AMD Athlon 64 FX-57: The Fastest Single Core

56 Comments

View All Comments

• Calin - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link

  Anyway, what's with the data analysis benchmark? Looks like every Pentium4 beats the hell out of every Athlon64.
  If this is true, then I feel my suggestions to buy Athlon64 might not always be correct

• Calin - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link

  An processor with 1M level2 cache and dual channel memory controller is a preview of what to expect from a nice cheap 256K cache single channel memory controller? I really really don't think so

• AtaStrumf - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link

  This isn't just a speed bump, it's a new revision (SH-E4 I think). Check PCU-Z next time!
  
  New Semprons with x86-64 will be even newer revisons - DH-E6 (don't know if that's good or bad yet, but very likely good) so OCing of this new E4 is like the most important thing here because nobody's gonna buy $1000 CPUs, nobody here anyway.
  
  FX-57 is a preview of what to expect of a nice cheap 3300+ Sempron and all you gave it was one line. Try a little harder next time please! If it's true that everybody else is getting 3,0 GHz on air, than that is great news. Just what we have been waiting for!!!

• JarredWalton - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link

  Overclocking is half luck, and there's no telling how the OC benches at other places are really performed. 2.75 GHz "easy" on a Winchester? Fat chance. Maybe with water cooling and the proper motherboard, but even then it's not guaranteed. And don't think the Venice cores are much better - they're really about the same, which means 2.6 to 2.7 GHz air cooled is the typical maximum for a truly stable system.
  
  Anyway, if you're into serious cooling and overclocking, the FX-57 might be a bit better than the FX-55. 90nm vs. 130nm I believe, so hopefully it does better. I just can't see dropping $1000 for a single threaded CPU, though. A 4000+ San Diego does almost as well at half the cost, even with overclocking.

• composer - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link

  I don't get it? A AMD64 3200 Winny clocks easy at 2.75 with no problems.
  
  Why would someone in the know buy such a proc if they can get the same performance for little money?
  
  Also, why can't they get past 3.0 ghz yet? (air cooling, or do we need to wait for .65 nano?

• JustAnAverageGuy - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

  Page 1:
  
  "But as we have mentioned time and time again, steadily increasing clock speed over time is a loosing proposition. "
  
  'losing'
  
  Those macro buttons are getting overused. It's the same text in every review, just different charts. :)

• Sunbird - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

  The FX-57 is still being called a FX-55 in the Doom3 graphs.

• Cygni - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

  Oh, in other news, the only thing i felt missing was Dual core results. Could have deffinitly been used.

• Cygni - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

  Its a speedbump review... i dont think AT, or anybody else, really gives a shit.

• cryptonomicon - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link

  uh, they used the dfi ultra-d to overclock right?
  
  else, that is just retarded.