• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Anand uses FX-51 for roundup.

rgreen83

Senior member
Feb 5, 2003
766
0
0
Anyone notice yet that Anand says that enough people complained about how slow the [prescott] processor was in the first part of the video card roundup that it had to be replaced with something faster. What could be faster you might wonder? Well lets just say they used an Athlon FX-51 in the second part of the roundup! :eek: :Q ;)
 

OddTSi

Senior member
Feb 14, 2003
371
0
0
Anyone also notice that the Prescott he used was a pre-production stepping running at 2.8GHz not the 3.4GHz (or possibly higher) that it will be running when an official production stepping is made?
 

rgreen83

Senior member
Feb 5, 2003
766
0
0
Originally posted by: OddTSi
Anyone also notice that the Prescott he used was a pre-production stepping running at 2.8GHz not the 3.4GHz (or possibly higher) that it will be running when an official production stepping is made?
Funny I havent seen anyone with a review sample of this 3.4ghz prescott? hmm wonder if they will ever release faster versions of the Athlon FX later also?

*edit* To be fair though, yes it was of course an engineering sample and yes I do hope the prescott brings some good things to the table, most of which is I hope 64bit is built in. But Im kind of a "here and now" type of person, and my FX-51 system and both here, and now, and lets just say it is the fastest thing on the block. ;)
 

Jumpem

Lifer
Sep 21, 2000
10,755
3
81
Originally posted by: rgreen83
Funny I havent seen anyone with a review sample of this 3.4ghz prescott? hmm wonder if they will ever release faster versions of the Athlon FX later also?
AMD is supposed to release the FX-52, FX-53, etc. with higher clock speeds.

 

rgreen83

Senior member
Feb 5, 2003
766
0
0
Yeah I know faster versions will come out, I was just poking OddTSi 's ribs a little. And depending on if and when prescott is released even if it is at full speed, faster fx's will be available without Chernobyl-like 100+ wattages.

I guess I figured though that the numbers for FX would be released in even numbers as the opterons have (i.e., 242<244<246) instead of consecutive like 51<52<53? Anyone know anything about that?
 

DerwenArtos12

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
4,278
0
0
Also, does anyone know what the speeds for the 52 and 53 are gonna be? The 51 is 2.2 so will they just go 2.3 and 2.4 or what?
 

mrgoblin

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2003
1,075
0
0
FX's will never EVER be under 400 and in production so I wouldnt bother with them. The 754 pins will be mainstream and the fx's will be uber.
 

MrEgo

Senior member
Jan 17, 2003
874
0
76
Whenever the 939 pin versions of the FX's come out, I'm sure the FX-51 will have been pushed down greatly in price. It looks to be a decent overclocker too.
 

MangoTBG

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2003
3,101
0
71
And depending on if and when prescott is released even if it is at full speed, faster fx's will be available without Chernobyl-like 100+ wattages.
Wow, you really are a fanboy, aren't you? Does it matter what wattages a CPU is at? Let me refraise that...You're talking about speed. Now, if the Prescott is faster than any AMD out there, you're saying now that you'll be bitching about how "atleast my FX uses less electricity!!! I see the effects on my electric statement!!!11!1!1!!!!"

Get a life, chump. You're just trying to rationalize your purchase. ;) Deep down, you must not think the 64 was worth your money ;)


So pass me off as an Intel Fanboy, lashing back. Post. Then take a walk over to my other thread and feel silly. :)
 

MrEgo

Senior member
Jan 17, 2003
874
0
76
I care a lot about wattage, and I'm sure a lot of other people do as well. Wattage means heat and energy used.
If a Prescott used 103W and other processors used 70W, 75W, I'd take that into consideration. If the other processors were 90W, 95W, etc, then I wouldn't really consider the amount of power used.
 

Megatomic

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
20,128
6
81
Originally posted by: MangoTBG
So pass me off as an Intel Fanboy, lashing back. Post. Then take a walk over to my other thread and feel silly. :)
It's too bad I couldn't muster up the cash to make that deal with you Mango... It would sure be fun to talk a walk on the wildside. :)
 
Sep 15, 2003
139
0
0
Thats funny didnt I just take a bunch of crap over stating somthing similar in a recent thread? But was told I was making this stuff up. LOL.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
18
81
Originally posted by: MrEgo
I care a lot about wattage, and I'm sure a lot of other people do as well. Wattage means heat and energy used.
If a Prescott used 103W and other processors used 70W, 75W, I'd take that into consideration. If the other processors were 90W, 95W, etc, then I wouldn't really consider the amount of power used.
IIRC, the Slot-A Athlon used up MUCH more power than a comparable PIII...we all know who won that battle in the end tho.

I agree that power usage needs to be considered, but I'm pretty sure today's power supplies are more than up to the task.
 

MrEgo

Senior member
Jan 17, 2003
874
0
76
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: MrEgo
I care a lot about wattage, and I'm sure a lot of other people do as well. Wattage means heat and energy used.
If a Prescott used 103W and other processors used 70W, 75W, I'd take that into consideration. If the other processors were 90W, 95W, etc, then I wouldn't really consider the amount of power used.
IIRC, the Slot-A Athlon used up MUCH more power than a comparable PIII...we all know who won that battle in the end tho.

I agree that power usage needs to be considered, but I'm pretty sure today's power supplies are more than up to the task.

Coincidentally, that's when I used to buy Intel chips. I was really ignorant back then though. I'm not saying Intel is bad at all, but I always thought AMD was strictly a value processor without any competition to Intel.
 
Sep 15, 2003
139
0
0
Thats 32 bit. What about 64 bit? Prescott cant do it. Game Over Prescott.

By the time Precott gets out the door many will be moving or been moved to 64 bit OS and a few apps. Even if Opteron stays withing 5% of the best prescott can do I will still buy an Opteron for the 64 bit capability and the future of the processor.

Prescott
PRESenting Continued Old Technology Trends.

Its Obsolete before it makes it to market.

 

Duvie

Elite Member
Feb 5, 2001
16,215
0
71
Originally posted by: Ticktanium2038
Thats 32 bit. What about 64 bit? Prescott cant do it. Game Over Prescott.

By the time Precott gets out the door many will be moving or been moved to 64 bit OS and a few apps. Even if Opteron stays withing 5% of the best prescott can do I will still buy an Opteron for the 64 bit capability and the future of the processor.

Prescott
PRESenting Continued Old Technology Trends.

Its Obsolete before it makes it to market.
So was the athlon64 and FX since they will be changing rather quickly to a new socket and leaving your new mobo will be leaving you little options to upgrade. I often get 2 chips per mobo cycle and to me that is unacceptable. Most reputable sites have stated this is a reason they may not endorse getting one right now....


I think you show you base you ASSumptions on a overwhelming hatred or jealousy for INtel products....Get a life!!!

 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
76
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: Ticktanium2038
Thats 32 bit. What about 64 bit? Prescott cant do it. Game Over Prescott.

By the time Precott gets out the door many will be moving or been moved to 64 bit OS and a few apps. Even if Opteron stays withing 5% of the best prescott can do I will still buy an Opteron for the 64 bit capability and the future of the processor.

Prescott
PRESenting Continued Old Technology Trends.

Its Obsolete before it makes it to market.
So was the athlon64 and FX since they will be changing rather quickly to a new socket and leaving your new mobo will be leaving you little options to upgrade. I often get 2 chips per mobo cycle and to me that is unacceptable. Most reputable sites have stated this is a reason they may not endorse getting one right now....


I think you show you base you ASSumptions on a overwhelming hatred or jealousy for INtel products....Get a life!!!
Well Duvie, we needed someone to counter smashp :)
 

rgreen83

Senior member
Feb 5, 2003
766
0
0
Originally posted by: MangoTBG
And depending on if and when prescott is released even if it is at full speed, faster fx's will be available without Chernobyl-like 100+ wattages.
Wow, you really are a fanboy, aren't you? Does it matter what wattages a CPU is at? Let me refraise that...You're talking about speed. Now, if the Prescott is faster than any AMD out there, you're saying now that you'll be bitching about how "atleast my FX uses less electricity!!! I see the effects on my electric statement!!!11!1!1!!!!"

Get a life, chump. You're just trying to rationalize your purchase. ;) Deep down, you must not think the 64 was worth your money ;)

So pass me off as an Intel Fanboy, lashing back. Post. Then take a walk over to my other thread and feel silly. :)
Actually I dont care about electricity bills, it is more about how many people have the means to overclock a cpu which dissipates 103w stock? Anyways, I meant not that the FX would continue to be faster than the prescott in the end, but that faster clockspeeds of FX would also be released for the prescott to compete with also (I think that should be a given).

I think I am quite happy with my purchase. Ill send you the excel spreadsheet of its contents if you would like, it is a gaming machine, not a media encoding/decoding machine, so of course I used the athlon instead of the p4. And why would I need to rationalize my purchase anyways, I wanted the best so I had to pony for sure, but I dont think intel will be discounting prescotts will they?

Lastly, ok you are a intel fanboy if I am an amd fanboy. Feel better? From now on, if you're going to thread crap, dont be a lamer and use it to link to your FS/T items. ( which are nice, but ill stick to my NF7-S, 2500 at 200x11, and stock cooler - i think at less than $200 it is not worth the extra $90 for yours)

Man parts now measured by all parties, can we still be friends? :D
 

Shimmishim

Elite Member
Feb 19, 2001
7,504
0
76
argh

can we all just love each other?

so much hatred between intel and amd fanboys...

can't we just agree to disagree and end it at that?

k thanks...

btw.. i'm not partial to either... i like both! :)
 

Jeff7181

Lifer
Aug 21, 2002
18,368
10
81
Originally posted by: edmundoab
gosh the price difference of the athlon 64 3200 and Athlon FX is really big.

whats the ultimate difference between these two processors?
The most significant difference right now is the FX is capable of dual memory channels, and the 3200+ only has a single channel. The FX also requires registered memory, which is more expensive, and known to be slightly slower than non-registered memory.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Intel will prevail.
I own AMD, I suggest AMD, I will buy AMD.
...but there's no way Intel will allow themselves to be trumped for long. Just won't happen. They may have to release 3.4GHz Northwoods and actuially put out the P4 EE, but they will make it, and it will finally push the A64 to reasonable prices.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY