BF2S Forums Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison with 8800 GTX SLI

Does this surprise us?
The FX-62 is sadly still the newest available cpu from AMD while the X6800 has already found a successor (not in it's league, though).
Core 2 simply owns big time.

CrazeD wrote:

FX-72 anyone?

Comparing a Quad core to a Dual core?

Marlboroman82 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

FX-72 anyone?

Comparing a Quad core to a Dual core?

yea you got a problem with that?

Then lets compare a FX72 with a QX6700

At this point a faster video card will still pay off more often than a faster CPU.  However, I think that will change in a shorter time frame than many think.  While I don't think we will see multi-threaded games coming out any time soon, I see developers instead shifting specific tasks to a dedicated core in multi-core processors.

Initially I see them shifting physics or AI (most likely physics) to the second core on dual core chips.  As quad cores become more common it gets even better.  Physics on one, AI on another, triangle setup on the 3rd, and the sound engine processing can remain on the same core that the OS runs, as this is the least demanding of these tasks.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

At this point a faster video card will still pay off more often than a faster CPU.  However, I think that will change in a shorter time frame than many think.  While I don't think we will see multi-threaded games coming out any time soon, I see developers instead shifting specific tasks to a dedicated core in multi-core processors.

Initially I see them shifting physics or AI (most likely physics) to the second core on dual core chips.  As quad cores become more common it gets even better.  Physics on one, AI on another, triangle setup on the 3rd, and the sound engine processing can remain on the same core that the OS runs, as this is the least demanding of these tasks.

I was under the impression that some games currently available were optimised for multi-threading.  One name that keeps popping in my head is Quake 4.  Sure you can run it on a single core processor but multi-cores get better performance.

Or do you mean something different?

QUAD FTW!

offtopic: new sig betatesting in progress...

Stormscythe wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Comparing a Quad core to a Dual core?

FX-72 = dual core.

But not really much better than a FX-62... Or is it better at all?
Isn't this just the equivalent to the FX-62 just for a 4x4 platform?

So many questions and no idea ^^

Now that you bring it up...

Looks to be the same specs as the FX-62, although it's about 200$ cheaper lol. I've never looked before, assumed the FX-72 would be faster than a lesser model.

aardfrith wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

At this point a faster video card will still pay off more often than a faster CPU.  However, I think that will change in a shorter time frame than many think.  While I don't think we will see multi-threaded games coming out any time soon, I see developers instead shifting specific tasks to a dedicated core in multi-core processors.

Initially I see them shifting physics or AI (most likely physics) to the second core on dual core chips.  As quad cores become more common it gets even better.  Physics on one, AI on another, triangle setup on the 3rd, and the sound engine processing can remain on the same core that the OS runs, as this is the least demanding of these tasks.

I was under the impression that some games currently available were optimised for multi-threading.  One name that keeps popping in my head is Quake 4.  Sure you can run it on a single core processor but multi-cores get better performance.

Or do you mean something different?

I have a single core 2.0 ghz AMD and i run Quake 4 on Ultra High with one of the highest reso's. My vid is the geforce 7800gt oc

aardfrith wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

At this point a faster video card will still pay off more often than a faster CPU.  However, I think that will change in a shorter time frame than many think.  While I don't think we will see multi-threaded games coming out any time soon, I see developers instead shifting specific tasks to a dedicated core in multi-core processors.

Initially I see them shifting physics or AI (most likely physics) to the second core on dual core chips.  As quad cores become more common it gets even better.  Physics on one, AI on another, triangle setup on the 3rd, and the sound engine processing can remain on the same core that the OS runs, as this is the least demanding of these tasks.

I was under the impression that some games currently available were optimised for multi-threading.  One name that keeps popping in my head is Quake 4.  Sure you can run it on a single core processor but multi-cores get better performance.

Or do you mean something different?

First let me clarify the difference.  Multi-threading is where a program can spawn multiple, simultaneous threads that can be shared across more than one processor.  So in essence think of this as having AI, physics, triangle setup, and audio processing all being worked on by all of the available cores because you have a program that has spawned multiple threads.  In other words, all of the cores are sharing the work of all tasks.  What I am talking about is different.  The games are still single threaded applications, but specific functions of the game have been split out so that a core of the CPU is dedicated to its function.  They are not the same thing.

While I can't comment on Quake 4, games like Crysis, Supreme Commander, and Alan Wake will address the use of multi-core CPUs in this fashion.

CrazeD wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

FX-72 = dual core.

But not really much better than a FX-62... Or is it better at all?
Isn't this just the equivalent to the FX-62 just for a 4x4 platform?

So many questions and no idea ^^

Now that you bring it up...

Looks to be the same specs as the FX-62, although it's about 200$ cheaper lol. I've never looked before, assumed the FX-72 would be faster than a lesser model.

FX-72 refers to AMD's quad core solution which isn't much different than Intel's.  The only difference is that Intel has the technology to include both cores on one die, but they still utilize the FSB to talk to each other.  Still, the FX-72 is hella expensive to configure compared to the same QX6800 config.  And the mem config is cool but wonky in the AMD system; each CPU has to have two channels.  So if you want two gig of ram you have to go with 4 512mb sticks...better to just go 4 gig in anticipation of Vista.  On top of this it consumes a crazy amount of power.  If you're planning on running SLI with a pair of 8800's, you'll need a minimum of 1kw PSU to power the beast.

As it is the FX-72 platform still doesn't outperform the QX6800.  The platform is an enthusiast solution and has future upgrade potential that is very interesting.  Intel and AMD will both be producing true quad core CPU's by the end of the summer/early fall and you will be able to drop a pair of the AMD quad cores into the same MB the FX-72's are using for an Octo core platform.  Even this isn't a great upgrade though since few software apps will be using more than 2 threads at that time.

I have been an AMD fanboy since the early days and hate to turn my back on the company in favor of Intel silicon.  But Intel has addressed all of the shortcomings between the chips - price, performance, heat, and availability.  It will be interesting to see what AMD comes up with, but I don't see it gaining the title back any time soon due to Intel's current architecture based on 45nm process.

Bertster7 wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

Now that you bring it up...

Looks to be the same specs as the FX-62, although it's about 200$ cheaper lol. I've never looked before, assumed the FX-72 would be faster than a lesser model.

FX-72 refers to AMD's quad core solution which isn't much different than Intel's.  The only difference is that Intel has the technology to include both cores on one die, but they still utilize the FSB to talk to each other.  Still, the FX-72 is hella expensive to configure compared to the same QX6800 config.  And the mem config is cool but wonky in the AMD system; each CPU has to have two channels.  So if you want two gig of ram you have to go with 4 512mb sticks...better to just go 4 gig in anticipation of Vista.  On top of this it consumes a crazy amount of power.  If you're planning on running SLI with a pair of 8800's, you'll need a minimum of 1kw PSU to power the beast.

As it is the FX-72 platform still doesn't outperform the QX6800.  The platform is an enthusiast solution and has future upgrade potential that is very interesting.  Intel and AMD will both be producing true quad core CPU's by the end of the summer/early fall and you will be able to drop a pair of the AMD quad cores into the same MB the FX-72's are using for an Octo core platform.  Even this isn't a great upgrade though since few software apps will be using more than 2 threads at that time.

I have been an AMD fanboy since the early days and hate to turn my back on the company in favor of Intel silicon.  But Intel has addressed all of the shortcomings between the chips - price, performance, heat, and availability.  It will be interesting to see what AMD comes up with, but I don't see it gaining the title back any time soon due to Intel's current architecture based on 45nm process.

You can already drop two quad core Xeon CPUs (clovertown core, or something like that) into the same mobo (socket 771) for 8 core performance.

yep, i posted it but it costs like diamonds

ah... Good thing i ordered this system:
https://www.komplett.no/k/ci.asp?sku=10238