What CPU for bit-tech's video card bench system? - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 2nd Oct 2005, 08:00

We've had a bit of a discussion here, regarding updating the specs of the new video card review system. I'm looking to overhaul the games that I use later this month too when a few of the new titles turn up.

I am looking to set up the following specs:

Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (or Athlon 64 FX-57)
DFI nF4-SLI DR (DFI SLI board) & DFI RDX200 CF-DR (DFI CrossFire board - I think... depending on how good it is)
2GB Memory (when its arranged/arrived)
Western Digital Raptor 74GB
OCZ PowerStream 520W PSU
16x LG DVD-ROM drive (don't need anything more)

plus whatever video cards land on my desk.

As for the mid-range system, I'll probably downclock the X2 4800+ to 2GHz to represent something reasonably close to the X2 3800+ (probably about 4000+ by my reckoning) and move down to 1GB memory.

What I want to know is - would you plump for an X2 over a single core CPU now if you were building a gaming system that you were also using every day? Obviously, the FX-57 has more single threaded CPU speed, but the X2 has the better all round performance by a considerable distance. I want this system to be as real as possible, so I'd like your help.

Basically, the budget is unlimited for a high end gaming system and the specs are pretty much finalised, with the exception of the CPU.

Vote and give me your thoughts on what we should be using. One thing we will not do for the time being is use a 3200+ and overclock it using an exotic cooling solution - overclocking is a lottery at the best of times, and I want a stock CPU that everyone can relate to. I've got both the X2 4800+ and FX-57 so the choice is between them. I can underclock them if you feel that is necessary, but I want to be as close as possible to a real CPU.

A reason why you chose what you chose would be really appreciated.

Thanks guys.

chemo · 2nd Oct 2005, 08:07

well imho, id go with the fx57, as A, most people still have single threaded cpu's. and B, theres not many multi threaded games about yet. the change to dual core cpu's you use should be made later really, when its a bit more widespread.

Highland3r · 2nd Oct 2005, 09:37

Tis a toughie. The FX would probably represent a more realistic gaming solution, having said that more people are starting to plump for multi-cored solutions.
As more and more games are moving to multithreading the X2 makes more sense. For single threaded games (ie 90% of the current crop) it probably wont make any difference. but with multi-threaded games, you run the risk of no longer being able to represent the "average Joes" machine.

Would suggest the FX is the best way to go for the moment, then as the multi threaded games emerge a possible more to Dual core? Maybe around the M2 launch would be a good time to make the switch perhaps?

MrWillyWonka · 2nd Oct 2005, 10:24

I think you should wait a bit before going to X2, at the moment I think you'll get more "bandwidth" out of a single core processor than a dual core.

But is it possible for you to have both an FX57 and an X2 running for testing? That way you can compare performance on single and dual cores, which would be a good experiment on a multi threaded game.

Leeum · 2nd Oct 2005, 10:25

I'd say the X2, seems alot more future proof imo

Bindibadgi · 2nd Oct 2005, 10:39

Should I be testing mobos with X2s then?

chemo · 2nd Oct 2005, 10:41

yeah but its not about future proofing is it.
its about getting a easily comparable testing setup to give the average punter an idea of how games will perform on their hardware or very similar hardware anyways.
x2 is the future, but its just used enough to be needed in this rig just yet imho.

Highland3r · 2nd Oct 2005, 11:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by chemo

yeah but its not about future proofing is it.
its about getting a easily comparable testing setup to give the average punter an idea of how games will perform on their hardware or very similar hardware anyways.
x2 is the future, but its just used enough to be needed in this rig just yet imho.

Indeed, its about (from what I understand) showing how a card will perfom in an average setup, for the average user, as well as higher end kit. By using the X2, although you'll gain the futureproofing, its straying away from the "average joe"... For dual core games, you'll see an improvement, but chances are 90% of bit readers arent going to be running Dual core, so for them the review might be pointless, or give misleading information.
Stick with single core (even in multithreaded games) as (again from what I understand your reviews are meant to show) its not about which gfx card offers the best fps, but which offers the most playable or realistic settings for the average gamer out there....

If you're set on running the X2, at least pick up a lower end CPU to run along side, a 32000/3500 or similar would do tbh..

With both the FX and 4800 at full pelt, you'll get a good idea of the max performance, just think the FX will scale a little more realistically in terms of representing a mid and lower end systems.

If your set on the X2, maybe run SP2004/prime on the second core to represent a single cored system

hitman012 · 2nd Oct 2005, 11:34

I think the X2 is more representative of what people looking for high-end systems will now buy. The FX is a superb processor, but I think gamers are looking more at something that will give them a better computing experience in general as well as good game performance.

Tim S · 2nd Oct 2005, 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bindibadgi

Should I be testing mobos with X2s then?

With the way that we do motherboard reviews at the moment, I don't think it is mission critical to use dual core CPUs right now. However, FWIW, dual core CPUs are definitely taking off and it is the way forwards.

RotoSequence · 2nd Oct 2005, 18:46

This is definitely a tough one to call at the moment. At this time, the nature of games is that they are single threaded. The environment for something like 99.9% of the users on bit-tech is single threaded (discounting Hyperthreading CPUs). A more accurate representation for a high end system right now is that of the uber single threaded processor, yet, more and more users are shelling out for an Athlon 64 X2; in fact, high end computers from Gateway are starting to come equipped with dual core processors (Pentium Ds and X2s). If you have the time, you could always do both. However, I only know of one person who has recently bought an FX, but I do know of a few more who have gotten the X2.

The brand new high end rig right now has the X2 4800+; the past one has the FX-55 (or possibly the 57). I suppose the ultimate representation of today's ultimate gaming machine would have to be through the FX-57. The Ultimate system however, would be one with an X2 4800+.

Pookeyhead · 2nd Oct 2005, 18:58

Until games that support dual cores become the norm, it makes sense to use single core chips IMO, or perhaps bench cards in both to show a balanced view. At the moment, the FX57 is the fastest gaming platform, and probably will continue to be so until more titles appear for multi-cores. (and no im not just saying that because I have one... that's WHY i got one).

I still think you shoudl bench both, as both chips will be at the forefront of high end gaming systems for a while yet.

Pookeyhead · 2nd Oct 2005, 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by RotoSequence

I dont know of anyone on bit-tech who has actually bought an FX recently, but I do know of a few who have gotten the X2.

ahem....!!!

Tim S · 2nd Oct 2005, 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pookeyhead

I still think you shoudl bench both, as both chips will be at the forefront of high end gaming systems for a while yet.

It depends how often you fancy getting reviews!

YES, I agree it would be awesome to be able to provide you guys with a video card review that uses both single and dual core CPUs, but that just isn't practical from the time required vs. page views returned perspective. Thus unfortunately, it has to be one or the other.

I am, however, looking to increase the number of games we use a little to provide a more rounded look at the card. I want to include an RTS (and maybe an MMO) as well.

hitman012 · 2nd Oct 2005, 19:12

I think the problem is differentiating between a high-end PC and a high-end gaming PC. It really depends what demographic you're trying to represent - someone who's just bought a top-spec computer for general use and gaming, or a hardcore gamer who has purchased the FX specifically for its performance in games.

The high-end system is obviously a lot more common and representative of many more people who would buy a PC than those who get one just for gaming. That's why I think the X2 should be used for the benchies

Pookeyhead · 2nd Oct 2005, 19:21

I suppose you have a point... it's just that hardly any games use the X2.. that's all I was thinking. It's all about what PCs are actually OUT there... rather than ask "what spec should we bench with"... you should ask "What PCs do you HAVE"? If you're trying to represent Mr Average with a high end PC that's used for many things, then lets see what Mr Average actually owns. Personally, I'm not bothered myself, as I'll just Ebay this FX when games start to appear that support X2, as I can drop one straight in this MoBo no problem, I'm just worried you're basing it one what you think you should be doing cos multi cores are the future.... (yes, I realise this even tho I've just bought a FX... I've given up on being future proof... future proof and PCs? No such thing).... instead of basing it on what people actually own.

TheMuffinMan · 2nd Oct 2005, 19:34

I would have to go dual-core, just for future proofing, I just spec'd out a system that was roughly $2000 USD with a 4800+, 7800GTX, 2 gb Ballistx, the Newegg sale on 74 gb Raptors

, Sony DVD+/-RW, and a DFI mobo. I dont think $2000 USD is that far out of the reach of most users on these forums, and that's almost top of the line equipment at this moment, I would imagine you could pick up like a 4400+ and drop the price below 2k easily.

Bindibadgi · 2nd Oct 2005, 20:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitman012

I think the problem is differentiating between a high-end PC and a high-end gaming PC.

Amen to that. Do AMD still advertise the FX as the fastest gaming processor?

RotoSequence · 2nd Oct 2005, 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bindibadgi

Do AMD still advertise the FX as the fastest gaming processor?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMD

The first 64-bit PC Processor, in a class by itself, designed specifically for gaming.
Enthusiast-friendly, enabling gamers to discover the true potential of their PC

I'd say they do.

specofdust · 2nd Oct 2005, 20:11

Having taken part in that discussion my opinion is thus:

If this rig is designed to make sure it doesn't limit the graphics card at all, then an FX57 should be used.

But if the rigs being designed to show people how a graphics card will probably act in their system, and X2 should be used instead, since more people are going to be buying X2's now.

Voted FX57 though, due to the title

View Poll Results: What CPU for bit-tech's high end video card bench system?
Athlon 64 X2 4800+	24	61.54%
Athlon 64 FX-57	15	38.46%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

2nd Oct 2005, 08:00	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	What CPU for bit-tech's video card bench system? We've had a bit of a discussion here, regarding updating the specs of the new video card review system. I'm looking to overhaul the games that I use later this month too when a few of the new titles turn up. I am looking to set up the following specs: Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (or Athlon 64 FX-57) DFI nF4-SLI DR (DFI SLI board) & DFI RDX200 CF-DR (DFI CrossFire board - I think... depending on how good it is) 2GB Memory (when its arranged/arrived) Western Digital Raptor 74GB OCZ PowerStream 520W PSU 16x LG DVD-ROM drive (don't need anything more) plus whatever video cards land on my desk. As for the mid-range system, I'll probably downclock the X2 4800+ to 2GHz to represent something reasonably close to the X2 3800+ (probably about 4000+ by my reckoning) and move down to 1GB memory. What I want to know is - would you plump for an X2 over a single core CPU now if you were building a gaming system that you were also using every day? Obviously, the FX-57 has more single threaded CPU speed, but the X2 has the better all round performance by a considerable distance. I want this system to be as real as possible, so I'd like your help. Basically, the budget is unlimited for a high end gaming system and the specs are pretty much finalised, with the exception of the CPU. Vote and give me your thoughts on what we should be using. One thing we will not do for the time being is use a 3200+ and overclock it using an exotic cooling solution - overclocking is a lottery at the best of times, and I want a stock CPU that everyone can relate to. I've got both the X2 4800+ and FX-57 so the choice is between them. I can underclock them if you feel that is necessary, but I want to be as close as possible to a real CPU. A reason why you chose what you chose would be really appreciated. Thanks guys. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

2nd Oct 2005, 09:37	#3
Highland3r I Mod, Therefore I Own Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Leeds UK Posts: 7,159	Tis a toughie. The FX would probably represent a more realistic gaming solution, having said that more people are starting to plump for multi-cored solutions. As more and more games are moving to multithreading the X2 makes more sense. For single threaded games (ie 90% of the current crop) it probably wont make any difference. but with multi-threaded games, you run the risk of no longer being able to represent the "average Joes" machine. Would suggest the FX is the best way to go for the moment, then as the multi threaded games emerge a possible more to Dual core? Maybe around the M2 launch would be a good time to make the switch perhaps? __________________ Prawn or not...?

2nd Oct 2005, 10:24	#4
MrWillyWonka . Moderator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Southampton, Hants Posts: 5,746	I think you should wait a bit before going to X2, at the moment I think you'll get more "bandwidth" out of a single core processor than a dual core. But is it possible for you to have both an FX57 and an X2 running for testing? That way you can compare performance on single and dual cores, which would be a good experiment on a multi threaded game. __________________ Project Red - HL2 - PSOne LCD S-Video Guide Main Rig: Asus Striker Extreme, Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 G0 OC'd to 2.65GHz, 4GB Corsair XMS, 8800GTS in SLI, 36 & 74GB Raptors

2nd Oct 2005, 10:39	#6
Bindibadgi Richard Swinburne bit-tech Staff Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Omnipwntent Posts: 28,274	Should I be testing mobos with X2s then? __________________ Made you look, made you stare, made you clicked this in your underwear! Den of Geek!

2nd Oct 2005, 08:07	#2
chemo True Jungle Brother Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 2,639	well imho, id go with the fx57, as A, most people still have single threaded cpu's. and B, theres not many multi threaded games about yet. the change to dual core cpu's you use should be made later really, when its a bit more widespread.

2nd Oct 2005, 10:25	#5
Leeum Mod Master Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,487	I'd say the X2, seems alot more future proof imo

2nd Oct 2005, 10:41	#7
chemo True Jungle Brother Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 2,639	yeah but its not about future proofing is it. its about getting a easily comparable testing setup to give the average punter an idea of how games will perform on their hardware or very similar hardware anyways. x2 is the future, but its just used enough to be needed in this rig just yet imho.

2nd Oct 2005, 11:34	#9
hitman012 What is a Dremel!? Moderator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bristol / London Posts: 4,811	I think the X2 is more representative of what people looking for high-end systems will now buy. The FX is a superb processor, but I think gamers are looking more at something that will give them a better computing experience in general as well as good game performance. __________________ "Nothing is more practical than a good theory" - Kurt Lewin

2nd Oct 2005, 18:46	#11
RotoSequence Lazy Lurker Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: 'States Posts: 4,529	This is definitely a tough one to call at the moment. At this time, the nature of games is that they are single threaded. The environment for something like 99.9% of the users on bit-tech is single threaded (discounting Hyperthreading CPUs). A more accurate representation for a high end system right now is that of the uber single threaded processor, yet, more and more users are shelling out for an Athlon 64 X2; in fact, high end computers from Gateway are starting to come equipped with dual core processors (Pentium Ds and X2s). If you have the time, you could always do both. However, I only know of one person who has recently bought an FX, but I do know of a few more who have gotten the X2. The brand new high end rig right now has the X2 4800+; the past one has the FX-55 (or possibly the 57). I suppose the ultimate representation of today's ultimate gaming machine would have to be through the FX-57. The Ultimate system however, would be one with an X2 4800+. __________________ Technology Schmecnology Last edited by RotoSequence; 2nd Oct 2005 at 19:14. Reason: Edited to account for Pookey ;)

2nd Oct 2005, 18:58	#12
Pookeyhead It's Big, and It's Clever Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Blackpool Posts: 4,937	Until games that support dual cores become the norm, it makes sense to use single core chips IMO, or perhaps bench cards in both to show a balanced view. At the moment, the FX57 is the fastest gaming platform, and probably will continue to be so until more titles appear for multi-cores. (and no im not just saying that because I have one... that's WHY i got one). I still think you shoudl bench both, as both chips will be at the forefront of high end gaming systems for a while yet. __________________ Intel i7 920 @ 3.8GHz ¦¦ Asus P6T Deluxe ¦¦ 6Gb Corsair Dominator C8 ¦¦ XFX GTX295 ¦¦ 2x 1Tb Samsung F1 ¦¦ 1x Seagate 7200.11 1.5Tb ¦¦ Gigabyte Odin 800W PSU ¦¦ Dell 2405FPW.

2nd Oct 2005, 19:12	#15
hitman012 What is a Dremel!? Moderator Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bristol / London Posts: 4,811	I think the problem is differentiating between a high-end PC and a high-end gaming PC. It really depends what demographic you're trying to represent - someone who's just bought a top-spec computer for general use and gaming, or a hardcore gamer who has purchased the FX specifically for its performance in games. The high-end system is obviously a lot more common and representative of many more people who would buy a PC than those who get one just for gaming. That's why I think the X2 should be used for the benchies __________________ "Nothing is more practical than a good theory" - Kurt Lewin

2nd Oct 2005, 19:21	#16
Pookeyhead It's Big, and It's Clever Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Blackpool Posts: 4,937	I suppose you have a point... it's just that hardly any games use the X2.. that's all I was thinking. It's all about what PCs are actually OUT there... rather than ask "what spec should we bench with"... you should ask "What PCs do you HAVE"? If you're trying to represent Mr Average with a high end PC that's used for many things, then lets see what Mr Average actually owns. Personally, I'm not bothered myself, as I'll just Ebay this FX when games start to appear that support X2, as I can drop one straight in this MoBo no problem, I'm just worried you're basing it one what you think you should be doing cos multi cores are the future.... (yes, I realise this even tho I've just bought a FX... I've given up on being future proof... future proof and PCs? No such thing).... instead of basing it on what people actually own. __________________ Intel i7 920 @ 3.8GHz ¦¦ Asus P6T Deluxe ¦¦ 6Gb Corsair Dominator C8 ¦¦ XFX GTX295 ¦¦ 2x 1Tb Samsung F1 ¦¦ 1x Seagate 7200.11 1.5Tb ¦¦ Gigabyte Odin 800W PSU ¦¦ Dell 2405FPW.

2nd Oct 2005, 19:34	#17
TheMuffinMan Supermodder Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 356	I would have to go dual-core, just for future proofing, I just spec'd out a system that was roughly $2000 USD with a 4800+, 7800GTX, 2 gb Ballistx, the Newegg sale on 74 gb Raptors , Sony DVD+/-RW, and a DFI mobo. I dont think $2000 USD is that far out of the reach of most users on these forums, and that's almost top of the line equipment at this moment, I would imagine you could pick up like a 4400+ and drop the price below 2k easily.

2nd Oct 2005, 20:11	#20
specofdust Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aberdeen, UK, EU Posts: 7,615	Having taken part in that discussion my opinion is thus: If this rig is designed to make sure it doesn't limit the graphics card at all, then an FX57 should be used. But if the rigs being designed to show people how a graphics card will probably act in their system, and X2 should be used instead, since more people are going to be buying X2's now. Voted FX57 though, due to the title