and more often, quad-core will be there to fix the problem :D
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
two things...

1. i had no idea P5's have something roughly akin to HT

2. i know K8 have a 12 stage ALU, but dothan is.. uncomfirmed, though many people believe it's 12 stages, but intel hasn't said anything. we know it's longer than 10, but shorter than 20. also, intel definitly won't stay with the current core.. i would expect to see some huge changes in the future.. effectively making the pentium m a completely different creature.

(note: i am not quite up to snuff on HT, so correct me if you know better ;))
as for HT itself, i'm sure you know that there are things where it decreases performance a bit. this is due to the cache conflicts that HT brings.. i think that dual core will a good replacement for HT... for a good while. yes, it may not be as smooth in some cases, but those are cases many users will probably not run into for a while. when that happens more and more often, quad-core will be there to fix the problem :D
Click to expand...
Perhaps Dual core took care of this. I just have to get my hands on it and see. But I figured that HT would be ok with some kinda cache coheirency.... like dual core CPUs have...
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
But I figured that HT would be ok with some kinda cache coheirency.... like dual core CPUs have...
Click to expand...
this is a good point, i hadn't thought of this idea :D

*ponders*
 
shoes said:
well you cant deny that p4's with HT are better at multitasking than most single-threaded A64s, but DAMN the X2's are such amazing peices of technology. I will totally be getting one in my next computer (probably on an m2 socket tho), but for now my p4 3.0c is plenty of horsepower for me.
Click to expand...
It depends what you mean by "multitasking", as this is a very broad term, and gets thrown around as an all encompassing reason to go with HT. IMO everyone multitasks, but unless they are heavy apps, it really won't matter whether it has HT or is only single thread capable. People should start using a term like "heavy multitasking" or something better suited to describe the sort of use a HT or dual core chip will really excel at. Everyone runs multiple applications, but that doesn't mean a A64 can't keep up with a HT chip. Now heavy use, sure, but lets clarify the definition.
 
To me, P4 single core with HT is like a dual core, but one of em r slower than another, and the PD dual core with HT is same with P4, but in "quad core".

AMD X2 have full speed for both core.

Man i can't think wat to say bout HT thing.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
Ok Ok Ok OK... here it goes.

Of course with the programs you run right now, the FX55 will beat the 4800+.... The FX 55 is a Higher Frequecy (2.6Ghz) while each core of the 4800+ is (2.4Ghz)

In most applications today, they only use one core... so Its pretty much 2.6Ghz vs. 2.4Ghz... what do you think is going to be faster?

However I will be getting the 4800+ because:
1) Multitasking and the ability to excecute Multiple Threads at one time. Do not confuse this with a Multi Threaded application using both cores. But this allows me to use both of my cores, say 1 program is taking up a good chunk of my CPU, another program I am using can utilize the 2nd core. The FX55 cannot do that. It must alternate between threads on the same core.

2) The Frequency. As it is right now... the Dual Core is only 200Mhz slower than the FX55. Thats not alot for sure. Also, you have to look at it by how much power under the hood you are getting. Sure my core is only 2.4Ghz.. but I have 2 of them.

3) Future Proof... They are already programs out there (most professional) that utilize SMP well. However the time is now that programs are being coded for it, as well as games. Its only a matter of time. If I am spending a grand on a CPU (weather its the Latest FX or latest Dual core CPU) i want it to last LONG. You best beleive that when a awesome new game that everyone wants to play comes out, and is Multithreaded... you will be wishing you had a Dual Core CPU vise your FX.

So thats it for me :) The Smooothness of SMP and the Future of Running Multiple Threads.... Will outweigh a mere 200Mhz in my book. Any day of the week
Click to expand...

I concur
 
do you guys understand what I'm saying about coming up with a more narrow definition of multitasking? I mean the notion that you need an X2 because you run with 3 IE windows, a chat program, a virus scanner, and music, is bunk. Frankly I doubt someone could tell the difference in this kind of use between a 2.4ghz venice and a 2.4 ghz manchester if it was a "blind" study (like pepsi challenge). Multitasking is as broad as using a computer. This is just my current rant, as I find the notion that everybody and their kid brother now needs a dual core chip just because they "multitask" absurd. Lets come up with a better word, as, if you call multiple encoding threads, or encoding and gaming at the same time, "multitasking", an average user might think this means he needs a dual core to run winamp and his virus scanner at the same time. IMO the current processors are already PLENTY fast for this sort of use, hell a p3 or tbird would be fine, I know I owned one, they were fine.
 
mikelz85 said:
do you guys understand what I'm saying about coming up with a more narrow definition of multitasking? I mean the notion that you need an X2 because you run with 3 IE windows, a chat program, a virus scanner, and music, is bunk.
Click to expand...
i agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top