fx51 performance underwhelming

esp for the price...

just ran across this review at driverheaven..

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/AFXpart2/index.htm



fastest gaming box on the planet ?...many of us here can exceed this system.

even oc'd the fx51 trails my current system in all areas of testing.... at 1/3 the cost...

the funny part is they really gave the p4 system some bogus memory..their scores are pitiful and not close to what most of us get....


either we, including amd and intel users alike get way more out of our systems than the so called pro's do....or what?

I used to hang out at DH alot, but then I was banned for claiming I could have built a better system then they did and for less money. (Not this AFX one, but a previous one)

Those guys are not really that smart with huge ego problems.

too bad the ORB servers are down. My System breaks 13K in memory and 8K in cpu. (In HD I only do like 800 because I dont have my drives raided)

should have used better memory, raided raptors

theELVISCERATOR said:

esp for the price...
just ran across this review at driverheaven..
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/AFXpart2/index.htm
fastest gaming box on the planet ?...many of us here can exceed this system.
even oc'd the fx51 trails my current system in all areas of testing.... at 1/3 the cost...

Click to expand...

First thing you have to remember, your computer is overclocked, and by a big margin - 3,8GHz P4s won't be out until at least Q4, and by then, there will be better stuff from AMD as well, remember the idea of overclocking is to be ahead of the game in terms of hardware...

Secondly, your entire post pointing out one area where your computer is better does not mean that the FX 51 sucks, they do kick ***, PCmark doesn't show it that well, your computer should give the FX51 a good run for its money in say the UT2k3 botmatch, with maybe the FX pulling ahead... you can't just judge it with one benchmark, otherwise everyone would be saying P4s are better look at these encoding benchmarks, or AMD users would be saying AMD kicks because they thrash P4 systems in games... you really have to make a judgement over lots of tests.

Whether the chip is worth the money is ultimatly up to you though, and I personally don't intend to upgrade until about 2005, as I don't expect the hardware out there to be much better than my OVERCLOCKED setup, it would thrash my stock rig, but again, its overclocked, which means its up there with the latest and greatest hardware now...

Re: Re: fx51 performance underwhelming

MetalStorm said:

First thing you have to remember, your computer is overclocked, and by a big margin - 3,8GHz P4s won't be out until at least Q4, and by then, there will be better stuff from AMD as well, remember the idea of overclocking is to be ahead of the game in terms of hardware...

Secondly, your entire post pointing out one area where your computer is better does not mean that the FX 51 sucks, they do kick ***, PCmark doesn't show it that well, your computer should give the FX51 a good run for its money in say the UT2k3 botmatch, with maybe the FX pulling ahead... you can't just judge it with one benchmark, otherwise everyone would be saying P4s are better look at these encoding benchmarks, or AMD users would be saying AMD kicks because they thrash P4 systems in games... you really have to make a judgement over lots of tests.

Whether the chip is worth the money is ultimatly up to you though, and I personally don't intend to upgrade until about 2005, as I don't expect the hardware out there to be much better than my OVERCLOCKED setup, it would thrash my stock rig, but again, its overclocked, which means its up there with the latest and greatest hardware now...

Click to expand...

I understand the fundamental difference between the two chips proprietary strengths and weakness's, I only was comparing the apples i had....

i dont have ut2004 installed..(don't care for it)

but if you had one benchmark TO compare it aint bad giving you cpu mem and disk performance....

not like they had super PI numbers which the amd should smoke in...... things like that...

btw the athlon fx51 was oc'd..

Yet another isolated benchmark - what is the point if it is looked at in isolation - look at the overall picture of what the processor can do. The FX just like the EE is not earmarked for most overclockers - so I fail to see what your point is. We all know that the FX and EE beat out anything else available but you have to pay through the nose for them. The A64 is 1/3 of the cost as well and if overclocked would beat the FX used in this review. As to whether it is the fastest gaming system - yes it is overall at stock speed - compared to any other at stock speed (apples to apples not apples to giraffes!)

This is like saying the Radeon 9800 pro sucks because the radeon 9600 pro in your system (albiet overclocked) outperformed the 9800 pro in their system.


The only way to truely compare hardware is in the exact same system.

fastest gaming box on the planet ?...many of us here can exceed this system.

Click to expand...

You are absolutly correct. theELVISCERATOR, Im not gonna lie to you on this one. Tit-for-tat right now the Pent4 and FX are neck and neck.

However keep in mind that the FX usus alot slower RAM than Intel(ECC/Registered), despite that tests bias toward AMD.

Ive seen benchies for both. I personally call them equal. However the FX case much higher headroom than the Pent4 (becasue of SOI)

Once FXs use regular DDR and get the bus speed increase (for the FX 53). You will see them pull ahead, well beyond the margin of error (aprox 10-15% faster).

Plus early estimates from AMD indicate that their .09nm FX53 should have *little* (not sure how little but atleast it is promising) trouble breaking 3ghz. Plus the high end FX53 will be clocked at 2.4ghz

A 3ghz FX53 with a aprox 1.6ghz bus is probably gonna give Tejas and Prescott a whippin. For once AMD's chips have the same memory rates as Intel (which is a shock IMHO). Plus the AMD roadmaps indicate that the FX53 will use DDR500 stock, and later DDR2.

It will be intersting to see how things pan out. Just ignore most of the reviews out there, almost all of them have an axe to grind .

Yeah I read somewhere that amd will switch to a fsb of 250 (500). When is intel going to switching to 250?.

Yeah I read somewhere that amd will switch to a fsb of 250 (500). When is intel going to switch to 250.

Click to expand...

From what Ive heard this will happen with (I think) Prescott's Grandsdale chipset, shortly b4 the conversion to BTX and LGA775.

According to the data u showed a 3ghz Intel is 79% as fast as a stock FX51 using server RAM. This IMHO is not a good sign. Even if they gave Intel crap RAM, the FX51 is probably using something similar.

Also even if the tides are against Intel, an almost 30% lag cannot be overlooked. Even with the best hardware I sincererly doubt that it could make up more than maybe 20% tops.

Plus current XPs are almost as fast as the Pent4s. They technically should be but have been castrated by the lack of memory bandwith.

I know of several Mobile XPs that can keep up with high end Intel OCs. Keep in mind that the Hammers run a full 20% faster than a XP clock-per-clock. That is a significant improvement and it shows in the results (however skewed they may be).