English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

should i get an AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 San Diego 2.6GHz
or
An AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Manchester 2.2GHz
I play games and i am going to get 2 video cards and run them in SLI
so don't say you need a good video card.

2007-02-03 16:27:18 · 8 answers · asked by U can't B like me 5 in Computers & Internet Hardware Desktops

i don't want to overclock.

2007-02-03 16:37:44 · update #1

8 answers

If your a game player the fx-55 is the preference for now but as games of the future become multi-threaded the x2 will then outperform....

2007-02-03 16:57:23 · answer #1 · answered by Justin 1 · 0 0

The more expensive one is the FX-55. The cheaper one is the X2 4200+.

If you're not interested in the dual-core craze, then go with the FX-55. However, dual-core processors can give you a substantial increase in speed over a single core processor (the FX-55). The FX-55 is much faster, though.

NewEgg has the FX-55 for $240 ($200 if you get the OEM version) and the X2 4200 for $200.

2007-02-03 17:25:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I say the X2. However, aren't both of those 939? If you're buying an entirely new system you might want to chance to the AM2 socket as it is newer, however slightly more expensive and requires DDR2, but supported for the future. Anyway, back to the CPU. The dual core ablities will be seen over a "faster" FX-55 (never a huge fan of the FXs anyway). I have a dualcore 3800 on a 7600GS SLI and it runs better then when it was 3500 single core.

2007-02-03 16:55:06 · answer #3 · answered by imppilot 2 · 0 0

there are various intel fanboys, please, purely forget approximately approximately them. AMD methods CPU's in yet differently from intel. in terms of uncooked computing, intel had the lead for an prolonged time, even nonetheless, in terms of integrating snap shots, AMD has outperformed intel so badly. AMD has fairly picked up their interest with the FX 8000 series and APU's. presently the FX 8350 runs very almost as quickly using fact the 3770k. It would not have hyper threads, digital cores or L3 cache ultimately reslting in slower video modifying :(. even nonetheless it is $one hundred thirty much less then the 3770k and realistically, maximum folk could purchase this relatively then a 3570k. Their APU's have picked up quite besides. For $a hundred you have got the overall performance of midrange i3 or FX 4000 series and accomplish astounding graphical overall performance. you may play battlefield 3 on extremely with the hot 6800k! So if intel would not %. up their interest technologically, human beings will comprehend those issues faster or later. Andif AMD would not promote their products extra effectively, nicely, no one's going to be conscious their attempt.

2016-12-13 08:23:34 · answer #4 · answered by girardot 4 · 0 0

I would suggest you get an Intel Core 2 Duo, but if you want an amd chip go for the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Manchester 2.2GHz.

It's got 2 cores and better architecture.

2007-02-03 16:53:00 · answer #5 · answered by Venom 5 · 0 1

The 2.6 is a higher clock speed, but that's not all that goes into making a processor "faster". The X2 is a dual core processor, like having 2 2.2 ghz processors...it's alot faster...ALOT faster than the FX55. As long as you have two good graphics processors and lots of RAM, you can run 3d intense games, plus audio, and lord knows what else and you won't notice a drop in performance.

2007-02-03 17:23:54 · answer #6 · answered by Ritchie B 2 · 0 0

I got a AMD Opteron Dual Core 165 1.8 GHz and I overclocked it easily to 2.8 GHz. Now it runs faster than the FX-55 2.6 GHz at probably about half the price. Look up some information on overclocking, it's really worth it.

2007-02-03 16:36:05 · answer #7 · answered by Foodeefunk 2 · 0 2

the 2.6GHz its a faster proccesor.

2007-02-03 16:31:48 · answer #8 · answered by papalopez813 1 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers