Buy FX-55 now or wait for nForce 4?

[suave3747]

Don't get me wrong exdeath, if someone wants to shell out the $900 for the FX-55 to have the peace of mind that they will unquestionably get 2.6GHz of performance, I certainly wouldn't knock them for that.

I am just giving a counterpoint.

I have yet to hear of anyone saying that their 90nm chip was a bad overclocker. I don't doubt that some unfortunate soul will get a dud that is stuck at stock speed, but the evidence thus far has shown that it is a stellar overclocker.

For $300, to have the chance to get the clock speed of an FX-55, I think that is an incredible bargain. I also think that if you have the money to spend on both SLI nVidia cards AND an FX-55, then that would be a good idea for the peace of mind, the warranty, the extra cache and the unlocked multiplier. But if you don't have 2 big ones laying around to spend on your CPU/GPU setup, or you want to wait for a 90nm FX-55, then I think the winchester chips are the best thing since birth control.

 

[exdeath]

Nothing against overclocking cheaper CPUs, just saying it's not always a sure thing.

It's up to the user to determine if he/she is willing to accept and live with 'only' 2.2 GHz in the even that the chip is a poor overclocker and if that chance is worth the extra $500 or so

Or in last minute desperation at not getting the higly anticipated 2.6 Ghz as expected, rush out and buy a more expensive CPU anyway and end up buying 2 cpus ... just getting the FX55 in the first place would have been cheaper.

Just my experience, I was the ONLY person in the world who had a Celeron 300A that just absolutely could not run at 450 reguardless of voltage and cooling. Everyone else could get 512 MHz easy...

...

* pets his FX55 @ 2.8 *

 

[Aries64]

Everyone lists the 3500+ and automatically assumes EVERYONE will get lucky and get a chip that can do 2.6 Ghz. It's just not a sure thing. Keep that in mind before recommending an overclocked 3500+ over the stock FX-55.

I agree with you there 100% exdeath. I recently built my first AMD system and opted for an FX-53 S939 instead of a 3000-series. I LIKE the 1MB L2, Dual Channel Memory Controller, and the automatic 2.4GHz out-of-the-box, easy OC to 2,512MHz+. No fussing around with all the variables in your system. Basta!!!

FXs' definitely are an expensive way to go but if you can afford it and it floats your boat I say go for it. It reminds me of the SCSI versus IDE interface thing. People always want the fastest but there is a limit to how much of a premium they are willing to pay for a nominal increase in performance. SCSI still rules in terms of overall perfomance, lower CPU utilization, and data reliability but people are unwilling to pay the price so they convince themselves that IDE, EIDE, ATA, Ultra ATA, and SATA are "just as good". BS!!!

BTW, although my new FX-53-based system kicks ass on my (still quite fast) P4 3.4C system I AM jealous of that FX-55 you lucky bastard! (Heavy sigh). I hadn't updated my computer for a few years then I caught the gaming bug again and now I've already built and upgraded processors and mobos twice in about a year. You can only stay on top for 3 months before the next big thing...

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Aries64

Everyone lists the 3500+ and automatically assumes EVERYONE will get lucky and get a chip that can do 2.6 Ghz. It's just not a sure thing. Keep that in mind before recommending an overclocked 3500+ over the stock FX-55.

I agree with you there 100% exdeath. I recently built my first AMD system and opted for an FX-53 S939 instead of a 3000-series. I LIKE the 1MB L2, Dual Channel Memory Controller, and the automatic 2.4GHz out-of-the-box, easy OC to 2,512MHz+. No fussing around with all the variables in your system. Basta!!!

FXs' definitely are an expensive way to go but if you can afford it and it floats your boat I say go for it. It reminds me of the SCSI versus IDE interface thing. People always want the fastest but there is a limit to how much of a premium they are willing to pay for a nominal increase in performance. SCSI still rules in terms of overall perfomance, lower CPU utilization, and data reliability but people are unwilling to pay the price so they convince themselves that IDE, EIDE, ATA, Ultra ATA, and SATA are "just as good". BS!!!

BTW, although my new FX-53-based system kicks ass on my (still quite fast) P4 3.4C system I AM jealous of that FX-55 you lucky bastard! (Heavy sigh). I hadn't updated my computer for a few years then I caught the gaming bug again and now I've already built and upgraded processors and mobos twice in about a year. You can only stay on top for 3 months before the next big thing...

http://members.cox.net/~exdeath/raid.jpg
http://members.cox.net/~exdeath/tach.jpg

Care to rescind the SCSI vs SATA comments?

I only contest this because I too used to be a SCSI fanatic, having owned (and still running in my previous system) 2 Cheetah X15s in a RAID0 array on both an Adaptec 3400S and a Mylex 352, and I have to say, price no object, these raptors absolutely WASTE my SCSI RAID0 array!!! Not to mention I no longer have a 10 foot long RAID card or a 7 mile long LVD cable in my system hehehe.

Heh now go get that FX-55

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: exdeath
Nothing against overclocking cheaper CPUs, just saying it's not always a sure thing.

It's up to the user to determine if he/she is willing to accept and live with 'only' 2.2 GHz in the even that the chip is a poor overclocker and if that chance is worth the extra $500 or so

Or in last minute desperation at not getting the higly anticipated 2.6 Ghz as expected, rush out and buy a more expensive CPU anyway and end up buying 2 cpus ... just getting the FX55 in the first place would have been cheaper.

Just my experience, I was the ONLY person in the world who had a Celeron 300A that just absolutely could not run at 450 reguardless of voltage and cooling. Everyone else could get 512 MHz easy...

...

* pets his FX55 @ 2.8 *

Exactly! And 2.8, 1 mb lvl 2, you aint gettin' period from that cheaper chip.

what mobo you using?

 

[exdeath]

The Neo2 of course.

 

[Zebo]

Yuck. I've had nothing but bad experiances with MSI. Waiting for ASUS/ABIT/DFI NF3 or 4 before making the jump. My Neoplat would'nt even run stock mem speeds with BH-5 winbond ram which flys in sktA boards.

Hehe I like this: 'Clean and sleek without ANY pointless lights or stupid rotating flashing dancing plastic raver blue $hit. '

Nice setup irreguardless.

 

[exdeath]

That sucks. I can run my Corsair XLPT @ 2.75v at 2-2-2-5-1T @ DDR400 or at 2.5-3-3-7-1T (if I recall) at DDR500.

I seem to get better performance running DDR400 with fast timings though.

 

[Zebo]

Really? Did you test with sandra mem bench? Should be getting about 7100 @250 vs about 6200@200 even with those timings.

BTW 2.5-3-3-10-1T and 2-2-2-10-1T should give best results. You can test this quick and dirty like, by booting up memtest86 and look at the mem bandwidth in the upper left hand side of screen at various settings. Highest value wins.

 

[imported_NoGodForMe]

Great post Aries64, I think the same way.
When I build a system I go all out, which future proofs my investment.
I only buy SCSI drives with the Adaptec controller, because they don't fail and I can notice the speed differance.
Yeah, I'm a little bit jealous of the FX55, because my FX53 "only" clocks up to 2772, whereas "lucky" people are doing better. I'd have to say I have a "regular" chip. I've heard on another message board, that newer versions of the FX53/FX55 clock much higher, which is why AMD came out with the FX55.
Still, I've got some great scores setting my OC just above 2600 using the 10% OC from Asus. Doom3 just flies, I've got a score of 120fps running timedemo1. This is just sick, but like a sports car freak, I want the most I can get.
Anyone wanna buy my "regular" FX53 for half price? He he.

 

[suave3747]

This situation actually applies to all major purchases I guess.

To relate this to another thing I've been into for a long time, with performance autos, there was always a debate about the cost vs. effectiveness of a buying decision.

One camp (the came I was in) felt that buying a car like a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution and tuning it to be faster and better handling than a Ferrari was a smarter choice than buying a Ferrari. But the Ferrari side contended that no matter how fast our Evo was, it would never be a Ferrari, and would never have the prestige that a Ferrari has.

But, it's very difficult for the two sides to see eye to eye, because one of them can afford a Ferrari, and the other can't

But, it is the same thing here. Some will be willing to buy the $300 cpu and a great heatsink and clock it up to 2.6ghz, while some would rather pay the $900 to have the extra cache and to start at 2.6ghz from the beginning.

To each his own

 

[exdeath]

How much better are 'others' doing with the FX-53?

My FX-53 wouldn't even do 2.5 much less 2.6 and your getting 2.7?

See ... thats EXACTLY the reason why I bought a FX-55 and just got it done with. Not only do I get a get a waranteed minimum speed increase, but it also re-randomizes the chance for an OC if the previous chip sucked.

Two reasons I upgrade CPUs so fast:

1) faster chip, period, even if both CPUS suck
2) if the first chip was a suck OC, the new chip is gauranteed to be faster, but I can try my luck with a new chip and be even faster


On that note, I'm going to get a Koolance Exos Al to go with my ATC-111 and see if I can get to 3 Ghz It boots, but hits 70C in prime95 and starts generating errors in about a minute.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: suave3747
This situation actually applies to all major purchases I guess.

To relate this to another thing I've been into for a long time, with performance autos, there was always a debate about the cost vs. effectiveness of a buying decision.

One camp (the came I was in) felt that buying a car like a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution and tuning it to be faster and better handling than a Ferrari was a smarter choice than buying a Ferrari. But the Ferrari side contended that no matter how fast our Evo was, it would never be a Ferrari, and would never have the prestige that a Ferrari has.

But, it's very difficult for the two sides to see eye to eye, because one of them can afford a Ferrari, and the other can't

But, it is the same thing here. Some will be willing to buy the $300 cpu and a great heatsink and clock it up to 2.6ghz, while some would rather pay the $900 to have the extra cache and to start at 2.6ghz from the beginning.

To each his own

Yeah but after you spend getting that ricer up to 400 HP to match a Ferrari, you can have a twin turbo 1200 HP Ferrari

It's not quite the same though, more like comparing the same car in different trim levels.

 

[imported_NoGodForMe]

Originally posted by: exdeath
How much better are 'others' doing with the FX-53?

On that note, I'm going to get a Koolance Exos Al to go with my ATC-111 and see if I can get to 3 Ghz It boots, but hits 70C in prime95 and starts generating errors in about a minute.

Yes, I'm getting 2.7, but can't seem to break thru to 2.8. I'm going to try a multiplier of 13 with a FSB of 216 (2808) and see if that works.
70c is very hot, I'm surprised your machine hasn't shut down. I set my voltage to 1.8 (the max) and tried 2800 and near the end of 3dMark05, mine just shut down. Chips can heat up in seconds. If you're testing with Prime95, I'd have the MB monitor running at the same time so you can watch it. The Koolance will definately help, but when you push the voltages up, the temps rise as well. For example, at 1.55 volts, my idle CPU temp is 41c. At 1.725 volts it's about 53c, a huge jump. I read an older story of someone who OCed an Athlon 1.7 to 2.0 or something like that. Started Prime95 and went off to watch a movie. Came back and his screen was black and computer would no longer boot. At least testing with 3dMark05, it's only for a couple minutes. You'll be thrilled with the Koolance.

 

[exdeath]

I only tried that to see, I'm not going to push my luck past 2.8 without some active cooling.

The only cooler I have now is the retail HS/fan from the FX-53, the 3500 rpm fan with the solid block of aluminum, not the one with the tiny copper fins. Could definately do prob 10C better with a better air cooler but with everything leading to the thermaltake venus/volcano systems and the tornado fans and all that....

I think it's time to go liquid anyway, it's not longer avoidable.

3.0 or not, I don't want 2 x 6800 Ultras making all that noise and heat when SLI comes out. My 6800U blower is like 60% of my overall system noise.

 

[HALTRON]

As with regards to the GPU's you have planned i would wait for the next generation of cards to come out. Theses promise to have 512MB
onboard RAM which we find games like Doom 3 require in order to be played at the highest settings. But this is only if future proofing is important to you. I imagine theses cards will cost though.

 

[Aries64]

Care to rescind the SCSI vs SATA comments?

Hey exdeath, nice benchies with the SATA! However, unless I am reading that data incorrectly I don't see SCSI getting beat. Maybe I'm old-school, (I built my first computer many years ago using SCSI for it's ease of configuration (1 IRQ and 1 DMA used!), much faster performance, and RELIABILITY. I wonder if the numbers would change if you ran a benchmark using Ultra320 hardware - say an Adaptec 39320R (Dual-Channel Ultra320) and a pair of Ultra320 Cheetah 15Ks'?

I have to say though, I am very tempted by SATA drives. Fast, inexpensive, massive storage capacity, built-in RAID support on mobo. SCSI is still so fuc%$in expensive. $300 for a 36.7GB Ultra320 Cheetah 15K. I hate the fact that SCSI's price/performance ratio is way behind that of SATA.

I may try some SATA drives on my next system. I just hate the idea of having perfectly good SCSI cards (29320R in my system plus a 29160R Ultra160 card in wife's system, as well as an old 2940U2W Ultra2 card in my daughter's system. Obviously, all are attached to hard drives and CD-ROM, ect.

Of course, SAS (Serial-Attached SCSI) is coming too...

Heh now go get that FX-55

Dammit, lets' see - bought my FX-53 and an Asus A8V Deluxe Wi-Fi in July, then got my K8N Neo2 Platinum in August - I KNOW I should wait a little while before upgrading my processor. Still, a 2.8GHz FX must totally own in games with a fast video card. Its almost cheating...

 

[exdeath]

Aries64:

Be careful with the lower left. You obviously know enough about drive systems to realize that say, because SCSI U320 = 320 MB/sec interface bandwidth spec, that doesn't mean anything you plug into is 320 MB/sec, thats only the max bus speed.

What you are seeing is the interface spec compared to the actual current phyaical burst rate. As we all know, the physical interface max burst spec is just the electrical interface. So if you had 32 cheetahs in raid 0 on a U320 card (assume same channel) your still topped out at 320 MB/sec by the electronics and cables and if you only had 1 drive you wouldnt push more than 50-70MB/sec (high end drives anyway) and burst about 100 or so. The chart on the lower left of hd tach just tells me, for example, that a single SATA 150 channel or a SCSI U160 channel would be WAY overrun by the current burst rate of my drives, and even the 300 MB/sec of 2x150 SATA channels is getting quicky encrouched upon. That means each raptor is clost to bursting 150 MB/sec... but only CLOSE, not quite, which means the SATA interface is still faster than any single physical drive transfer rate. By the time that happens, SATA II with 300 MB/sec per single drive channel will be the norm on all mainboards

What that is showing on my post is 2 SATA drives are basically close to saturating a U320 bus all by themselves; my X15s had plenty of breathing room on a U160 bus. Four Raptor drives would exceed 320 MB'sec easily. And unlike U320 where 4 drives would compete for the same 320 MB/sec, SATA is 150 MB sec dedicated per drive which means a peak burst rate of 300 MB/sec with 2 drives and 600 MB/sec with 4 drives, where as with SCSI U320, your max burst rate is always 320 MB/sec, and adding more drives just gets you closer to that before it levels off, in leu of duplexing multiple cards and bus slots. Of course we are always bus limited; another benefit in my system is the SATA controller is built into the nforce3 basically sitting on the several GB/sec hyper transport bus without any PCI bottlenecks

I will see about putting the cheetahs X15s and mylex 352 card in this system once I clear them off and back up data. not being the primary OS drive gives me some flexibility as far as setting up the RAID parameters and being able to being on clean drives starting with the outer tracks (as I did here with the raptors, FYI raptor physical rate is 70 MB/sec on the outer tracks so 140MB/sec sustained for 2 in RAID0 is spot on) If I remember right, the 2 X15s in RAID0 only delivered something like 70-80 MB/sequential read speed (ie: sustained physical transfer rate)

Reliability: Raptors have 5 year warranty like any SCSI drive.

Not trying to persuade you or knock SCSI, remember I have a 15K SCSI RAID so I speak from experience After all the Raptor is the exception, it's basically a SCSI cheetah with a SATA interface

Beleive me I was in denial for about a week when I compared the 2, how could $300 in drives and free SATA raid controller smoke my $400 cheetahs and $1000 hardware SCSI RAID ?!?!?

sigh... can't wait to see what SAS has to offer

 

[exdeath]

That was a nice ramble... lol

Anyhow, controller interface aside, if you simple compare a single Raptor WD740 and a Cheetah X15, the raptor actually has a higher sustained transfer rate! Cheetah seek time of 3.9ms vs the raptors 4.5ms is close enough, but I would say the X15 uses 2.5" platters and the raptor uses 3.5" platters? Don't quote me on that!

Check out storagereview.com and compare. The raptor was put up against several enterprise grade SCSI drives and it spanked for the most part. Price no object, the Raptor came out on top, even when compared to 15K SCSI drives!!!

SCSI is still better for severe mutlitasking (ie: multiple users) due mostly to its command queueing. NCQ is built into SATA but its kinda broken right now, lacking support in controllers even though the drives have it. SATA II should address that and enable NCQ and allow SATA to compete with SCSI in a multiuser environment as well!

Anyhow, I only know the Raptors are faster due to benchmarking. Had someone swapped raptors in place of my X15s without me knowing, I wouldn't notice! Thats saying alot about SATA (mostly the Raptor though) that the system feels for all intents and purposes like a SCSI system

Note: I do have to mention my Cheetahs are the original 18.4 GB version, I know the new 15k.4 and what not are much faster. However the articles on storage review DO use the newer versions of the X15 and the raptor is at least AS fast or faster than any currently available SCSI drive, spindle speed aside.

Of course I should point out 15K RPM of the X15 isnt for lineal transfer rate, its for low rotational latency combined with 2.5" platters making it still probably the fastest drive for random seeking even though the raptor is essentially right there...

enough rambling By all means keeping using a b*tching SCSI system Just keeping you informed that SCSI doesn't mean the end of the line anymore like it used to. I learned that lesson the hard way

 

[imported_NoGodForMe]

I did more testing using Memtest and Prime95.
I found the highest my Corsair PC3200XLPro (2225) will go is 231mz FSB on the MB. (231x12 = 2772). That's why I can't hit 2.8.
But one stick fails Prime95 at 2225 timings. I'll probably send them in to be replaced.
Many are buying the PC3200XLPro because of the tight 2225 timings. If you're trying to go 40 or 50mz over on the FSB, it may be to high for the memory. It seems you would need PC4400 if you want to OC 40Mz, even if that means relaxed timings.

The question I have is how high can Corsair PC3200XLPro memory OC?

 

[exdeath]

I'm just running 14x200 running the RAM at 22251 @ 200

Does the XL Pro ram overclock any less than the normal XL? I would think the leds and the extra tiny bit of electronics for that would just be extra needless loading on the IO bus lines, however insignificant.

The 2225 timings are advertised at 2.75V @ DDR400. 2.85v is common RAM voltage to run at higher speeds with fast DDR400 ram, and I wouldnt count on 2225 beyond 220 mhz or so if I remember right.

In other words if your ram is passing memtest at 2.75v DDR400 @ 2225, it is fine.

 

[formulav8]

I have some BH5 ram I am selling. 2 - 512MB sticks of Patriot LL. Works perfectly for me at 2225-200mhz. I don't OC so I don't know how high it goes. $250 shipped Just figured I would throw this out there



Jason

 

[PumpActionWalrus]

Originally posted by: exdeath
How much better are 'others' doing with the FX-53?

My FX-53 wouldn't even do 2.5 much less 2.6 and your getting 2.7?

See ... thats EXACTLY the reason why I bought a FX-55 and just got it done with. Not only do I get a get a waranteed minimum speed increase, but it also re-randomizes the chance for an OC if the previous chip sucked.

Two reasons I upgrade CPUs so fast:

1) faster chip, period, even if both CPUS suck
2) if the first chip was a suck OC, the new chip is gauranteed to be faster, but I can try my luck with a new chip and be even faster


On that note, I'm going to get a Koolance Exos Al to go with my ATC-111 and see if I can get to 3 Ghz It boots, but hits 70C in prime95 and starts generating errors in about a minute.

Go for a Dangerden system, itw ill outperform that Koolance system for less

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: PumpActionWalrus
Go for a Dangerden system, itw ill outperform that Koolance system for less

I wasn't away Dangerden had a complete 'system' ? I just see piecewise kits.

My case doesn't have 120mm fan slot for the radiator or enough room to put a dual 80mm radiator anywhere. It's a Coolermaster ATC111 and I refuse to cut anything, esp since they dont make it anymore


I think it's time to break out a CAD program and start work on my own case... mmm I love the luster of Ti6Al4V

 

[PumpActionWalrus]

@Last Software - Sketchup 4.0 Program just for making cases and whatnot, what case do you have by the way?