Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX-53 reviews comparison

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 19, 2004 11:24:21 AM

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/#21776" target="_new">AnandTech offer a list of FX-53 reviews</A>

I just finished read a couple of them, and I don't understand how ExtremeTech got those results : <A HREF="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1550760,00.a..." target="_new">Weird results at ExtremeTech</A>.

In many benchmarks the Athlon 64 3400+ outperforms the FX-53. I can't believe it! I checked their systems setup and the only major difference between the A64 3400+ system and the A-FX system is the chipset. I thought it might be the memory timing, but it's not... The 3400+ is configured to CL 2.5 and the FX to CL 2.0.

Any idea? Something is "wrong" with these results.

By the way, if you find any other weird stuff or anything to mention about other FX-53 reviews, tell me! I would like to know.



--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

More about : reviews comparison

March 19, 2004 12:59:53 PM

Wasn't the whole issue of the Nforce 150 chipset being inferior to the K8T800 because of its poor performance in games? Something about limited bandwidth when it comes to graphics, I'm too bored to look that up.

That's why the results seem perfectly normal to me, having in mind the little problem mentioned above. I just checked, and all THG, Anandtech and X-bit Labs use the SK8V (K8T800) instead of the SK8N (Nforce 150) Extremetech uses in their review. So basically, both FXs CPUs are "crippled" in that review, being unable to show their true potential because of the chipset used.
March 19, 2004 1:12:39 PM

Yup! I think you got it right!

ExtremeTech should change their FX platform. I think I will e-mail them about this issue!

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
Related resources
March 19, 2004 1:22:40 PM

Humm...

I just found this...

ExtremeTech review by : Loyd Case
I searched Google for info about him and <A HREF="http://www.nvnews.net/articles/loyd_case_interview/page..." target="_new">found this</A>.

I don't if he is the same guy, but it's funny to see that a guy with same name work or worked for nVidia. This might explain why he used the nForce3 150 chipset in the FX-53 system.

Obviously, they made a big mistake with this review, they should have used the same chipset to get a better comparison of the AMD64 platforms.


--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
March 19, 2004 3:49:33 PM

It would be best if they used one of each.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
March 19, 2004 4:18:01 PM

Humm.. not a bad idea, but it's not a chipset comparison, it's CPU comparison. They should use the best chipset for each CPU in CPU reviews.

This way, you have a clear view of the CPU maximum potential. Then, by reading chipset reviews, we can determine the relative performance of a CPU when it's paired with different chipset.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
March 19, 2004 8:39:35 PM

I rather preferred the xbit reviews. They didn't stick to the strick Intel benchmarks, but showed all chips well. I also really liked how they explained the Bapco tests. It's been a while since i"ve had any faith in Sysmark.
March 19, 2004 9:32:56 PM

I can definately agree with you there. But it seems in this case, with neither being a real mature chipset yet, showing both would be helpful. Many people seem to prefer owning a NV chipset over Via. I think it would be helpful to show that unless you go via, you may lose your edge to P4 more often then you think. IMO putting both gives far more useful comparison info than one or the other. Plus would help explain benchie differences from review to review. But yes, if either was the accepted A64 gold standard like i875p for P4, then that is the one that should be used. So, K8T800 is the better comparison now.

Do you think K8T800 will continue to be the one used in CPU comparisons, or will NF3 250 take over soon? I think if performance is equal they will still switch over to NV more often than not.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
March 20, 2004 11:51:21 AM

<A HREF="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1551444,00.a..." target="_new">ExtremeTech mea culpa!</A>

The underperforming FX-53 in the ExtremeTech benchmarks are explained in this article. They run the test at DDR200 (100MHz x 2) instead of DDR333. It seems that the ASUS BIOS was not clear enough! :smile:

--
Would you buy a potato powered chipset?
!