AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 - bit-tech.net Forums

The_Pope · 27th Jun 2005, 05:08

Quote:

It is without doubt the fastest gaming processor available today, and there are bound to be people who look to invest in the Athlon 64 FX-57 – you will not be disappointed with your purchase. However, there are some unanswered questions with regard to CPU limitations with the all-new GeForce 7800 GTX that we will attempt to cover in the near future.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...d_fx_57/1.html

The_Pope · 27th Jun 2005, 05:34

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 Jun 2005, 07:14

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 Jun 2005, 08:07

the 4000+ was a 2400MHz Sledgehammer, as reviewed back at the fx55 launch.

Firehed · 27th Jun 2005, 09:30

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 Jun 2005, 12:31

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 Jun 2005, 12:59

The high resolution game benchies made me laugh... 0,1 fps gain compare to FX55... Its not as good as I expected

webbyman · 27th Jun 2005, 13:27

looks pretty cr*p if you ask me

didn't exactly clot well either

value for money...

nope

edit: me thinks it more to do with GPU limitations

ou7blaze · 27th Jun 2005, 13:32

Sounds crappy...

The_Pope · 27th Jun 2005, 14:36

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 Jun 2005, 15:37

And while you're at it, why not check how high the FX-57 goes on aftermarket heatsinks like the Zalman 7700?

mclean007 · 27th Jun 2005, 16:55

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!

Tim S · 27th Jun 2005, 17:31

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.

29th Jun 2005, 13:17

Have you/have you thought about comparing the fx4800 with the fx57 in some benchies?

yodasarmpit · 30th Jun 2005, 00:54

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 Jun 2005, 13:33

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 Jun 2005, 20:35

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 Jun 2005, 20:36

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 Jun 2005, 20:44

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 Jun 2005, 21:05

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.

27th Jun 2005, 07:14	#3
TMM Modder Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 3,228	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+ __________________ no, your face.

27th Jun 2005, 08:07	#4
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	the 4000+ was a 2400MHz Sledgehammer, as reviewed back at the fx55 launch. __________________ 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)

27th Jun 2005, 09:30	#5
Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: An hour north of Boston Posts: 12,576	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. __________________ hire me @ eric-stern.com - web developer and php ninja pics @ my smugmug :: Twitter @firehed :: blog @ firehed.net 40D\|580EXII\|285HV\|AB800\|70-200f/4LIS\|17-50f/2.8\|150f/2.8Macro\|50f/1.8 MacPro @ 8x2.8GHz, 10GB FBDDR2, 3TB HD :: MBP @ 2x2.2GHz, 4GB DDR2, 320GB HD

27th Jun 2005, 12:59	#7
Lost.Soul Supermodder Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Prague, Czech Rep. Posts: 339	The high resolution game benchies made me laugh... 0,1 fps gain compare to FX55... Its not as good as I expected __________________ "I really don´t know what weapons will people use in WW3, but they will fight with clubs and stones in WW4..." A. Einstein -= \| FX-55 at 2808Mhz - DFI LANParty SLI-DR - 1GB OCZ DDR3200 EL Rev. 2.0 - GainWard 7800GTX GS SLI 525/1330 - WD Raptor 74GB - 2* Maxtor 300GB - OCZ Powerstream 520W \| =-

27th Jun 2005, 13:32	#9
ou7blaze sensational. Join Date: May 2003 Location: Kowloon, Hong Kong. Posts: 2,625	Sounds crappy... __________________ █▓▒▒▓█▓▒▒▓█▓▒▒▓█▓▒▒▓ Originally Posted by Greeneyedguy advice to all u masturbators... its a good idea to keep a pringles can with the bottom cut out next to u so u can put it over ur wang when ur parents come and tell em u were enjoyong some delicious low-fat potato chips...

27th Jun 2005, 05:34	#2
The_Pope Geoff Richards Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Posts: 2,089	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...

27th Jun 2005, 12:31	#6
Latvietis What's a Dremel? Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Latvia Posts: 8	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.

27th Jun 2005, 13:27	#8
webbyman Hax. Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Uk Posts: 2,758	looks pretty cr*p if you ask me didn't exactly clot well either value for money... nope edit: me thinks it more to do with GPU limitations

27th Jun 2005, 14:36	#10
The_Pope Geoff Richards Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Posts: 2,089	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

27th Jun 2005, 15:37	#11
RotoSequence Lazy Lurker Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: 'States Posts: 4,529	And while you're at it, why not check how high the FX-57 goes on aftermarket heatsinks like the Zalman 7700? __________________ Technology Schmecnology

27th Jun 2005, 17:31	#13
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	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. __________________ 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)

29th Jun 2005, 13:17	#14
charl3s_fatal1ty Guest Posts: n/a	Have you/have you thought about comparing the fx4800 with the fx57 in some benchies?

30th Jun 2005, 20:35	#17
Stephen Brooks Minimodder Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: INTERNET Posts: 32	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.

30th Jun 2005, 21:05	#20
padrejones2001 Puppy Love Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: a:/> format c: Posts: 1,012	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. __________________ Teh Signature \| Teh Puppy