• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Early review of a real FX-57

Originally posted by: wafflesandsyrup
yay tests on 640x480
Click to expand...

Now I see that they want to differentiate the speeds of the processors, but who's going to spend $1000 on a gaming processor and play games at 640x480? To me, that test is only useful for Dell-ish type users. aka, "I got this gaming processor and one of these new, fast x300SE's!"

c'mon, we all know people like this.

edit - "btw, SE stands for 'Super Edition'" 😉
 
Originally posted by: ryanv12
Originally posted by: wafflesandsyrup
yay tests on 640x480
Click to expand...

Now I see that they want to differentiate the speeds of the processors, but who's going to spend $1000 on a gaming processor and play games at 640x480? To me, that test is only useful for Dell-ish type users. aka, "I got this gaming processor and one of these new, fast x300SE's!"

c'mon, we all know people like this.

edit - "btw, SE stands for 'Super Edition'" 😉
Click to expand...

While you are correct, there are still quite a few games that don't allow for higher resolutions. Just a thought...
 
Originally posted by: Viditor

While you are correct, there are still quite a few games that don't allow for higher resolutions. Just a thought...
Click to expand...

but these games will run on fine a 1.4 Ghz Athlon 😛
 
The reason they test 640x480 (and low detail, I'm guessing) is to test the CPU independently from the video card. If you play at 1280x1024, for example, your video card would probably become a bottleneck after like 70-80 fps. It's not a 100% realistic way to benchmark the cpus, but it gives you an idea of its potential in cpu intensive applications.
 
Originally posted by: Furen
The reason they test 640x480 (and low detail, I'm guessing) is to test the CPU independently from the video card. If you play at 1280x1024, for example, your video card would probably become a bottleneck after like 70-80 fps. It's not a 100% realistic way to benchmark the cpus, but it gives you an idea of its potential in cpu intensive applications.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand that. I just think if they tested at higher resolutions, one could get a good idea from the review if it would be worth it or not. I'm always down for CPU testing at multiple resolutions 😉
 
Originally posted by: Furen
The reason they test 640x480 (and low detail, I'm guessing) is to test the CPU independently from the video card. If you play at 1280x1024, for example, your video card would probably become a bottleneck after like 70-80 fps. It's not a 100% realistic way to benchmark the cpus, but it gives you an idea of its potential in cpu intensive applications.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself. It's not an indication of game performance, its simply a CPU limited benchmark.
 
"It simply crushes everything in its path in game performance and handles most of today?s common applications with power to spare. While it?s certainly not a multi-threaded capable chip, its pure single-threaded performance is undisputed. Intel can only dream of producing a chip this fast at this point in the game."

:thumbsup:
 
I'll wait for anandtech.. too many syntheics. but it's not like we don't know it's the fastest processor out when the year old Fx-55 was already the fastest.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
I'll wait for anandtech.. too many syntheics. but it's not like we don't know it's the fastest processor out when the year old Fx-55 was already the fastest.
Click to expand...

true. 😀
 
One question, What if I buy a Venice core and overclock it to lets say 3000+ @ 2.8 Ghz (312HTTx9) wound this match it's performence?
 
Originally posted by: MegaWorks
One question, What if I buy a Venice core and overclock it to lets say 3000+ @ 2.8 Ghz (312HTTx9) wound this match it's performence?
Click to expand...

no, it has less cache. but the bang for the buck would EASILY make up for it
 
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: MegaWorks
One question, What if I buy a Venice core and overclock it to lets say 3000+ @ 2.8 Ghz (312HTTx9) wound this match it's performence?
Click to expand...

no, it has less cache. but the bang for the buck would EASILY make up for it
Click to expand...

Sorry nick I suck at the A64 tech I'm more XP 😛, Ok Venice is 512k L2 so the diffrence is like 4% or more? Does That means I have to increase the Venice to 2.9 Ghz to match the FX-57.
 
well if the app in question will fit in the second 512kb of cache the venice will never catch up
if the app will fit in the first 512 then the performance will be the same
the benchmarkers use this trick all the time
watch for benchmarks of chips with 2-3mb of cache up against one with only one
they can make the larger cache look real good
but If that's not your app then SO WHAT

wyrmrider
 
The real target audience for the FX-57 is going to be the ultra-gamer who insists on nothing but the absolute fastest gaming CPU money can buy.
Click to expand...

Seriously, I don't think gamers will be the ones MOST jumping after this chip, I'd think we'd get more of the extreme PC hardware playboys shelling out the cash to see how far these chips can be pushed vs. the gaming community. It's quite clear that X2 and dualcore is here to stay with quad/multicore on the way. With X2s being plenty fast in single threads and exceptionally well in multi (moreso than their singlecore cousins), the gaming community would most likely be more concerned about an expensive / elaborate SLI setup. I'd much rather spend $500 less for a X2 4400+ and grab myself another top end video card with the money saved to complete my SLI setup vs. grab a $1000 FX57 - if I was rich that is 😉

Although I guess there are still those who are insanely rich and/or incredibly stupid. But to each his own I guess. If I had thousands of dollars lying around I'd probably grab myself an FX57 just for fun, but not even gaming is reason enough to go FX vs X2...heck you can game AND * with an X2...
 
It's still a good read, just to know the FX57 is finally coming out.

Only bummer is the older FX53 only sells for $450 in the FS/FT forums, so I doubt I'll be upgrading until the price comes down. I don't see FX55 users upgrading either. The FX53 tears thru the current games with no problem, even BF2 plays great on my machine. I see people building a new machine meant for gaming, or the OCers on Xtreme Systems buying this chip.
 
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
I'd much rather spend $500 less for a X2 4400+ and grab myself another top end video card with the money saved to complete my SLI setup vs. grab a $1000 FX57 - if I was rich that is 😉
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
if i was rich, i would hire 100 engineers to make me a quad athlon 64 fx mobo. then i would buy 4 fx-57's. also, the motherboard would have quad sli. and i could have 8 video cards, all working together. then i would mod a game so i could run it at 12341234x1234123 resolution. that would be sweet. 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top