Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX-53 out and looking impressive...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 18, 2004 2:26:23 PM

I am surprised! No one has yet started a thread on this!

What do you think of this nice little morsel...er...I mean processor?

Imo, Intel better do something quick, or AMD might actually gain some marketshare with this! WOW!!!



<font color=blue> Did you know that 89.72% of all quoted statistics are false? </font color=blue>

More about : impressive

March 18, 2004 3:38:28 PM

Well, from a quick read it looks very promising for gaming (my main interest). Might need to "mature" a bit before I'll spring for one. What are they gonna cost?

Barton 2500+
Abit NF7-S v 2.0
Maxtor 60GB ATA 133 7200RPM
512MB Corsair Twinx 3200LL
9600 Pro
Enermax Noisetaker 420 watts
Win98SE
Related resources
March 18, 2004 4:07:52 PM

You know what I find interesting?
That the p4ee is so much more than the fx51 or the new fx 53.
The fx beats the p4ee in gaming and most applications.
Video rendering is still the p4ee's strong point, but not by a lot.
I wonder what people would say if a intel cpu at 1.4ghz was faster than a Amd cpu at 2.4?
Because the fx53 clocks in at 2.4 and beats the p4ee 3.4 in most benchmarks.
I think if they were close in price it would be a tough choice.
But at Newegg they have the 3.2 p4ee at $939, and the athlon fx51 at $745.
You can get a fx51 and a top of the line mb for about the same as a p4ee 3.2.
Now which one would you buy??
Bob
March 18, 2004 4:42:28 PM

Quote:
Video rendering is still the p4ee's strong point, but not by a lot.

From what I've seen, it literally kicks the FX-53 in the curb in video rendering.

Anything else and it dominates.

Some areas were impressive as it actually had more performance than the last 200MHZ jump, as in, it seems to have more per clock enhancements sometimes. In other times though, it and the 2.6GHZ OC are very disappointing in how they scale in relation to the FX-51. They do worse than a P4 sometimes.

--
<i>Ede</i>
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>More updates and added sites as over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
March 18, 2004 4:42:50 PM

Quote:
Video rendering is still the p4ee's strong point, but not by a lot.

From what I've seen, it literally kicks the FX-53 in the curb in video rendering.

Anything else and the FX-53 dominates.

Some areas were impressive as it actually had more performance than the last 200MHZ jump, as in, it seems to have more per clock enhancements sometimes. In other times though, it and the 2.6GHZ OC are very disappointing in how they scale in relation to the FX-51. They do worse than a P4 sometimes.

--
<i>Ede</i>
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>More updates and added sites as over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
March 18, 2004 5:07:09 PM

I'm really impressed by the overall results!

The FX-51 already topped P4 in gaming and other stuff, now with a 200MHz boost, the gap s increasing.

The FX-53 still trail in Audio/Video and 3D rendering, but not by much. And when we check the overclocked performance of the FX-53 on the THG charts, it's clear that the Athlon 64 architecture scale well in performance.

I can't wait to see how much the 1000 MHz hyper-transport port of the FX-55 will improve the performance of the FX chip. I think we will not see much difference in memory intensive apps/bench but it might improve a couple other type of benchmarks.

As seen and read in the Xbit-labs review. Intel stills rules when multi-threading is required. Some HT-optimized apps. take advantage of it and multitask benchmarks clearly show that HT is not only a merketing buzzword to sell more CPUs.

THE FACTS (from PriceWatch.com):

<b>== INTEL EE ==</b>
P4EE 3.4GHz = 999$US (price from THG review)
Asus P4C800-E Deluxe = 159$US
Corsair TwinX CMX256A-3200LL = 304$US (76$US x 4)
<b>TOTAL = 1462$US</b>

<b>== AMD FX ==</b>
Athlon FX-53 = 733$US
Asus K8V Deluxe = 127$US
Mushkin 512MB PC3200 ECC Registered Hi Performance = 274$US (137$US x 2)
<b>TOTAL = 1134$US</b>

I didn't knew that high-perf. registered DDR ram was cheaper than normal DDR ram?!?

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
March 18, 2004 5:56:20 PM

Perdue fan?

A long long time ago, but I can still remember, how that music used to make me smile... <A HREF="http://www.nexus.hu/zonix/DIGGER.MID" target="_new"><b><font color=blue>Digger rulz</font color=blue></b></A>
March 18, 2004 6:08:26 PM

Sooooooo happy to see the Visual Studio Benches, for me this is icing. Nothing like getting your compiles done 30% faster, this is a true test of branch prediction.

Dichromatic for your viewing plesure...
March 18, 2004 6:19:08 PM

quick question, i didn't understand why they only showed the p4 with 200mhz fsb? i thought the fsb on those EE's go 800MHZ and OVER????

why did it show only 200mhz FSB? Just wondering.... W00t AMD!

Asus A7N8X Deluxe
80gb Maxtor
200gb WD 8mb cache..
Lian-Li PC-60
LiteOn 52X/LiteOn 811s DVD-RW
AMD XP2800+
LeadTek GF4Ti4200 128mb
Hitachi CML174
1GB Corsair XMS PC3200
March 18, 2004 6:31:49 PM

Quote:
p4 with 200mhz fsb? i thought the fsb on those EE's go 800MHZ and OVER????

why did it show only 200mhz FSB? Just wondering.... W00t AMD!


P4EE FSB is 200MHz QUAD PUMPED... In other owrds it's 200 x 4 and AMD Hyper-Transport is 800MHz too. So, it's a fair comparison. It's like DDR-400, the clock speed is actually 200MHz.

This means P4 transfer 4 bit of info in each clock cycle and DDR ram transfer 2 bit for each clock cycle.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
March 18, 2004 6:39:12 PM

OMG ...... great job amd



BTW 800mhz fsb is in fact 200 fsb quad pumped (x4)

Athlon 2700xp+ (oc: 3200xp+ with 200fsb) , Radeon 9800pro (oc: 410/370) , 512mb pc3200 (3-3-3-2), Asus A7N8X-X
March 18, 2004 7:09:32 PM

Their limited OC makes you wonder what the real thermal specifications are.

Xeon

<font color=orange>Scratch Here To Reveal Prize</font color=orange>
March 18, 2004 7:36:50 PM

WTF? And I quote:

"Compared to $999 for the 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, the $733 price tag for the Athlon64 FX-53, represents a great value, especially in consideration of the performance differences between the two processors. Indeed, the FX is a whopping 35% cheaper than the P4 Extreme Edition."

Who taught them math? The correct equation is (999-733)/999 which equals 26.6%, not 35%.

She said "I love a man in tight jeans" and I said "They're not supposed to be tight I just got fat."
March 18, 2004 7:49:26 PM

The FX-53 does look to be a much better option for the rich or addicted than the P4EE. Actually, is the P4EE an option for anyone? Nobody I know. If you add up all the benchmark charts and go by strickly numbers, the FX53 wins 18 charts, the P4EE wins 18 charts. So it's no landslide, just depends on what it will be used for. But one is overpriced, and one is way overpriced, so to me is nothing more than fun reading and wishful thinking. Nice review though. AMD's future looks to be good. Hope they gain some market share and revenue.

Another surprise to me was just how well prescotts did in those tests. Really surprised me as like most people, i thought the performance edge went to the "C" chips not the "E" chips.


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
March 18, 2004 8:52:33 PM

Yeah it should read the P4 3.4 EE is (999-733) / 733 = 36% more expensive, as the FX is 26% cheaper.

Dichromatic for your viewing plesure...
March 18, 2004 9:18:30 PM

JUST IMPRESSIVE, can't tell more hehe
March 18, 2004 10:00:26 PM

I'm very surprised with THG's Cool Edit Pro bench results. I think something is absolutely wrong in his graphic.

I've just tested the same test (Normalize) with Cool Edit Pro 2.1 (in this case with a 200mb wav). I've tested it with:

-An Athlon XP 1700+ clocked to 2000mhz (320DDR FSB -160x12.5-, with 512mb DDR266@320 Dual channel, nForce2, Seagate Barracuda IV ATA100). It would be a 2400+.

-And with a Pentium 4C 3000MHz (800QDR FSB, 1GB DDR400 Dual Channel, i865PE, Seagate Barracuda IV ATA100).

Well, the Athlon 2400+ result is 39.08 sec., and the P4C 3.0GHz result is 38.53 sec. So, P4C beats to XP 2400+ by a minimal 1.5%.

So, a XP Barton 3000+ would smoke to P4C 3.0 in this bench. So, any Athlon would smoke equivalent P4 in this test.

It would be recommendable that THG would revise this test. Im's sure his actual graphic results are absolutely wrong.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by eugeneMC on 03/19/04 01:04 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 18, 2004 11:08:18 PM

I beg to differ why does liquid nitrogen need to come into the equation to do further overclocking than 200mhz?

Xeon

<font color=orange>Scratch Here To Reveal Prize</font color=orange>
March 18, 2004 11:26:18 PM

ahh ok, cool well w00t to AMD good job ... deff grabing a 64 bit soon!

Asus A7N8X Deluxe
80gb Maxtor
200gb WD 8mb cache..
Lian-Li PC-60
LiteOn 52X/LiteOn 811s DVD-RW
AMD XP2800+
LeadTek GF4Ti4200 128mb
Hitachi CML174
1GB Corsair XMS PC3200
March 18, 2004 11:27:19 PM

What are you on? Read, think and then respond. ( if possible)
March 19, 2004 12:29:02 AM

You don’t want to read what I am saying by the looks of it. The cores thermal and electrical characteristics all point to a 1. Thermal issue 2. Architectural limitations 3.poorly designed supporting hardware 4. Power flux causing a clock disrupting skew effects.

Why is it cant over clock 400mhz without liquid nitrogen cooling then?

Xeon

<font color=orange>Scratch Here To Reveal Prize</font color=orange>
March 19, 2004 1:01:46 AM

I'm gonna have to agree with Xeon on this one, sorry mate.

And I still fail to see how yall get excited about the poor scalability seen thus far from most benchmarks, including scalability of the overclocked CPU.

Some parts left me pretty amazed in the performance gap it left between its weaker sibling and it, but most represent a weak scalability.

--
<i>Ede</i>
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>More updates and added sites as over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
March 19, 2004 1:39:58 AM

well there are smaller jumps then liquid nitrogen. Lets wait and see what can be done with water and compressor before you say you need liquid nitrogen. And dont give up on air yet, there are many options of air coolers out there to be tested. Ill wait tilll we see mroe overclocking reviews before making my decision, just becuase reviews taht dont usually cover heavy overclcoking did and didnt come up with big results, doesnt mean its a no go. Personally I wasnt expecting some big revoltion with the fx-53, Im waiting to see the 939 transition to see how the cg revision can really perform, or not perform. This piece is mearly to keep the compitition up against the p4ee , although i dont see the reason, there isnta huge demand for p4ee's. Its fine for what its sold at, the performance at stock speed is fine. Ill wait to see some more in depth overclocking reviews.
March 19, 2004 2:32:53 AM

Fair enough we shall wait.

Xeon

<font color=orange>Scratch Here To Reveal Prize</font color=orange>
March 19, 2004 3:05:50 AM

Yeah, those visual c++ benchies r a wet dream. I wanna buy one just so I can have it run one of my quantum comp simulations.....in 64bit!

SEX is like math. Add the bed, subtract the clothes, divide the legs, and hope you dont multiply
March 19, 2004 5:58:38 AM

You are probably right that the FX chips wont oc all that well. The top binned chips will go to low power and 8 way opterons. That would be the smart way for Amd to go. Have to wonder what one of the low power chips could do though.
March 19, 2004 6:09:35 AM

I am sorry but this quote from the article's conclusion doesn't make sense to me. What does the FX-53 or Cool and Quiet have to do with security. And what does "built in overclocking" mean. How stable is the o/c. How 'bout running Prime95 with your o/c?

"The processor supports the AMD-backed Cool & Quiet to reduce dissipation and fan noise during idle or partial-load phases, and, together with the Service Pack 2 for WindowsXP, offers more security. Overclocking is built-in."


...patiently waiting for 10Ghz processors and immersible virtual reality.
March 19, 2004 6:27:37 AM

Cool and quiet is to do with noise and heat not security. Under low usage, the chip throttles back to stay cooler, and allow the fan to slow,so noise reduction.
For security they are talking about buffer overrun protection, and a few other goodies.
Built-in overclocking means the multipliers have been unlocked to aid ocers.
March 19, 2004 6:36:08 AM

>You are probably right that the FX chips wont oc all that
>well

Probably, even though I am pleasantly surprised the FX53 seems capable of 2.6 or more easily on stock cooling. Many people thought K8 would never reach that high on .13, I guess this somewhat proves 2.6 GHz should be more than possible for AMD if they would need to (like when they run into trouble with their 90nm process).

I always claimed 2.6 for K8 on 130nm ought to be more than possible considering the redesigned core, SOI and the fact K7 maxed out at 2.33 GHz (even though mobile 2500+ overclocks seem to indicate even faster would have been possible as well).

This is typically AMD, each time you think a core maxes out on a process, it magically seems to gain substantial additional headroom by the time the chip is being EOL-ed. Expect the last batches of 130nm hammers when 90nm ramps up to be very good overclockers, maybe unlike initial 90nm parts.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
March 19, 2004 6:42:50 AM

I'm thinking that a low power opteron could be coaxed to 3 gigs on air, so if there is a problem at IBM with the 90 nano, Amd should be able to scale the A64 and FX chips a bit more. If a new stepping were required, they may even be able to get to 3.4. That would be impressive.
March 19, 2004 11:16:35 AM

And the Overclocking built-in can refer to 64 bit ready. This processor should get a decent boost in performance when Windows 64-bit Edition will be fully tested/mature.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
March 19, 2004 1:42:51 PM

Myself too 2.6GHz on a very large CPU on 0.13 it surprising and it come from Toms.Also FX53 look better on toms reviews that those bench at xbitlabs anandtech.

Do you know if that true that K8 90NM have a TPD of 105 watts.I make a quick look around benchmark it still found that AFX53 is about equal a P4EE

i need to change useur name.
March 19, 2004 3:45:15 PM

For me the difference in the benchmarks in video rendering is small.
Since I don't do any.....
My uneducated view is still the difference is small, as for kicking it to the curb..... seems like over-exaggeration.
Bob
March 19, 2004 3:59:53 PM

>I'm thinking that a low power opteron could be coaxed to 3
>gigs on air

If you talking about dry ice overclocks, then probably, some people have already achieved 3 GHz on a FX, but stock speed ? Very doubtfull...

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
March 19, 2004 8:31:00 PM

No, I'm talking about the new stepping, using those parts of the die that are best. Think about the mobile XP chips. That part of the die for xp that was reserved for mobile, is reserved for low power opterons in the K8s. Not only do the opterons use lower v to start, but have a larger overall chip size for better thermal dissapation.
March 19, 2004 11:49:09 PM

The way I saw it was in relation to its siblings, against the P4. You seem the AXPs and the A64s in the same bunch, fighting the P4s up there. I guess the way I saw it, sounded like they were getting pounded.
They did after all lose to all video benchmarks, and that's a pretty strong thing. It's weird that the P4 is still maintaining such lead. I guess either its SSE-2 is much better or its bandwidth is doing it great service. Then again the A64 FX also uses 6.4GB/sec and should as well have an even better overall usage of that bandwidth of its. (since 6.4GB/sec is really theoretical and prolly never is reached)

--
<i>Ede</i>
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>More updates and added sites as over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
March 20, 2004 12:31:26 AM

Interesting results. The P4 still does better overall, but yeah, it seems the AMDs did very nicely in the benchmark you refered me to. Indeed there are always holes where one CPU can still rule. And this is no exception.

Now if only it was a consistent thing across the board. Makes you wonder what each program that encodes video uses for algorithms.

--
<i>Ede</i>
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>More updates and added sites as over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
March 20, 2004 1:05:14 AM

I'm not that much into video encoding. It seems to me that the A64 should get better once the extra registers come into play, especially the SSE2 ones. We are lucky though to have access to such great tech.
March 20, 2004 1:13:13 AM

have seen other progs where the amd does well in music decoding. Are these wrong, or are there some progs that are okay with the amd chips?

The real question what programe are ok with P4 by default athlon is much faster.While P4 have more potential.

i need to change useur name.
March 20, 2004 5:24:48 AM

thing is you can say same thing with Intel Presscott. Runs hot and dont overclock very well. But we are not in the 80s or 90s anymore. Chips are hotter. And in both cases. Why do you all want a heater Amd or intel. 200mhz is nothing.
!