Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A64 and FX DESTROYED BY EE

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 5, 2003 6:06:36 AM

I thought the A64 and FX were supposed to be fast??

A64 is now totally owned by the EE and has no chance of beating it, ever.

GG AMD, with the 940 chipset. A dead end that you make people pay extra for memory. FX is a dead horse,and I shot it.

<A HREF="http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=&Bo..." target="_new">Nice to see the top AMD benchmarkers proclaim they jumped ship too soon and state how they cannot compete with EE.</A>

I can link a dozen similar threads that all say the same thing and that is the EE beat the A64 and FX brutally.

EE doors are wide open to dominate the high end gaming market.

The all caps title is in memory of Melty, I know how you all miss him.

Let me say this ahead of time, if you chiming to defend AMD and do not own a A64 or FX just sit back down. Tell us you are still gonna buy one and a good reason cause AMD needs to see something in its favor after I deflated many ego's. Done even talk price as FX is the most expensive carcass to get into atm.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>

More about : a64 destroyed

November 5, 2003 9:21:16 AM

amd still has a long way to go before they can compete with intel.

---------
Intel PIV 2.4C @ 3.0G \
Asus P4C800 \
Corsair 2x512 3200LL memory \
Radeon 9600pro @ 500/700/1.35 \
SB Live 5.1 \
80G Seagate S-ATA150 \
430 Antec 1080AMG
November 5, 2003 11:16:54 AM

Why are we looking at Future mark scores of Barton chips?
Related resources
November 5, 2003 11:29:41 AM

Go [-peep-] yourself troll. And you were saying popegoldx was a troll!
November 5, 2003 12:30:04 PM

LOL....I think we should wait for the 939 pin...we should see a 17% boost from 3dmarks..

---
If you go to work and your name is on the door, you're rich. If your name is on your desk, you're middle class. If your name is on your shirt, you're poor!
November 5, 2003 12:41:56 PM

Am I supposed to care or something?

"Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
November 5, 2003 2:06:33 PM

If Intel's going to "dominate" a segment with a largely unavailable $1000 CPU, that will be quite a feat.

Where there's a will, there's a way-even when it comes to screwing up.
November 5, 2003 2:16:04 PM

Yawn...a P4EE holds the crown in a total of ONE(1) rather obsolete benchmark for 5 days, and FUGGER declares the competition dead and buried. Never mind that the P4EE platform is hotter-running, more power-hungry, about as expensive, less future-proof, and far less available than the FX51, and loses about as many benchmarks as it wins. Oh, and the FX53 is likely to hit retail availability before the P4EE even makes it off the paper.

Same sh*t, different day. Your scores would be more impressive, FUGGER, if your presentation wasn't so lamely fanboyish. :wink:

(And no, I don't own an AMD64 part. I'll still willfully post here, because nobody made you king and god of this thread. If you don't like reality striking your thread, tough. :tongue: )

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
November 5, 2003 2:28:34 PM

So what score did you get with your test setup, and did you benchmark the AMD chips also.

All you can state for sure, is that your System (not processor) is quick. I'll let you off for being young!
November 5, 2003 2:31:39 PM

Some things never change, and that includes you.

You better check again on that 1 benchmark theory of yours. The 2K1 was the last stronghold of A64 that I crushed all hope of AMD users at.

you got facts backwards about AMD availability, Im a reviewer and a developer and AMD was unable to get a FX to me. Nothing but excuses on very low yields or no parts arrinving. The FX costs far more than EE to get into, you gotta buy new dead end mobo and registered ram (plus chip) for a dead end 940 chipset that is being replaced by the end of the year. You got the there, rofl.

talking about paper chip FX53, G1. EE's are shipping to vendors now in quantity, bummer the price is high to make but well worth it at that performance level.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
November 5, 2003 2:32:40 PM

lol, those are all 64bit AMD's not bartons. In fact barton is not findable for a few pages in.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
November 5, 2003 2:32:43 PM

lol, those are all 64bit AMD's not bartons. In fact barton is not findable for a few pages in.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
November 5, 2003 2:36:18 PM

They thought they had the 32/64 nitch but it seems Microsoft is holding tight untill Prescott is released before they release the hybred 32/64 OS.

Watch, Prescott will be released with XP 32/64. I posted this information over 6 months ago from the Yamhill papers where Gates made a deal with Intel on that windows OS release not to be before Intel is ready.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
November 5, 2003 2:38:11 PM

Who is popegoldx??

I posted a thread, you are the one trolling here.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
November 5, 2003 3:01:22 PM

Quote:
You better check again on that 1 benchmark theory of yours. The 2K1 was the last stronghold of A64 that I crushed all hope of AMD users at.

Oh really, where did all the other crushing occur? Funny that most professional benchmarkers (AnandTech, Ace's, [H]Forums) disagree with you. The P4EE might be considered "on par" with the AthlonFX, if it was actually available at all.

Quote:
you got facts backwards about AMD availability, Im a reviewer and a developer and AMD was unable to get a FX to me.

Ahem, newegg.com. pricewatch.com. dell.com (yes, dell's having trouble getting P4EE systems out the door). They're a much better yardstick than you and your unique position.

Quote:
Nothing but excuses on very low yields or no parts arrinving.

Fancy an Intel fanboi saying that. Chances are AMD just doesn't care too much about SGI, especially with SGI already firmly stuck on the Intel train. Or maybe you just wanted a free part instead of putting your money down at newegg like everyone else. :wink:

Quote:
The FX costs far more than EE to get into, you gotta buy new dead end mobo and registered ram (plus chip) for a dead end 940 chipset that is being replaced by the end of the year.

FX is about $200 less on the CPU than P4EE, so that kind of makes up for registered RAM. And EE is only a cheap upgrade if you already have a P4 mobo with 800MHz FSB.

Oh, and socketed P4s are being replaced by LGA P4s around middle of next year. Socket940 FX is due to live alongside Socket939 FX at least until the end of 2004. Now what were you saying about a dead-end mobo/chipset?

Quote:
talking about paper chip FX53, G1.

Pot, kettle. Actually, you're more like the pot calling the rainbow black, but hey, whatever keeps your ego together.

FX-51 is available to retail consumers. P4EE isn't, end of story. FX-53 is likely to be availabe in retail quite a while before Dell can even get its first P4EE system out.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
November 5, 2003 3:12:54 PM

Where? um, 3D gaming market. most online reviewers (not professional benchmarkers) run stuff of at stock and that is not "overclocking".

"FX is about $200 less on the CPU than P4EE, so that kind of makes up for registered RAM. And EE is only a cheap upgrade if you already have a P4 mobo with 800MHz FSB." nice math but you forgot cost of a mobo and you have a choice of 1. I dont care if you get your price from good will it will still cost more to create the carcass.

brb in a few, not enough time to reply to rest yet.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
November 5, 2003 4:25:55 PM

Damn it man. Why don't you return back to your hole and leave us alone in our misery? Ok, you are right, P4EE is the gratest processor ever. It performs 20% faster than the FX-51 and costs 20% less. In fact, I am buying one next week because I don't know what else to do with the $1000 I have in my drawer next to me. Now LEAVE! Sh1t!
November 5, 2003 5:18:17 PM

YO YO YO. 1M cool haxxoer an 1 design c00l haxxxxoer systems! Intel like total pwnz AMD cause AMD sucks and is not 1337!

<font color=blue>
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not " <b>--</b> <i><font color=red> George Bernard Shaw</i></font color=red></font color=blue>
November 5, 2003 5:36:33 PM

Fugger, your post was clearly worded so as to stir up the AMD fanboys - in other words, it's a troll post. (And please don't embarrass yourself calling me an AMD fanboy - I <b>work</b> at Intel.) But we do have a constitutional right to free speech, so post what you will...

Now how about some links to benchmarks straight from the sources:

P4XE:
<A HREF="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q4/cpu2000-2..." target="_new">http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q4/cpu2000-2...;/A>
<A HREF="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q4/cpu2000-2..." target="_new">http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q4/cpu2000-2...;/A>

Athlon64-FX 2.2 GHz:
<A HREF="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/cpu2000-2..." target="_new">http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/cpu2000-2...;/A>
<A HREF="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/cpu2000-2..." target="_new">http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/cpu2000-2...;/A>

Looks to me like the P4XE wins overall, but each processor shines in some instances.

And for those who are curious, more P4XE benchmarks can be found here:
<A HREF="http://www.intel.com/performance/desktop/extreme.htm" target="_new">http://www.intel.com/performance/desktop/extreme.htm&lt;/A>

* Not speaking for Intel Corporation *
November 5, 2003 6:13:58 PM

oh come on, this board is not just for americans, the american constitution doesnt HAVE to apply to the rest of the world. but this aint the place to pick that discusion up.

wpdclan.com cs game server - 69.12.5.119:27015
November 5, 2003 6:36:46 PM

Not smart. Even for an Intel fanboy. Yes, the EE outperforms the FX - in some categories. But so would a Cray II, moron. In the bang-for-bucks category, AMD has ALWAYS bested Intel. And they always will, because Intel markets to OEMs and to uninformed, uneducated power hogs. AMD doesn't need hyper-marketing, because they have the best and most reliable exposure possible - word-of-mouth. AMD gamers know they have the best, and Intel fools their gamers into thinking they have the best.

Women--can't live with them, can't have heterosexual same-species intercourse without them.
November 5, 2003 6:37:39 PM

Rather than just stirring the people with fanboyistic taunting, why don't you finally provide some Panther benchmarks on G5s, with proper apps to show us where the 64-bit performance comes from?
(Note: That means apps that actually NEED more than 2GB per process, or need over 32-bit integers, ya, not like AMD with the AMD64 containing a technology which can work without the NEED for 64-bit)

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
November 5, 2003 6:50:26 PM

You know what is really funny. Intel is using cl 3.0 and 4 128mb chips while amd uses cl 2.5 and 2 512mb and intel still did better. At lease in the links you gave sonoran.

I am not saying that intel is the best, I am going by what these test show. I myself just upgraded not to long ago to intel, but in a year I might go with the amd fx, it all depends on whats better in a year and I know that the fx will get better support for the chipsets by that time, so who knows what I will upgrade to.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by SJJM on 11/05/03 12:55 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
November 5, 2003 7:01:01 PM

All I know is that at my usu. UK supplier, a P4EE costs £600 (pre-order) and a P4 2.8C costs £129

Is a P4EE really 4.65 times better than a 2.8C?



"Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
November 5, 2003 7:59:59 PM

Quote:
AMD doesn't need hyper-marketing, because they have the best and most reliable exposure possible - word-of-mouth.

While I do see your point, I don't think word-of-mouth is "the best and most reliable exposure possible". If it were, then AMD wouldn't be in the position it is currently in - 20% market share...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
November 5, 2003 8:02:15 PM

Its been a while since I mixed it up over here.

Melty style since I knew how much you guys missed him

G5 benchamrks? whats the point as the results would be useless to you guys.

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
November 5, 2003 8:22:41 PM

What the point in discussing wich is better or not?
At current time P4EE holds the crown in 3Dmark 01.
Until beaten P4EE has the crown in 3Dmark 01!
This is what this debate started over, right?
Then I couldn't care less about price, brandnames ect. ect.
Please correct me if I'm wrong :) 

Don't pretend - BE!
November 5, 2003 8:30:17 PM

You are correct

no debate, land slide win not just in 3Dmark 01

<b>"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better." -EDEN</b>
November 5, 2003 9:31:32 PM

Fugger is by all means correct, Intel's whipped AMD again, but this is no surprise..

It is also no surprise how the g5 whips both Intel AND AMD chips by a large margain.

Then again, I'm just a professional user who needs a REAL system to work with.
November 5, 2003 9:34:17 PM

U still at SGI? D00d, yer stocks be at 1.07. WTF?!!
How ya been btw? You come on too sporadically!

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"
November 5, 2003 10:16:59 PM

Are you one of those pro posers at the cafe's who wears the square glasses and uses a black Mac looking hip?

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"
November 5, 2003 10:39:30 PM

no I actually have a job, hence why I post here relatively infrequently... unlike all the jobless amd users living in their parent's basement saving on heating by running 3 athlon based computers 24/7
November 5, 2003 11:24:56 PM

LoL yep. The price of the EE just crushes that of a FX.
1000+ retail compared with just ~750 for the FX.
What was amd thinking???

/me shakes head sadly.

<b>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. :smile:
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
November 6, 2003 12:26:53 AM

hmm, the weight of paying for that in pennies probably would crush the FX.....

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"
November 6, 2003 12:27:33 AM

Again:
The price/preformance ratio is not a part of this debate :) 
The performance is...
I'm sure the P4EE will be overthrown.
But until that happnes, the facts still speaks out loud.
P4EE has the crown in 3DMark 01.
So why not(intended at the A64 and the A64-FX owners) start benching, instead of mudfighting? :) 


Don't pretend - BE!
November 6, 2003 12:31:21 AM

[-peep-] that, I just saw a bunch of red flashes, VERY weird.

Now, onto the relevant stuff:
Anyone read the NY Times and see that article of Intel's advancement in proc technology todebut in 2007? Think they're for real?

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"
November 6, 2003 12:34:37 AM

True. Its not as if anyone will ever buy it, let alone find one for sale.

As for 3dcockstroke2001... So it beats an old dx8 benchmark that is highly succeptable to every tweak under the sun.
oooOOOooo im scared LOL.

<b>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. :smile:
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
November 6, 2003 2:32:39 AM

Quote:
As for 3dcockstroke2001... So it beats an old dx8 benchmark that is highly succeptable to every tweak under the sun.

Ja, that's about where my position is. It's nice when a new part wins the 3DMark2001 crown, but 3Dmark2001 is long in the tooth, and there's more to the computing world than a synthetic, obsolete DX8 benchmark. P4EE just doesn't definitively take the crown overall. It doesn't outright lose, it just doesn't outright win either.

(Except that it's not even available. You know an Intel part is paper-launched when not even Dell can deliver it. :eek:  )

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
November 6, 2003 3:57:00 AM

Yeah sure Intel can make a better chip if it throughs enough money into it. Intel can make a really good chip. The thing is couldn't AMD do the same thing with their chip and put like 3mb's of L2 and like 4mb's of L3 if they really wanted (ok these numbers may be way out there but you get the point) I think they could but to do so would cost so much it isn't worth it. I truely don't think Intel released the EE to make any money off of it. I think they did it out of fear of the FX. I mean look at how bad the FX crushes the 3.2c. I mean how many people do you actualy think are going to buy something like this. Plus from what I am hearing around here (although thats not saying that it is true) is that the EE is a one time thing and they aren't going to up grade it at all. Meaning no 3.4 EE or 3.6 EE. They did it so they could keep their crown and thats all they cared about. They have the money to waste on this thing. AMD although doesn't really have the money to do the same thing. Yeah the motherboard and registed ram bring up the price of the FX but the fact is that the registed RAM gives a proformace boost (maby not as much proformace as you would want for the money) and when it comes to having to buy a motherboard Im guessing that most people that are going to be buying the EE and the FX are going to plan on getting another motherboard anyway. Most people aren't just going to buy a $1000.00 CPU and put what ever they hand on there motherboard before and put that other CPU on a shelf to collect dust.

Anyway yes the EE in the end is on top but I truely think this is just a show for all you intel fanboys out there that just like to show off saying your company is better because they have a faster chip.

Now don't get this all wrong I am not an AMD fanboy and will probly never buy a FX (unless I come into alot of money really soon). I just like good compitition and I see that the FX and A64 have done that. All you intel fans out there should be really really happy that the FX and A64 are out. How long as it been since you have seen Intels best chip being so low in price. I mean its only slightly lower then 400.00 I don't rember how much it was before the FX but I think it was about 600.00 or maybe more, I think more(the 3.2c not the EE as I explained before as I think its just a show off launch not something that anyone will realy buy unless they are rich and cant do with out having the top of the line but more they likely them kinds of people might be able to get their hands on something better. Conections wish I hand them :) ).

-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
November 6, 2003 4:21:19 AM

One other little thing that I would like to point out is that yes the FX was what I expected of it. It was alot better then the 3.2c. Before anyone knew of the EE everyone around here was hoping that the FX would be 10-15% faster then the 3.2c and guess what it is. But now that the EE is out (and that took what a month to get out after the FX was already out) everyone is saying that the FX sux because it didn't give that big proformance leap that hey where hoping for out of it. Well the way I look at the FX did. Look at how it out proforms the 3.2c and how it crushes the 3200+. AMD has cought up in alot of areas that it was being crushed in. There are alot less weak points in the FX. There are very few areas that the FX is actualy falling really far behind in.

The FX is the advancement that I was hoping for and how could you guys not expect Intel to counter with something. Yeah the EE wins but not by much. And if you look at the A64 it does very well agenst the 3.2c and the scaling is much better when OCed.

I just don't understand how so many people out there are so disapointed in the FX and the A64 when these two products are a gaint leap in proformace for AMD. If you look at it not from the point of veiw of "Dang AMD didn't kick intel's butt" and even if you can only focus in that area, well then I say it did in its own little way it did. It kicked the crap out of the 3.2c which a little while ago was priced just a little under the FX (I think Im not for sure on that though). And for about a month the FX was the king of CPU's, because the EE took a month to even get out.

Anyway I just hope that things will stay really competitve in the CPU area I am liking these price drops all around.

-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
November 6, 2003 5:16:25 AM

Quote:
no I actually have a job, hence why I post here relatively infrequently... unlike all the jobless amd users living in their parent's basement saving on heating by running 3 athlon based computers 24/7


I have a job too, how else would I afford an Intel process inside a Lian Li aluminum case? If you have a point to prove, prove it. I'm tired of you pulling sh!t off Apple's website like it was the King James bible. If you can't provide detailed specs of each computer you test, your results are absolute garbage.

Like I said, until I can game on a Mac the way I do on my Intel... it's Intel for me all the way. Don't like that? Tough sh!t. Want to resort to insults? Lick my dingleberries.

:tongue:

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
November 6, 2003 5:30:35 AM

That is to funny, lick my dingleberries. LOL

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
November 6, 2003 6:18:31 AM

Aren't U Intel flamers forgetting that, along with being overpriced and unimaginably hard to come by, the EE is still a P4 and is the last leg of the P4's life cycle. We are gonna get mabey 3 or 4 more P4 labeled proccessors, before Intel decides that the outdated technology cant keep up with the speeds we want it to produce. BTW, I wouldnt call the FX destroyed by the EE. It wasnt beeten nearly as badly as the 3.2 was by the FX. So stuff that in ur crack and smoke it.

If a CPU can be overclocked, try and overclock it. Do this always and forever, unless, of coarse, you have a POS ecs motherboard. In that case, thank god it runs.
November 6, 2003 7:19:50 AM

There are no EE's available in the uk. This is irrelevent. Whats the point of arguing that something holds the performance crown if you cant even buy it? And even when it is available, something better from AMD will be out and the EE will cost too much (unless you earn £30,000 a year).

My system spec: Fast PC<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
"It's not the spoon that bends, it's only yourself."
November 6, 2003 7:29:11 AM

OCUK have EE's listed, but they are £600 - 4.65 times the price of a 2.8C

Anyone who buys one of these tweaked chips (FX or EE) has more money than sense.

"Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
November 6, 2003 10:14:11 AM

G5_inside: 'It is also no surprise how the g5 whips both Intel AND AMD chips by a large margain.'

Yeah, but only with heavily modified and optimised code. If Apple had used standard code across all of the test systems (G5, Intel and AMD), THEN we'd believe the reports, until they do, we will continue to laugh at your idiotic troll posts.


There are lies, damn lies and statistics - Mark Twain.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2003 11:34:58 AM

Thats great news for all those that spend >$3.500 on a computer just to run 3DMark. Just wait a few monts, and join the top of ORB.. Wooohooo !

However, those that actually want to play games like <A HREF="http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000263" target="_new">Unreal Tournament, X2, Unreal II, Battelefield 1942, Medieval; total war, Age of Mythology, Grand Prix 4, Jedi Knight II Or RTCW: enemy territory,</A> they could save a few bucks and not have to wait a few months, and just the fastest CPU for their needs: the FX51.


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
November 6, 2003 12:04:28 PM

Damn boi! This thread is like the troll magnet. More trolls here than under golden gate.

Shadus
November 6, 2003 3:23:35 PM

Is it me or is this CPU forum rubbish. Full of fanboy jerks that get off on petty point scoring over other fanboy jerks. 'Oh the P4EEHT blar blar is beating the AMD Athlon XFPX (or vice versa), all you moron's using the other chip are retards' and [peep!] like that. Sure passions can run high (or even fever pitch) but I think there are some charachters that just get a high on p***ing everyone else off (including the people that couldn't care less).

There are people on here that genuinely want to make usefull interesting discussions rather than this sort of jouvenile rubbish.

Whatever happened to the grown up discussion forum that actually helped people with their problems not ridicule them because of the choices they made

Windows XP Works on a K5 PR133 (100MHz) with 80MB RAM!!!!!!
November 6, 2003 3:29:34 PM

It is rather silly, especially when you could buy a decent P4 2.8C based SYSTEM for the price of a P4 EE

"Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
!