[Metalive]

As you can see I am currently using an AMD 3500+. Although with the advent of next gen gaming, I'm curious wether or not I should be looking into a better processor. After all, if I'm going to be running a next gen GPU (possibly two if this new job oppurtunity pans out and I can afford that), I'm worried about my processor slowing me down.

Are there any new AMD processors on the horizon? Should I go for a dual core, or the FX series? Are there any predicted price drops on the FX series by next year?

Edited by Metalive, 21 July 2005 - 02:59 PM.

[Advertisements]

If your thinking about serious gaming, then I would definantly recommend getting a Dual Core CPU if you can spare the cash. Although I havent heard any official news on the subject (and someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong) but I believe that the FX processor should be going down in price once the majority of the Dual core CPUs hit the market.

--Chris

[cheathawk1]

If your thinking about serious gaming, then I would definantly recommend getting a Dual Core CPU if you can spare the cash. Although I havent heard any official news on the subject (and someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong) but I believe that the FX processor should be going down in price once the majority of the Dual core CPUs hit the market.

--Chris

[Metalive]

I asked around on some other forums, and most people said that dual core really doesn't effect gaming... that the FX series was a better choice. Were they wrong?

I hope so, the X2's are quite a bit easier on my wallet than the FX series...

[Metalive]

Wait, when I was searching on newegg, I had the socket 939 filter on... apprently the Opterons are more expensive and use a 940 socket. What is the difference between the 939 CPU's and the 940 Opterons?

[desca]

I would like to know that to?
if you find out post it!

[ThunderT]

To go back to your question about whether to go dual core or with an FX - the key issue is whether you are playing games with multi-threading enabled (VERY few at this time), or if you will be playing games that don't have it. I suggest you read some of the articles here as they will really help give you a lot of information about the new dual core CPU's and the newest FX processors. Right now, the overall fastest gaming processor is the FX-57. Since AMD has decided to offer 'older' FX models along with the latest and greatest (they hadn't been doing this until recently), you should be able to get something like a FX-57 in the next 1-2 years for around $500.

In my opinion, you will find that your 3500+ processor will be adequately fast for high-end gaming for the next few years, but that your video card will probably be where you would like to spend your money. Also, keep in mind that socket 939 is slated to be replaced by a newer one sometime next year, so that might be a great time for you to buy the best Socket 939 processor available for your motherboard and be glad you bought it when the price has dropped off.

[Metalive]

I read those articles, definately a good site.

Ok my question then becomes, should I get an X2 or an FX? I can't afford the FX-57.

So it would be between an FX-55 and an X2 4600.

Should I go with the X2 to future proof my system? True, almost no games are utilizing dual cores at the moment, but there is a good chance they will in the future. And if the FX-55 is only a slightly faster (I'm guessing.), than wouldn't it be the safer choice to go with a dual core in case games within the next year or two start using the second cores?

I must admit, I'm confused.

[OneCool]

what CORE is that 3500+

Newcastle
Clawhammer
Whinchester
Venice

[Metalive]

I don't know unfortunately. I believe it might be a Winchester.

Why?

[OneCool]

Download Everest Home http://www.lavalys.c...p?pid=1&lang=en

Click/motherboard/CPU should tell you what Core your CPU is?



Like this

[Metalive]

It's a Newcastle.

For what reason though...? Overclocking? I'm not comfortable enough with computers yet to mess around with anything like that.

[ThunderT]

Ok, I think I have a succinct answer for you. If you go to this chart, it explains the clock speeds and the L2 chache sizes of the various Athlon 64 processors.

Now in your case, you currently have the older Newcastle core (130 nm manufacturing process) with 512KB of L2 cache running at 2.2 GHz.

The X2 4600+ has 2 cores with 512KB each and each of them is clocked at 2.4 GHz (wouldn't offer a noticeable upgrade to what you have for current games).

The FX 55 has a full 1 MB of L2 cache and it is clocked at 2.6 GHz. The newer San Diego core also has fairly significant improvements over the older Clawhammer core of the first wave of FX 55's - they are more energy efficient too (check the wattage ratings in the chart).

If you are buying a processor for the games that are out now and the ones that will be coming out for the next year, I would say stick with what you have, or if you can afford it and want top of the line performance, go for the FX.

If, instead, you want to get a processor that will support the multi-threaded games of the future (I don't expect a big wave of those for at least another year, you should definitely go with the X2...but again, I would probably wait until a multi-threaded game comes out that you want before buying an X2 since the extra core won't be put into use on current games and the same dollars you want to spend today will get you a much better processor down the road.

I'm definitely waiting until more games come out that support multi-threading before going down that road...and I will also make sure to buy a processor that has 1MB of cache for each core! (It would be like running two FX's.)

I hope this helps your decision further.

[Metalive]

It does, thanks you.

I guess I will stick with my 3500+ till multi core is supported, or there is at least a significant price drop on the FX55.