Athlon64 FX-53 benchmarked

[Spitfire_x86]

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14274" target="_new">Click to read</A>


----------------
Please vote in this poll: <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=39560#39560" target="_new">Should Tom Fire Omid?</A>

 

[davemar14]

I was disapointed in the 3DMark2001 score. My friend has a Athlon 64 3200+ and Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB and got 19,670 stock. The Athlon FX 53 only got 20,490. The price to be payed for this chip is not work it. Get an Athlon 64 3700+ when it comes out. Probably same performance for a couple hundred dollars less.

My System:
<A HREF="http://www26.brinkster.com/amdgamer1/main.html" target="_new">http://www26.brinkster.com/amdgamer1/main.html</A>

 

[Kanavit]

holy cow, and everybody thought the prescott had a terrible launch. The A64 FX-53(2.4ghz) stunk. I expected much more than that!

-------
<b><i>1024MB-P4 2.8B-RADEON 9500PRO</b></i>
<A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=544326478" target="_new">29,618 Aquamarks</A>#1 in class!

 

[FUGGER]

I scored higher with my 2.8 Prescott at stock and it was stepping 1...

Might not want to link up more benchies like that one, thats something I would do.


<b>My sig is better than yours.<b>

 

[darko21]

I scored just a hair under that with a 9700pro and xp2400 (all overclocked) but still somthing does not seem right about those scores even at stock settings.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[trooper11]

again this is the inq. we are look to for numbers, i wouldnt clal it the best place to get the info, if it is at this performance leve, then it would be dissappinting, but ill hold my opinion till its available to a wider range of people.

 

[SoDNighthawk]

Not using a 64 bit chunk of software to test a 64 bit CPU and using an old stanby benchy that was designed for a 32 bit CPU.

Never mind I think you get THA picture fully.......

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid 12 Celsius
2x512 Crucial DDR 400 PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Two Maxtor 40Gig 8MB cach 7200rpm
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x

 

[darko21]

I don't think that is the point amd64 is deigned to run 32bit without a performance hit. 32 to 32 still seems low.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[SoDNighthawk]

Yes Darko true enough and well said but I still would feel more comfortable in a benchy that utilizes the 64 bit power of the cpu because at this point comparing apples to oranges is not the best thing we could do here.

A 64 is designed to run 64 bit app's and forcing it to run it's bit registry in 32 bit mode is like tying the back legs of a race horse together at the starting line.

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid 12 Celsius
2x512 Crucial DDR 400 PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Two Maxtor 40Gig 8MB cach 7200rpm
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x

 

[Johanthegnarler]

That should be a bit higher i would think, but for it to still bench that high on 32bits is still far short of bad.
Although it still is a overprice piece o' crap.



<A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=610166081" target="_new">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=610166081</A>
Figured i'd do it too..reality my ass.

 

[juin]

They just make 2 big mistake.

INQ have report that intel have a 7 ghz 64 bit ALU.That was wrong i got the PDF from Intel for the ISSSC.I have myself give the link 1 week before and the real one.

INQ have report 5% yield on ibm wafer that was wrong also.

Those article was quote from corporation or others website.They just cannot do cut-paste they have to add some juice fact.

Just to show dad

 

[endyen]

The only number that matters is the chip speed. Amd is ready to release it's first chip with a speed of 2400 mhz. It has been a long time coming, but soon it will be out on socket 754.

 

[Johanthegnarler]

Yes sir, and I hope it's something we can all push beyond 3ghz. I'm impressed with my 2.2ghz 85 dollar chip.

<A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=275920760" target="_new">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=275920760</A>
Figured i'd do it too..reality my ass.

 

[Ncogneto]

I was disapointed in the 3DMark2001 score.

Isn't it 2004? What next, runs of CPUmark99?

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

 

[Johanthegnarler]

03's benchmarks weren't impressive either.

<A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=275920760" target="_new">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=275920760</A>
Figured i'd do it too..reality my ass.

 

[Vapor]

Not that 2003 is very CPU intensive...at least in the upper echelon.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

 

[Carnivore]

I was wondering about that '03 score. I have a 3200+ with basically the same setup as that FX-53. I have overclocked nothing, and I pull a 6241 on '03. Something just seems a bit wacked on that system.

 

[Vapor]

Something just seems a bit wacked on that system.

No [-peep-] Sherlock. I'd bet it ain't the processor, too.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.