AMD processor

Yeah, well we were talking about single core processors, you cheater! I win. :D

Haha, yeah the dual-core Opterons are nice. :D A bit expensive for me, but it's good.
 
I want the best one out there for gaming...give it to my straight which it would be, and try keeping it under $1500. lol.
 
The FX-57 is single core, which surprised me given its price.

I'd go for a normal dual-core 64 bit, something like the 4000+ etc.

Oh, and wrong section. Moved.
 
I don't believe there is any relation between a CPU and a GPU in terms of compatibility, so I would say yes.

And definitely, the 4800+ is better. It's cheaper and gives you both great gaming performance and top-of-the-range multi-tasking power.
 
PC gamer say this: "You can always run a pair of them SLI. In this scenario, however a slow CPU will become a bottleneck. Don't even bothing going this route unless you've got at least an FX-55 CPU."

now, I realize that is FX-55 instead of 57, is there much of a difference?

Is an AMD x2 4800 equal to a FX-55?
 
Not in single-threaded apps, but it's close enough.

The 4800+ couldn't possible be a bottleneck. It has all the features of the FX-55, mos notably the 1GHz HyperTransport, and the Dual-Channel memory controller, with just a 200MHz decrease in internal clock speed.

FX's aren't worth it; get an X2.
 
Well, X2's aren't great overclockers, but come on, if you get a 4800+, you've already got so much power, that I can't see why you'd want more. You might be able to get to about 2.7GHz, but further will probably need better cooling solutions, top-class mobo, and a good chip, out of luck.
 
The Toledo cores can overclock pretty nicely. Not as spectacular as the San Diego/Venus core, but it's not bad.
 
Back
Top Bottom