FX-53 out and looking impressive...

[Groveling_Wyrm]

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>

 

[TheRod]

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx53.html" target="_new">Xbit-labs review</A>

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

 

[Coyote]

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

 

[lisabob2]

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

 

[eden]

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:

 

[eden]

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:

 

[TheRod]

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?

 

[Boilermaker]

more reviews at:
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2002" target="_new">anandtech</A>
<A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjAy" target="_new">HardOcp</A>

 

[Snorkius]

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>

 

[Schmide]

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...

 

[Rob423]

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

 

[TheRod]

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?

 

[coylter]

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

 

[Xeon]

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

Xeon

<font color=orange>Scratch Here To Reveal Prize</font color=orange>

 

[Kelemvor]

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."

 

[pauldh]

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

 

[Spitfire_x86]

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

Overclockability is not only limited by thermal specs. No reason to think AMD is lying about thermal specs.

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>

 

[Schmide]

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...

 

[Parhelia]

JUST IMPRESSIVE, can't tell more hehe

 

[EugeneMc]

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>

 

[Xeon]

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>

 

[Rob423]

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

 

[endyen]

What are you on? Read, think and then respond. ( if possible)

 

[Xeon]

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>

 

[eden]

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: