FX60 and 4000+ San Diego

[FrankJH]

Now who's being pedantic?

What you said is not necessarily true. Some games get picky with dual core and you have to set the affinity which means you're effectively back to having everything running on one core. Also, in terms of playability, nobody would notice the difference anyway. Besides, an upgrade to a 4400+ is an utter waste of money IMO because 1) it doesn't offer a substantial noticeable increase increase that the OP wants in gaming 2) Conroe offers better performance and can easily slaughter an FX60, let alone a 4400+ 3) The OP has enough money to buy an FX60 which means he can afford to switch to Conroe.

Of course this is all in my opinion, no need to get pedantic about it Frank

Very few apps are picky once you have installed the dual core driver - and this is becoming less and less of an issue, its only with much older games that the driver is necessary

If you set the affinity for one app ( if its necessary at all) doenst mean you have to set the affinity for everything - so the 2nd core with auto load balancing as standard will just use this for the less picky apps, so you still get the full benefit

I specifically said that from a playability point of view the 200Mhz clock difference wouldnt be noticed - so thank you for stressing my original point. All the other points I made WILL make a performance advantage over a single core - as I (and others) have remarked moving from a single core 3700 to an X2 or dual opty

Just because the money is available doesnt mean it HAS to be spent on the rig - because a conroe is the dogs danglies now doenst mean it will be in 6 months time , when the cheaper investment will still be able to keep up with everything you throw at it (and more)

 

[Explicit]

Very few apps are picky once you have installed the dual core driver - and this is becoming less and less of an issue, its only with much older games that the driver is necessary

If you set the affinity for one app ( if its necessary at all) doenst mean you have to set the affinity for everything - so the 2nd core with auto load balancing as standard will just use this for the less picky apps, so you still get the full benefit

I specifically said that from a playability point of view the 200Mhz clock difference wouldnt be noticed - so thank you for stressing my original point. All the other points I made WILL make a performance advantage over a single core - as I (and others) have remarked moving from a single core 3700 to an X2 or dual opty

Just because the money is available doesnt mean it HAS to be spent on the rig - because a conroe is the dogs danglies now doenst mean it will be in 6 months time , when the cheaper investment will still be able to keep up with everything you throw at it (and more)

You keep mentioning "apps" "apps "apps" - the OP is talking about games. The majority of games are still single threaded barring the exception of the odd few. A dual core 4400+ offers negligible gains over the 4000+ in such cases. The OP wants noticeable gains.

You also appear to have reading difficulties. I did clearly state that the above was all in my opinion (you may wish to refer to a dictionary for an explicit definition of the word "opinion"). Not at any point did I ask you to agree with my opinion, so I don't know why you're trying to make me agree with your's. The OP wants a killer CPU for gaming and wants to Crossfire later on. Right now, that killer CPU is Conroe not the 4400+. He doesn't want to wait 6 months like you seem to suggest, and he also has the funds to upgrade his PC to Conroe. Conroe also is has more shelf life than a 4400+. I don't see why you're getting your knickers in a twist, because the OP certainly isn't complaining about money or switching to Conroe.

Again, I stress that the above is all in my opinion, no need to have a fit over it

 

[Vault5ChOnG]

Yeh, money is no problem for me. I have spent a bunch on crossfire setup which im running at the moment so i want to top if off with a top of the range cpu to finish my system as i feel the 4000+ is holding me back on the potential performance i could be getting.

So any conroe will out perform my 4000+ is what your telling me? even the 2.4gz conroe which is same speed as my current cpu? Sorry for more questions, im just not to clever when it comes to statistics

 

[Explicit]

Yeh, money is no problem for me. I have spent a bunch on crossfire setup which im running at the moment so i want to top if off with a top of the range cpu to finish my system as i feel the 4000+ is holding me back on the potential performance i could be getting.

So any conroe will out perform my 4000+ is what your telling me? even the 2.4gz conroe which is same speed as my current cpu? Sorry for more questions, im just not to clever when it comes to statistics

I'm not sure how the lower end Conroes compare, but the E6600 listed above will outperform your 4000+ by quite some way

 

[Booner!]

sorry for hijacking thread, but im keen to buy a new cpu for 939 and wondered if its worth going for the crazy cheap san deigo 4000+ or waiting to see the price drop on the dual core processors (x2) budget ~£160

ps. keep up the good info on dual cores, its very interesting

 

[Explicit]

sorry for hijacking thread, but im keen to buy a new cpu for 939 and wondered if its worth going for the crazy cheap san deigo 4000+ or waiting to see the price drop on the dual core processors (x2) budget ~£160

What CPU do you currently have? I think dual core is the way forward and rumour has it that AMD will be slashing prices on X2s after the release of Conroe, so I think you should hold out for a few more weeks to see how things pans out.

 

[SiriusB]

sorry for hijacking thread, but im keen to buy a new cpu for 939 and wondered if its worth going for the crazy cheap san deigo 4000+ or waiting to see the price drop on the dual core processors (x2) budget ~£160

ps. keep up the good info on dual cores, its very interesting

I would seriously consider a dual core AMD if you can afford one. The best choices are the 3800+ and the 4400+. While the 3800+ has a smaller cache than the 4400+ it can be clocked pretty high. There are people around here with 2.8GHz I'm sure.

I myself have the 4400+ and have it clocked to 2.6GHz which makes it faster than the 4800+

Of course, the choice of single or dual core CPU is down to how you use your computer. If you only play games then spending a bit less on something like the 4000+ is absolutely fine. However, if like me you do a lot of multitasking then dual-core is your friend

SiriusB

 

[Booner!]

ok, i currently have a socket 478 3.2 ghz with hyper threading, so i would like something that can beat that on game whilst still having something that works like hyperthreading, it looks like dual core will be best then?

Also, what kind of clock speeds do you think are achieveable with watercooling, i have a VERY good piece of kit that go my 3.2ghz P4 to 4.31ghz (koolance exos 2 watercooling) and wondered if this could improve the overclock?

 

[Explicit]

Yeah, I'd say dual core is slowly becoming the norm amongst enthusiasts. If you get a good stepping, I'd say you can easily achieve 2.8GHz (FX62 speed) and beyond. But I assume you have a good overclocking mobo, like DFI LP series.

 

[SiriusB]

You have to watch the temps with the X2s too when OCing them. My temps were great but when I hit 2.6GHz it was like something lit the fires of hell under my 4400+ lol.

I would dearly love to get 2.7GHz or more but I doubt I could manage it on air - especially not in this heat anyway. My CPU is pushing 55C at load at 1.5V Vcore and I will probably need 1.6V to get to 2.7GHz - lord knows how hot it would get.

SiriusB

 

[Vault5ChOnG]

I'm not sure how the lower end Conroes compare, but the E6600 listed above will outperform your 4000+ by quite some way

Thats what i wanted to know im a happy boy now lol.

 

[Eliot]

but theres no NEED to upgrade it never the less

 

[FrankJH]

You keep mentioning "apps" "apps "apps" - the OP is talking about games. The majority of games are still single threaded barring the exception of the odd few. A dual core 4400+ offers negligible gains over the 4000+ in such cases. The OP wants noticeable gains.

You also appear to have reading difficulties. I did clearly state that the above was all in my opinion (you may wish to refer to a dictionary for an explicit definition of the word "opinion"). Not at any point did I ask you to agree with my opinion, so I don't know why you're trying to make me agree with your's. The OP wants a killer CPU for gaming and wants to Crossfire later on. Right now, that killer CPU is Conroe not the 4400+. He doesn't want to wait 6 months like you seem to suggest, and he also has the funds to upgrade his PC to Conroe. Conroe also is has more shelf life than a 4400+. I don't see why you're getting your knickers in a twist, because the OP certainly isn't complaining about money or switching to Conroe.

Again, I stress that the above is all in my opinion, no need to have a fit over it

Myabe you can explain the difference between an app and a game hmmmmm?

There is none - an application is any program not part of the basic OS that is run on a PC / Computer whether its a game / av / word processor / or anything else you care to mention

Maybe YOU have the reading problem as OP clearly stated in original post he ALREADY has Crossfire and as I tried to explain to anyone who read my posts imoving to dual core DOES show clear performance gain in a different way

I never had a problem with your "opinion " when its accurate - but someone who has never used a dual core could potentially assume from your posts that games / apps dont work correctly - when in fact they do work perfectly ok in general

Any decent dual core cpu in conjunction with his current setup would be "killer", I very much doubt any game in the next year or more will kill any X2 4400 / Crossfire setup as its mostly the graphics card(s) that slow things down tremendously anyway ( until you get a completely unbalanced system of course)

I am not getting anything in a twist - I am only trying to balance out your inaccurate observations

 

[Explicit]

I never had a problem with your "opinion " when its accurate - but someone who has never used a dual core could potentially assume from your posts that games / apps dont work correctly - when in fact they do work perfectly ok in general.

I am only trying to balance out your inaccurate observations

Everything I have said is accurate. I did clearly state some (emphasis on that word) games get picky with dual core and you need to set the affinity - and that is 100% accurate. There's a difference between saying "games get picky with dual core" and saying "some games get picky with dual core" - again, learn to read properly before making bold sweeping statements like the above.

Any decent dual core cpu in conjunction with his current setup would be "killer", I very much doubt any game in the next year or more will kill any X2 4400 / Crossfire setup as its mostly the graphics card(s) that slow things down tremendously anyway ( until you get a completely unbalanced system of course)

My friend, you really are dense sometimes. The OP does not overclock, hence his original post asking whether he should upgrade to an FX60. And then I stated he could easily afford to switch to Conroe for that price and the OP is perfectly happy about it. What's your problem?

You've come in this thread just to pick a fight with me and not help the OP. Please grow up! Not at any point did I ask you to agree with my opinions, I don't see why you're arguing with me. If you have a problem with me, please let me know - no need for childish bickering, this is not a playground.

Anyway, if you keep doing this I'll just add you to my ignore list because you're just spoiling threads - there's no need for it. Apologies to the OP for this.

Edit: This is also my last reply to you regarding this matter, I refuse to argue any further. If you can't be grown up and sensible, I certainly can. You have made your points, I have made mine - end of story.

 

[Eliot]

but will u agree that a 400 is a bottle neck to no single cardedsystem
edith wait, eh has crossfire

 

[Angilion]

sorry for hijacking thread, but im keen to buy a new cpu for 939 and wondered if its worth going for the crazy cheap san deigo 4000+ or waiting to see the price drop on the dual core processors (x2) budget ~£160

ps. keep up the good info on dual cores, its very interesting

I'm in the same boat.

I've decided that the difference in clock speed will be lessened by the probable overclocking (slower cores will probably o/c more), so I'm going to wait for the price drops on the X2 and cross my fingers that there will be stock of the S939 variants.

Although the cache is another possible issue. The price drops on X2 appear to be only on the 512KB L2 cache models, so I'd be buying one of those. OTOH, cache size doesn't seem to be a big issue with Athlons.

Bah, I still haven't made up my mind. I've been offered a single-core Opty that has been clocked to 2.8GHz at stock volts on air for £115, so there's a third choice.

 

[FrankJH]

hmmm and who didnt even read the original thread to notice OP already had crossfire........

maybe a list of games you have had problems with might help..... as very few others have had any issues without something not being installed corectly and NOWHERE in my last post did I even mention overclocking - I already saw that was a point made by OP

to OP

All I was trying to point out is that it isnt exactly necessary to spend vast fortunes on a new cpu, new mobo and new ram to still have a very good pc that will keep up with anything. I realise you can afford to spend money on a conroe, but maybe you want a holiday also......... thats all I was trying to say