Faster single core CPU than Athlon FX57

[Webster]

Conroe is the one to wait for.

 

[m3csl2004]

maybe - but yohan is out quicker

 

[marc2003]

Conroe is the one to wait for.

maybe - but yohan is out quicker

but both are dual core and therefore exempt from this discussion...

 

[Amp34]

I agree with AWPC

No one will ever argue that at stock the 2.8Ghz FX57 is slower than the 3.8Ghz P4. In fact, even the 2.4Ghz A64 4000+ will give it a run for it's money

The prescott P4 chips are huge overclockers though, and a 7.53GHz P4 is faster than a 4GHz A64 (fastest I've seen but there might be faster ones). Yes, clock for clock AMD is better but when the P4 is clocked to almost twice what the AMD chip is clocked at there isn't really any doubt as to which is the faster chip

Have a look here and here, it seems 4GHz is nowhere near the max clock for an AMD.

 

[ajgoodfellow]

Ah - that's about the maximum I've seen on the overclocking forums but I stand corrected

A 6GHz AMD will definitely beat a 7.4GHz Intel

The sceptic in me says that it seems way too high for an AMD chip but there you go!

 

[Jokester]

Those A64 clocks are fake.

Jokester

 

[Martynt74]

Indeed the real WR for it is about 4.1ghz i think

Best place to check is here

 

[Amp34]

Well they are verified by CPU-Z and its their official page. Does that mean CPU-Z can be cheated, which would mean its pointless.

 

[m3csl2004]

its been badly cheated lol - anyone could easily see through that shot

validation in conjunction with 3dmark publication and photos of the cpu/cooling generally prove something is real - hence why xs are so sceptical without them

 

[Martynt74]

Aye there are numerous ways to cheat it.

I believe XS might be taking over the running of cpu-z so hopefully there will be more anti-cheat methods built in along with more confirmation needed in cases like a 6ghz A64

 

[m3csl2004]

wow thats mint lol - xs use it enough

 

[HangTime]

The PC world is beginning to acknowledge that single-core CPUs have had their day, and increasing clock speeds can only take you so far.

Multi-core is the future, and I think we'll see this reflected in the high-end processors that AMD and Intel release over the next 18 months. I'll be surprised if we see another premium single-core CPU.

.....snip....

The days of the single-core CPU are drawing to a close.

Hav

While dual core technology is really starting to take off and it has obvious benefits, remember that from a software point of view things aren't so straightforward. Not only do apps typically need to be optimised to take full advantage of dual core, there can also be problems when running some older applications on dual core cpus. Some games for example have timing issues unless specific updates/patches are applied, and in some cases you need to manually set the process affinity to a single core.

That's all fairly straightforward for enthusiasts such as ourselves, but the less technically able users may be tearing their hair out at issues introduced by dual core.

Furthermore remember that there is still a market for single core cpus. Most games are single threaded and see little benefit from dual core... for example an fx57 at 2.8ghz will beat an x2-4800 at 2.4ghz in a lot of titles (notable exceptions like quake4 aside).

Personally I'm running an A64 at >2.5ghz, nothing outstanding, but still pretty nippy for games. I won't consider upgrading until something offering performance equivalent to at least a 3.2ghz+ A64 in single-threaded games is available. Whether that will be down to a more efficient core, a shedload more cache, or even something related like a new chipset/RAM combination offering much faster performance remains to be seen.

That said, a dual core cpu at 3ghz+ with 1meg+ l2 at a decent price would probably tempt me if enough games become multithreaded.

 

[jhmaeng]

Not everyone uses their computer just for games, though. For things like image manipulation, 3D modelling, video editing and audio work where a lot of the applications are properly multithreaded, dual-core often translates into 70-80% performance gains in cases where the bottleneck was the CPU. Even things like video encoding which a lot of people find doing for some reason or other (transferring to DVD, transcoding for mobile devices etc) benefits greatly from dual core.

And of course, dual-core improves multitasking quite dramatically as well - granted, the example people commonly cite of running Doom3 while running SuperPi at the same time is pretty daft, but common scenarios such as virus scanner running in the background alongside music players and several IE windows etc at the same time as a game for example, will also benefit from dual-core to varying degrees.