Athlon 64

www.bit-tech.net/review/264

Interesting huh?

 

I got to the £575 part and promptly stopped reading

 

AHHH nice

 

Is it just me, or are those 3dmark benchies far lower than they should be with a 5900 Ultra? I know they mean jack-poo, but is there something actually going on there or is it just lack of tweaking? Oh, and is there anything about how the FX overclocks

 

So when do we see 64-bit applications?

 

WOW its hella expensive but i guess it can be, i'm sure lots of people are going to be willing to pay. I saw a thread on another random forum a few weeks ago where they were overclocking the A64 and it went to insane speeds, stable at close to 4ghz iirc, cleared 20000 3dmarks with default gfx. and that was with the stock heatsink, no watercooling or anything. so it looks primising.

Looks good but far too expensive and more powerful then the majority of the masses will need. always good to see progression though. interested in the new Intel offerings, see how they fare. Be interesting to see who is leading in 12 months time. can only wait and see.

nice article

 

The 256mb Ultra doesn't score overly highly at default settings, neither does the 9800. I don't see the point in completely stripping everything out as when would you ever play a game like that? So I keep the settings at a reasonable quality, and yes I have seen over 22k with this setup so far so stay tuned

 

I think I'm far too used to everything being overclocked in 3dmark systems

 

I want it!!!

Shame its so expensive. I'll wait till there are water blocks available for it too.. and wait for abit to make a board ( I hate arse-us ) and maybe wait till the opteron.. *sigh* too much waiting.

 

ecc registered DDR
hope the athlon 64 isnt much of a performance drop from the athlon fx, dont want ecc or the extra price tag

 

Well first off the Waterchill has support for it already, in the next article I will be watercooling it I hope. FX will be released again in a non ECC version which should be a cost saver and a damn slight easier to find the RAM for. The 64 is on average 5-10% slower than the FX51 which is still an absolutely stunningly fast CPU.

 

will the non ECC FX still have dual ddr?

 

It most certainly will since that's the main architectural difference between the FX and 64.

 

Way too expensive and it looks like Intel has rained on AMD's parade already: Tom's Hardware

 

mmmmmmmmm............ flow charts


cool, need some 64-bit programs though

/me waits for a really cool itanium chip

 

With the latest evolution of an old chip.

These are just the first steppings of the 64/FX - wait until it has been in development for as long as the P4 has been before making those sorts of comparisons.

*n

 

I wouldn't read too much into THG's review. Look carefully at the graphs. They have intentionally overclocked the P4 to take top spot, the normal extreme gets bested in most tests by the FX51....

 

True, still too expensive though, especially when you have to factor in a new motherboard. For me personally that goes for intels too, as the best CPU I can have in my current MB is an XP3000 with 333 FSB. I currently have an XP2200 and I'm waiting for the XP3000 to drop to around the £100 mark so I can get another years use out of my current set-up.

I'm loath to spend a great deal upgrading at the moment with the possibility of a completely new motherboard form factor, which would require a new case to suite, and PCI-X within a year.

 

You don't need to upgrade to get another year's use

I'm sticking with my 1800+ until next autumn or so...Until prices have dropped a bit and new steppings are out.

*n

 

.