Which AMD is better?

[Greenvalv]

Building a machine with the most powerful stuff I can find, finding the money for this, though, should prove difficult but I'm gonna go through with it.... which processor is best?

AMD Athlon 64 FX57 San Diego 1GHz FSB 1MB L2 Cache Socket 939 Processor

or

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Toledo 1GHz FSB 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket 939 Dual Core Processor

What's the FX57 all about?

[N88TR]

The San Diego for Single core is the best.

Dunno about the dual-core one, dual cores are like the x64 OS; great idea, not really done perfectly yet. I'd hold off on buying dual-core CPU set up. Intel has some and AMD has the Opteron, but in time there will be much better options. You should buy a SLI-enabled mobo that also supports Dual-Core CPUs. I think the Nvidia Nforce4 mobo does just that.

The AMD FX 57 is the latest in CPU power from AMD. It is the best power buy for the AMD user. FX 58 is in the works and should be "out" [I still can't find any FXes anywhere but online. Retail be damned for high-end computer buying.] in 2006. Still pricey though for the 57. It's like $1,001 on Newegg.com. But, it you want the best from AMD, FX 57 is your dog.

[Greenvalv]

Actually, $1011, hehe, Newegg's my source too. FX-57 it is then.....

[Hmmmdonut]

No. The 4800+ is a dual core processor. Meaning it has to cores than run at 2.4ghz. The 4800+ is a much better deal than the FX57.

[chris3471]

As a general rule dual core is always better

[rob.]

No no no, FX-57! Dual Core is a fad.

FX all the way if the PC is for gaming. Which i would assume so.

[Rookie]

You won't see any real advantages with dual core until Vista comes into use. Sure, it's useful if you want to do 6 things at once, but your average user shouldn't be defragmenting, encoding a DivX movie and playing Doom3 all at the same time.

I'd say go with the FX-57.

[Agentlaidlaw]

The 4800+ would be the best one. 1 core for gaming and the other core takes care of the OS and every thing else in the background. Also each core on the 4800+ is a 4000+ core so you will have enough speed for gaming. 4800+ is worth it in my opinion. True multitasking.

[Mr. Matt]

AMD themselves said when the dual-core series was new, "the Athlon 64 FX is still the best processor for gaming".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04...al-core_games/

It's a mixed bag of nuts. Right now, and for the next few months, the FX-57 is the industry king for gaming. The FX-57, FX-55 and the Athlon64 4000+ all come out on top in benchmarks, often by quite a long way.

But this time next year, we should start to see games being released which take advantage of dual core processors. If you're willing to wait that long for results, that's up to you, but you should bear in mind that this time next year we should hopefully also be seeing FX-standard dual-core processors, and AMD are working on triple-core processors as we speak.

Unfortunately, the nature of computer technology means that 'future proofing' as a misguided concept. Whatever you buy, it'll be obsolete within a year. So the best you can do is buy for the now, and right now, the FX-57 is the undisputed king. And I guarantee you that even when dual-core-friendly games come out, the FX-57 will still be a strong performer. It might be obsolete by then, but it'll still be powerful. Bear in mind that games developers have to account for the people who are still using processors from one, two, or even three generations ago.

[C38368]

Originally Posted by yellowhampster

Dual Core is a fad.

You're joking, right?

The FX is nominally the better gaming CPU, but it's also an incredible waste of money. The X2 is a vastly better deal.
If all you care about is gaming, though... get a 3700+ or 4000+: if you have to ask why, then they're functionally the same (you give up 400-600MHz, but that's it, and you can buy four 3700+ cores for the cost of one FX-57).