THG Athlon FX @ 2.8 GHz

Guest · Oct 21, 2003

THG germany did an overclocking test of the AFX. If you can't read german, just look at <A HREF="http://www.de.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031020/nventiv-2800-06.html" target="_new">the benches here </A>.

A small google translation of the conclusion:

Conclusion: Perfec scaling of the A 64 FX with clockrate.

Almost all benchmark prove this fact: With help of the compressor radiator of Nventiv (formerly chip con) the AMD Athlon scales 64 FX very well with the increase of the clock rate. In our case the clock rate of the Athlon 64 Fx-51 was increased from 2200 MHz to 2800 MHz. Memory remains -, Fsb and AGP clock untouched, there a special Bios of Asus (SK8N) an adjustment of the multiplicator (increase of 11 to 14) permit. Particularly with the professional applications with 3D-Rendering (for example Lightwave, 3D studio max and Cinema 4D XL) the increase in output of on the average 27 per cent is almost identical to the clock increase of 27.3 per cent.

The architecture of the AMD Athlon 64 FX (Opteron) scaled ideally with the clock rate - much better than for example the Intel P4. In comparison to our past benchmarks- as in the article 64 for the people: Athlon 64 FX, Athlon 64 vs. P4 of extremes described - the memory performance of the system which is based on the Asus SK8N increases on average 3,5 per cent

Too bad he didnt include the testresults of the 4 GHz P4, I'll see if I can combine both data..

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

ironmike · Oct 21, 2003

Interesting, very interesting. Thank you for the post, it looks like its doin one heck of a job. I would really like to see it benched against the p-4ee overclocked

The man of steel said that

HardWareBoss · Oct 21, 2003

Why do they Bench the FX64 vs P4? Must be cause that's all it can beat.

Vapor · Oct 21, 2003

It's also the best competition that intel can offer RIGHT NOW. However, before jumping to conclusions about the FX (opteron) vs scotty, we really should wait for a scotty.

on a different note...that article is really making me like AMD more and more...i dont care if anyone thinks that OCing in a published benchmark isn't fair or right, it still interests me because I would also try to overclock. Should scotty not quite be up to the task of taking of the FX or even the A64, AMD might have one intel fan converted.

RDRAM = ENEMY

juin · Oct 21, 2003

interesting aceshardware got the same 2.8ghz with a chipcon too also the same motherboard also give by a corporation make your own conclusion.

I dont like french test

poncho · Oct 21, 2003

Ok so when is THG gonna pull its head out of its rear end and include both the OC'd P4EE and A-FX in the same review, instead of mixing and matching with one or the other???? Damn fooools!

Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win your still retarded!

pitsi · Oct 21, 2003

Why do they Bench the FX64 vs P4? Must be cause that's all it can beat.

Maybe that's because P4 is all there is right now from Intel? Prescott is nowhere to be found and the P4EE is practically impossible to find.

dropadrop · Oct 21, 2003

I quite liked the review, but I got one question allready from the original A64 / fx review. I was delighted to see you had included nuendo in your selection of test software. I was really suprised to notice the P4's where doing so well in it, as it's using the same engine as cubase that has traditionaly performed better with athlons.

I then noticed that you are only testing the time to render the final project, which is generally not the feature that requires alot of power in a sequencer. I know it can be alot harder to do benchmarks with a sequencer in a real world situation, but this is what a large music making community would really need. Most music makers I know would be intrested in seeing how many eq's, reverbs, compressors and softsynths can be run before the cpu starts spiking, and none of them care if rendering the song to a wave file takes 5 or 10 minutes. (as opposed to 3d rendering where the differance in rendering time can mean hours or days)

I feel a bit silly giving critical feedback on my first post, but there is alot of people who would love to see this kind of benchmarks.

ChipDeath · Oct 21, 2003

Good scaling... Bodes well for the future if they can manage the jump to 90nm without too many problems. A 3Ghz Air-cooled one would be pretty sweet.

Still waiting for Scotty V A64 benchies though.

---
The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong

Kelledin · Oct 21, 2003

interesting aceshardware got the same 2.8ghz with a chipcon too also the same motherboard also give by a corporation make your own conclusion.

What's really interesting to me is that the 2.8GHz limit appears to be imposed by the BIOS.

Note, the multiplier could apparently be taken only from 11 to 14 (2.2GHz to 2.8GHz). I'm not 100% certain on this, but the translation reads as if the BIOS simply didn't have a higher selection. I'd be interested in seeing what happened if the multiplier got taken higher...it looks like the processor could probably take it!

I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.

TheRod · Oct 21, 2003

Good point!

You are right about that... There should be 3 type of audio test.

3D test already have these tests... Games usually get an idea of Real-Time rendering (equivalent to Real-Time Audio FX processing) and they have rendering benchmarks (3D Studio, etc...).

If you are good with audio application, you might right a script, or build a file that would scale the number of EQ, effects and other real-time processing...

If you get a good one, you might even submit it to THG team!

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

TheRod · Oct 21, 2003

Anyone have a Athlon FX to spare???

go and mess with the bridge and pinout to fix the multiplier to 15 or higher!

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

juin · Oct 21, 2003

yes true but do we see A64 be overclock at 3ghz no just this cpu with a chipcon that make the round of website.

Yes asus multiplier max is 14 and does all athlon fx are unlock cuz this is.

I dont like french test

Zoron · Oct 21, 2003

OMG!

Overclocked AMD chips and no overclocked Intel chips?!?!?!

TOM'S IS AMD BIASED!!!!

I AM LEAVING AND NEVER COMING BACK!!!!

AAAAARRRGGGHGGHHHHH!!!!!

If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it.

juin · Oct 21, 2003

Toms is not bias but i will have like to try a others Athlon fx see if it can get to this same clock speed.My guess no but that dont change the fact that athlon fx scale verywell like willimete core that was from 1.3 to 1.7 almost perfect scaling.Too bad they will need to move to DDR-2

I dont like french test

Guest · Oct 22, 2003

Tried to compare the overclocked P4 results with the overclocked Athlon FX results. Many of the benchmarks don't match up though, and both used different videocards and what not.. you can still have a look here though:

<A HREF="http://home.pi.be/~bbaeyen2/P4FX.htm" target="_new">http://home.pi.be/~bbaeyen2/P4FX.htm</A>

In bold you can see performance scaling per clockspeed. I tried with both P4C 3.06 and P4 3.0 GHz since the overclocked P4 uses a FSB somewhere inbetween, but it hardly changed a thing. The FX scales a lot better, especially in games..

ignoring the (important !) videocard issue, it would roughly take a 5 GHz P4 to catch the 2800 MHz opteron in Q3, a 5.7 GHz P4 to match it in Splinter Cell and a 7.3 GHz (!) to match it in UT2k3. take these numbers with a bag of salt, but you get the picture...

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Seraph · Oct 22, 2003

Why is it that people always OC the 3.06ghz P4 rather than a C stepping one?
The P4 doesnt look to scale as well in games - but that could just be the vid card. Other than the gaming benches, the ~30% OC of the P4 looks to scale to about a 25%ish (guestimate) performance increase. A bit under the A64 OC. Do the C stepping P4's give the same results as the 3.06? A 3.2ghz C P4 should be easy enough to test with a 250mhz FSB, giving it the same 4.0ghz rating. a 'mere' 25% OC, and since the EE isn't out, its currently intels flagship. Why isnt it compared to AMD's OCed flagship. Comparing it to current CPU's (other than the OCed chip at stock) seems a little pointless.
I'd be quite interested to see a 25% OC'ed P4 3.2ghz vs the 27% OC of the FX

scottchen · Oct 22, 2003

Don't forget the fact that most P4 can't get to 4G. Unless you have some exotic cooling and really lucky.

-Intel PIV 2.6C @ 3.51G -Asus P4P800 -OCZ Copper 2x256 4000EL memory @ 270mhz 2.5-4-4-8 -Geforce2 MX400(i know i know) -SB audigy -120G Maxtor Diamond Plus9 S-ATA150 hdd -450 Enermax PSU

lhgpoobaa · Oct 22, 2003

Good to see it scales so well!

I remember some time ago that aceshardware did an indepth scaling test between the opteron and the xeon.
The xeon scaled poorly while the opteron was close to perfect.

Be quite some time before we see 2.8Ghz retail chips though. :frown:

I am not a AMD fanboy.
I am not a Via fanboy.
I am not a ATI fanboy.
I AM a performance fanboy.
And a low price fanboy.

Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.

juin · Oct 22, 2003

The xeon scaled poorly while the opteron was close to perfect

result of lack of clock speed in vector processing and decreasing lantency in ram.

I dont like french test

ufo_warviper · Oct 22, 2003

Dang, I need to get in the CPU forum more, there's been 1190 new posts since I've last been here

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=37110#37110" target="_new">REPEAL SPUD'S BAN?</A>

Seraph · Oct 23, 2003

You dont consider what they used to get a 27% OC out of the FX "exotic cooling"?
I've got a 2.8C, and it OC's to 3.5ghz on stock cooling & voltages - surely its not that hard to get a 3.2C up to 4ghz & beyond to test against the OCed FX

poncho · Oct 23, 2003

Ummm I thought the purpose of the review was to see how well the OC'ed FX-51 scaled whilst keeping the stock FSB settings and simply increasing the multiplier, wouldnt testing it against a P43.2c with its fsb Oc'd to 250mhz be totally missing the point of the review.

Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win your still retarded!

eden · Oct 23, 2003

I'd say the Opteron scaled so well thanks to Hyper Transport and its non-uniform memory addressing.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

lhgpoobaa · Oct 23, 2003

yeah.
With dualchannel memory, 1mb cache and exceedingly low latencys the memory access is not restrictive, thus it scales really well.

I am not a AMD fanboy.
I am not a Via fanboy.
I am not a ATI fanboy.
I AM a performance fanboy.
And a low price fanboy.

Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.

THG Athlon FX @ 2.8 GHz

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Splendid

Illustrious

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Illustrious

Share this page