bit-tech.net

AMD Athlon 64 FX-57

Comments 1 to 24 of 24

Reply
The_Pope 27th June 2005, 05:34 Quote
Definitely one for those who *have* to have the best, at any cost. I have read about several clocking to 3.6Ghz with phase-change cooling...
TMM 27th June 2005, 07:14 Quote
FX-55 has done 4.0ghz @ Xtremesystems, so it'll be interesting to see what the nutters around the globe get up to with these FX-57s :)

More details on the processors used? afaik theres a 2.6ghz 512kb cache 4000+ and a 2.4ghz 1MB cache 4000+
Tim S 27th June 2005, 08:07 Quote
the 4000+ was a 2400MHz Sledgehammer, as reviewed back at the fx55 launch.
Firehed 27th June 2005, 09:30 Quote
Sounds nice, but I think I'd rather go for an X2 setup. Especially as I multitask quite a bit, and the real-world gaming results are about the same across the line. A fun bench to throw in there would be xvid encoding while mp3 ripping (or something like that), just to see how the extra mhz compares to a second core in multitasking.
Latvietis 27th June 2005, 12:31 Quote
You also should have made a test where you overclock FX-55 to FX-57 speeds and then we would see how much we benefit from 90nm process.
Lost.Soul 27th June 2005, 12:59 Quote
The high resolution game benchies made me laugh... 0,1 fps gain compare to FX55... Its not as good as I expected >:(
webbyman 27th June 2005, 13:27 Quote
:) looks pretty cr*p if you ask me :o

didn't exactly clot well either :)

value for money... :| nope :)

edit: me thinks it more to do with GPU limitations :)
ou7blaze 27th June 2005, 13:32 Quote
Sounds crappy... :(
The_Pope 27th June 2005, 14:36 Quote
It's only "crappy" at high resolution gaming, when you are heavily GPU limited - I'm sure Tim will be benching 7800GTX SLI on it at some point to test that theory. The X2 is arguably a better buy in terms of future-proofing, but let's just see how pricing settles down after the initial demand is satisfied
RotoSequence 27th June 2005, 15:37 Quote
And while you're at it, why not check how high the FX-57 goes on aftermarket heatsinks like the Zalman 7700? ;)
mclean007 27th June 2005, 16:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RotoSequence
And while you're at it, why not check how high the FX-57 goes on aftermarket heatsinks like the Zalman 7700? ;)
Yeah, or on a high performance WC rig, or phase change? You know you want to crank up that Prommie! :D
Tim S 27th June 2005, 17:31 Quote
the higher resolutions are there as they are more 'realistic' settings that you might use for real-world gaming... that is the theory behind including those results. surely you arent going to buy an X2 4800+ or FX57 and game at minimum detail. :)

Re: coolers... I shall see what i can do.
charl3s_fatal1ty 29th June 2005, 13:17 Quote
Have you/have you thought about comparing the fx4800 with the fx57 in some benchies?
yodasarmpit 30th June 2005, 00:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost.Soul
The high resolution game benchies made me laugh... 0,1 fps gain compare to FX55... Its not as good as I expected >:(

Thats obviously down to reaching the graphics card limit, maybe with the new nvidia 7800 we would see a bigger increase.
Tim S 30th June 2005, 13:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by charl3s_fatal1ty
Have you/have you thought about comparing the fx4800 with the fx57 in some benchies?

the x2 4800+ has beenincluded?
Stephen Brooks 30th June 2005, 20:35 Quote
I'm amused by the way you don't include any Intel processors _at all_, presumably on the assumption that they'll all be crap.
Tim S 30th June 2005, 20:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Brooks
I'm amused by the way you don't include any Intel processors _at all_, presumably on the assumption that they'll all be crap.
I've not had a working intel platform available to me for about 2 months now - it's frustrating. Hopefully that will change very soon when I have a look at some stuff that arrived the other day.
Da Dego 30th June 2005, 20:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Brooks
I'm amused by the way you don't include any Intel processors _at all_, presumably on the assumption that they'll all be crap.
Ummm, I don't think I've ever seen a review that was that one-sided by any intent. I would figure biggles has a pretty good reason for that oversight.
padrejones2001 30th June 2005, 21:05 Quote
Well, here's another review. The P4's aren't doing half bad these days, so I wouldn't go around parading that they're crap for losing by only a few frames a second.
Tim S 30th June 2005, 21:19 Quote
We've made no assumptions that Intel processors are 'crap'. There are a number of reasons to buy an Intel processor ahead of its AMD counterpart, much like there are many reasons to buy an AMD processor ahead of its Intel counterpart.

If you want a gaming system, we believe that an Intel system would be second best, but if you want a fast single cored day to day processor an Intel Pentium 4 with HyperThreading Technology makes a lot of sense. Having said that, a Pentium D 2.8GHz is a better purchase than a similarly priced, 'faster' single-cored Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 for that matter, as you just can't match the smoothness of Dual Core with a Pentium 4 HT CPU or a single cored Athlon 64 for day to day usage and multitask performance.
eddie_dane 30th June 2005, 21:45 Quote
word
Da Dego 1st July 2005, 14:37 Quote
I fail to note where you EVER said intel was crap, biggles. In fact, through a whole host of reviews...

Ah, well, there's always one, eh?
Stephen Brooks 4th July 2005, 21:52 Quote
OK sorry I didn't mean you to take my comment so seriously. I was just left with a funny feeling reading that review and then suddenly thought "Hey, where have the Intel processors gone?"

It's absolutely fine to just compare them to AMD ones if that's what you want to do (or all you're able to do). I don't count leaving something out as bias.

I've also already read that Anandtech article I was referred to. The FX-57 is actually 10-20% faster in games/FPS than the nearest Intel processor in their benchmarks, so I don't know if that's really "only a few frames a second"? The difference between the fastest and the slowest Intel processor is about the same size as that in the three games they tried!

Also I noticed (and nearly commented) in that other review that the 670 was showing superlinear scaling compared to the rest of its 6xx series. I don't know exactly why - all I knew they'd changed in that processor was an enhanced halt state/thermal thing - but anyway, it does kind of just begin to close the gap with AMD if you stand on your head and squint at the graphs.
Kipman725 5th July 2005, 00:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by padrejones2001
Well, here's another review. The P4's aren't doing half bad these days, so I wouldn't go around parading that they're crap for losing by only a few frames a second.


its more than FPS that matters. What about thermal issue.

Intell need to >
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums