Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: FX-55 vs FX-57

  1. #1
    Member White Rain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    240

    FX-55 vs FX-57

    From what I heard the 57 is going to be dual core, I'm not expert in amd although I'm trying to learn, but wouldn't that make them harder to overclock well?

    I'm going to be making a new computer around feb, I don't think the FX-57 is going to be out by then, so am probably going to get FX-55, will the 55 overclock better (in theory at least) making it the last great gaming monster b4 dual core or will the dual cores completely smash the 55's preformance benches?

  2. #2
    Member arnoldma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    748
    i didnt even know the 55s were out, i thought there was only 51 and 53... well, just shows how much i know!

    also there must hell of a price tag on the new 57s when they do come out, even the 53 is like 600! thats just stupid money for a CPU...
    New Intel rig. need sorting out before adding specs!

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Member arnoldma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    748
    oh god... aint these chips still on the 0.13n too? even thought its s939!
    New Intel rig. need sorting out before adding specs!

  5. #5
    Member Aphex_Tom_9's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    NY (Long Island)
    Posts
    4,008
    the 55's are 130 nm yes, but they use 'strained silicon technology' which gives some awesome overclocks, a guy at XS already got his to 3.8+ ghz

    MONOLITH - Xeon W3540 (testing) - Rampage 2 Extreme - 12 GB G.Skill Ripjaws 1600 - GTX 570 - 120 GB OCZ Vertex - Antec TruePower New 750W - Corsair 700D - Apogee XT - XSPC 360
    Hack1nt0sh - Core2Duo E4600 (11x335 : 3685) - 4 GB G.Skill (894) - HD 3850 (810/2120)- Asus P5W DH - OSX86 10.5.1 / Win 7
    MacBook Pro - i7 2.66 - 4 GB - GT 330M - OSX 10.6.4

    Opty 148 3504mhz
    Core2Duo 3917mhz

  6. #6
    Member White Rain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    240
    Either of you know anything about the 57's vs the 55's? hehe

  7. #7
    Member Aphex_Tom_9's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    NY (Long Island)
    Posts
    4,008
    i think the 57's will be like the 55's (130 nm, SS tech) but at a higher default clockspeed...

    MONOLITH - Xeon W3540 (testing) - Rampage 2 Extreme - 12 GB G.Skill Ripjaws 1600 - GTX 570 - 120 GB OCZ Vertex - Antec TruePower New 750W - Corsair 700D - Apogee XT - XSPC 360
    Hack1nt0sh - Core2Duo E4600 (11x335 : 3685) - 4 GB G.Skill (894) - HD 3850 (810/2120)- Asus P5W DH - OSX86 10.5.1 / Win 7
    MacBook Pro - i7 2.66 - 4 GB - GT 330M - OSX 10.6.4

    Opty 148 3504mhz
    Core2Duo 3917mhz

  8. #8
    Member White Rain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    240
    From what I've read they will be dual core ( 2 processors on 1 chip ) and I want to know what effect that will have on games and their ability to overclock.

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17262

  9. #9
    Member wpmegee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    401
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...618024759.html
    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17262

    Nothing about dual core on those two articles, and the Inq is usually pretty accurate.
    i7-2600k @ 4.5ghz | Xigmatek Gaia | ASRock P67 Extreme4 | 6gb G.Skill DDR3 | Sapphire 5850 | OCZ ModXStream 700W | Windows 7 Ultimate

  10. #10
    @md0Cer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    3,190
    Quote Originally Posted by White Rain
    From what I've read they will be dual core ( 2 processors on 1 chip ) and I want to know what effect that will have on games and their ability to overclock.

    As no one yet knows how they will overclock, I will offer a guess.

    I think if you can handle the thermal load, they should overclock to approximatly the same speed as the single cored version. Also, they will run at slower speeds at stock speeds. So..technically that is a better overclock if you got a 2.2GHz CPU to 2.7GHz vs. getting a 2.6GHz CPU to 2.7GHz. But as for the overall clockspeed, no one, not even I have any way of knowing, but I predict that if you can keep it cool, it might overclock to the same point or a little better. Why do I predict the same? Well..in very very simple terms...it is pretty much 2 CPU cores into one with one memory controller. They are the same cores, just that there is only one memory controller and they have to share the same socket etc. Why do I predict a little better? I predict this because they may use higher quality cores that can do the same clockspeed but at a lower voltage to handle the heat...kinda like a mobile CPU. Well, overclocking is just a big game of stability, in other words, how fast you can push it before losing stability. Well, if you have a CPU that does 1.8GHz on 1.0 Vcore vs. a CPU that does 1.8GHz on 1.5Vcore, of course the one that can do it on 1.0 will overclock better because if you pushed it up to 1.5 you will be able to get much farther than the 1.8 at 1.5Vcore staying at 1.5Vcore. Well, they are most likely going to try to use the best stuff for the dual core ones so they can run at lower voltage to produce less heat.

    But, you never know until people actually start getting the CPU's and overclocking them.
    Current System:
    XP 1700+ DLT3C 0310 XPMW 185X13.5 = 2.5GHz 1.875Vcore
    Thermalright SLK-900A
    Abit KD7 Via KT400 5:2:1 divider PCI: 37Mhz AGP:92.5Mhz
    3X256+512=1278MB RAM assortment 185Mhz 2.95Vdimm
    ATi Radeon X700 Pro 256mb Core:435Mhz Ram: 475Mhz
    Forton 400 watt PSU
    Black Cheiftec Dragon full side window

    Folding User Stats

  11. #11
    Member White Rain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    240
    Quote Originally Posted by wpmegee
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...618024759.html
    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17262

    Nothing about dual core on those two articles, and the Inq is usually pretty accurate.

    The title of the second article heh

  12. #12

    c(π*199780) Senior Member
    c627627's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    11,332
    The 57's will be 90nm and are not expected until next year.
    http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/


    The 90nm 3x00+s may overclock similar to 130nm 55s for a lot less $.

  13. #13
    Member White Rain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    240
    So you think that it will be a standard preformance jump as in processors in the past and not some monumental increase of preformance that would make me regret getting an fx55?

    As for the price, even w/ 90nm tec it still has 2 chips on the die intead of one, and either way I doubt they will be priced any less than their standard flagship price.

  14. #14

    c(π*199780) Senior Member
    c627627's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    11,332
    The dual core Toledos are 1 year away, we'll discuss their oveclockability in 2006, for now, we're still in 2004.

    The issue now is which Socket 939 mobo, nForce4's release is imminent but there are rumors of problems with those. VIA has some very interesting models coming out soon for Socket 939 that may or may not be better but since they will have a PCI lock, VIA is now certainly a contender.

    Is buying a 130nm FX is a good idea now? Most people who buy them instead of 90nm 3x00+s, buy them because $ is no object for them so when the issue comes up, you get the inevitable "why would you want to spend x times more on FXs, when..."

  15. #15
    Member Dukemurmur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA, Vermont
    Posts
    1,399
    yeah there is "relly" no sense in getting an FX unless you have the $ and want the bling factor....

  16. #16
    Member White Rain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    240
    Well they are unlocked, and will oc easier, and are great for games, I don't get to upgrade very often and when I do, it's got to last at top preformance as long as it can.

  17. #17
    Member wpmegee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    401
    My bad man. I saw dual core, saw FX, and thought they were two separate things. Didn't catch the desktop part. Yeah IMHO the only good reason to get an FX is the unlocked Multi's, the cache is a pretty minor thing. I'd definitely go for an FX if I had phase-change cooling.
    i7-2600k @ 4.5ghz | Xigmatek Gaia | ASRock P67 Extreme4 | 6gb G.Skill DDR3 | Sapphire 5850 | OCZ ModXStream 700W | Windows 7 Ultimate

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •