That FX57 Sick to my Stomach Feeling

Well, I did a lot of research before I bought my new system. I've been buying from mwave.com for about 10 years and have had no problems with them ever. This time I took advantage of their 79.00 full assembly, heat test, and burn in for the system I put together. I used to live across teh street from them, so I usually just assembled everything myself. I live 700 miles from them now, so to prevent DOA problems I just let them assemble and stress it there.

Well, that was my second bad choice. The first was buying the FX57.

Actually, for 80 bucks, a full assembly, MB heat test, and full burn in is a damn good price. But after it's all assembled and tested, I don't think I can return it. Plus, I'd need a different MB I think.

Well, after doing the NEW research for the past week, I've come to the conclusion that the X2 2.4Ghz processor is the way to go. In all test but very few, the FX57 either gets its ass handed to it by the X2 2.4, even in games, or comes in just behind it. Add in multitasking, and you ahve the X2 as a winner hands down.

I have no idea how AMD is going to sell the FX57 with the new X2 on the market. I mean who in their right mind would buy the 57 when they could have pretty much the same performance in games, plus the added benifit of true dual core multitasking? Even when single tasking, the X2 is faster in most apps, except Win RAR--woopie.

So anyway, I waited untill now after the first 64 bit AMDs hit the market to buy the new 64 bit CPU that will replace my old AMD 1200 rig I built in like 2001--remember those babys?

I'm depressed about it though, really, really depressed. It's not like I could have seen the future, but you know how it goes in the computer world. You can wait, and wait, and wait, or you can throw the dice.

For one thing, I could have gotten a better graphics card with the money I would have saved on the X2.

In any event, here is my new system (I've renamed the FX57 below from SAN DEIGO to BOAT ANCHOR):

ASUS A8N-SLI PREMIUM nVIDIA nFORCE4 SLI CHIPSET SERIAL ATA300 ATX FORM FACTOR 2xPCI-E(X16)/1xPCI-E(X4)/1xPCI-E(X1)/3xPCI/4xDDR W/SATAII RAID,DUAL LAN(Gb),1394,USB 2.0 & AUDIO

PLEXTOR DUAL LAYER 16x4x16x/DVD+-RW 48x32x48x/CD-RW INTERNAL

AMD ATHLON 64 FX57 W/1MB CACHE 90NM (BOAT ANCHOR) 64-BIT SOCKET 939 RETAIL BOXED W/COOLING FAN (3 YEARS WARRANTY)

BFG GF FX7800GT OC 256MB PCI-E DDR3 DUAL DVI & TV OUT

CORSAIR VALUE SELECT VS1GB400C3 (x2)1GB (1024MB) PC3200 400MHZ CL3 184-PIN DDR DIMM (TOTAL 2 GB)

WD 160GB WD1600JD SATA-150 7200RPM 8MB (Retail)

ANTEC P160 ALUMINUM MID TOWER NO POWER SUPPLY W/ FRONT USB CONNECTOR

ANTEC TPII550EPS12V TRUEPOWER 2.0 EPS 12V / ATX 12V VERSION 2.0 550W UL & FCC POWER SUPPLY

I know it's a good system, just not as SMART as I could make it now.
81 answers Last reply
More about that fx57 sick stomach feeling
  1. It just so happens that the Dual Core 2.4 X2 can run games at nearly the same speed as the FX57, while having much better multitasking ability. That being the case, why would anyone want to buy the 57 single core for more money? That's my point. Your comment makes no real sense when the main point is simply speed. Single core processors are on their way out. Again, that is my point.
  2. Perhaps some of my special love would comfort you.

    (\__/)
    (='.'=)This is Bunny. I raped him orally and
    (")_(")anally, then roasted him alive in a dreadful mattress fire
  3. What he's pointing out is that in the upper range of ANY product line you get diminishing returns ($/Performance). The FX-57 is designed to deliver Excellent single-threaded performance, which it does.

    Is better at what it's designed for than the X2? Yes. Is it worth the extra cash? Well, no. the FX lines have NEVER been worth the extra money (IMO) except for money-no-object overclocking nuts with buckets of LN2 lying around.

    If you do a lot of multitasking (most people don't really, despite what they <i>think</i>) then an X2 would be a good choice, but if you just want an ultimate gaming machine then the FX is the way to go (assuming you have more money than sense, at least).

    Or if you're me, you just buy a 3200+ and run it faster than an Fx-57 anyway..... :evil:

    ---
    <font color=red>"Life is <i>not</i> like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapeńos - what you do today might burn your a<b></b>ss tommorrow."
  4. Quote:
    That being the case, why would anyone want to buy the 57 single core for more money? That's my point.

    Reasons to buy FX series :
    - Fastest AMD core on the market at stock speed.
    - Unlocked multiplier (useful for overclocker).
    - Highest gaming performance on the market.

    I agree with you that these arguments might not be a decisive factor for a normal user. But if you have the money to buy an FX-57 and you did not search on the web for reviews/comparisons/opinions, it's your problem if you took the wrong decision.

    <b>YOU</b> bought the FX-57, no one forced you to get that CPU. If you regret your decision, put the CPU for sell on eBay or try to get an X2 replacement, but I doubt that mWave would let you do that because YOU choose to get that CPU, YOU added it to your shopping cart and since it's a TOP of the LINE cpu, they probably don't overstock them in their warehouse.

    Sorry, to inform you that you just learned the hard way! I hope you'll not do the same mistake again! :smile:

    -
    GA-K8NF-9 / <b><font color=green>Athlon 64 3200+</font color=green> @ 3800+</b>
    Infineon DDR400 (CL2.5) 2x512Megs
    <font color=green>GeForce 6600GT 128Megs</font color=green>
    <A HREF="http://www.getfirefox.com" target="_new">Get Firefox!</A>
  5. yes wusy, cheap abastards like us running our 3200+ or 3700+ at fx speeds anyways.

    I save over 700 bucks by just buying the 3700+ and a nice big ass zalman cooler. and running the damn thing at around 2.7ghz. i stopped there because well... why bother? I'm already seen i've saved my cash and outperformed it. don't get me wrong. it would have be nice to have an unloced multiplpier... but 700 more bucks for it... not worth tit.

    as for the FX vs X2 debate. I don't know where this guy gets his figures from. it is a proven fact, from AMD and almost every testing site i've venture too. including THG which is intel biased that the X2 does NOT perform equally in games as the FX. single threaded applications just run much better.

    and my question really is.. Who the hell wants to run cD encoding and burning in the background while they're playing CS:S anyways.
  6. It's called buyers remorse. After dropping that kind of change, we all feel like maybe we screwed up.
    Believe me, you made the right choice. If I had the disposable income to get that setup, there is no way in h3ll I would go X2. Your system rocks, love it.
  7. Why don't you go read all of the reviews that are now online then?
  8. Well, the lastest X2 CPU reviews were not out at the time I bought the 57. I got it right before they came out.
  9. I think you neeed to reread teh reviews and look at teh comparison not from a score or FPS, but do the math on the %age increase you get with the FX57 over the 2.4 X2. You will see that even in games, the increase is less than 10% overall, and that is due to teh X2 running at 2.4 Ghz, instead of teh FX57s 2.8. I don't make things up bud, just go do the math for yourself.
  10. From what I have seen, top of the line FX chips from AMD go for near retail on ebay. If u are really unhappy sell it and buy the 4400+ and o/c it and buy yourself another 7800GTX and put them in SLI. This would be the most cost-effective solution which would give u top-of-the-line performance.

    The know-most-of-it-all formally known as BOBSHACK<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by K8MAN on 08/30/05 11:22 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  11. %age increase in FPS? what the duece are you talkin about?

    you can't use that as a measuremant of one CPU performance over another. is it "worth it is always up to you". but the FX line of chips will put out greater FPS in games than the X2. sure you might debate whteher the price is worth the extra 5fps. but thats something for you too decide. it's still outperforming the X2. just as yousaid, the % was high enough for you to justify it.

    as i said like 34234 times in this thread alone. it is up to the buy to decide if the price justifies the % increase. ther are gamers out there who will spend a bazzillion kagillion buckazoids to get 3 extra FPS over the next guy. to him, sure it probably is worth it.
  12. Quote:
    and my question really is.. Who the hell wants to run cD encoding and burning in the background while they're playing CS:S anyways.

    I do! I often run Video encoding/transcoding while I play World Of WarCraft. I lower the encoding application priority and I can WoW very smoothly. No glitches, etc... The only problem I have is when Norton AV kick in, I have to ALT-TAB and pause it. But It happens rarely (since I scheduled NAV to run in a usually non intrusive moment).

    Of course, when I do that, my encoding barely progress, but I don't have to stop it, so I don't forget to restart it.


    -
    GA-K8NF-9 / <b><font color=green>Athlon 64 3200+</font color=green> @ 3800+</b>
    Infineon DDR400 (CL2.5) 2x512Megs
    <font color=green>GeForce 6600GT 128Megs</font color=green>
    <A HREF="http://www.getfirefox.com" target="_new">Get Firefox!</A>
  13. Careful there...we've been debating one cpu vs the other since they came out...That's what this forum is about. You can find every single available credible online story/report on pretty much every amd cpu since they're original creation, linked somewhere in this forum. And Wusy has probably read/skimmed every last one of those...he has no life...what can i say. ('_-) wusy

    Anyway, the x2 doesn't* do as well as the high end fx's do in games. But the % is so small that it really makes no never mind. If you were running raid x on that board the overhead cpu usage would be enuf that the x2 would probably overtake the fx...add to that antivirus and other crap running in the background (aim, quicktime, etc) and maybe it would outperform the fx...but not before. You'll never notice an actual difference between the two cpus, unless you're doing heavy multitasking...which almost nobody does. (unless you're a real cad...pun intended)

    *edit: there are a few games designed multithreaded, specifically for multiple cpu's, gpu's and dual cpu's which will exceed a single cpu in the parts of the game that are multithreaded (which if you read closely, are few and far between);

    F@H:
    AMD: [64 3000+][2500+][2400+][2000+][1.3][366]
    Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4-M 2.4][P4 1.4]

    "...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by apesoccer on 08/31/05 04:37 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  14. "Anyway, the x2 doesn't* do as well as the high end fx's do in games. But the % is so small that it really makes no never mind. If you were running raid x on that board the overhead cpu usage would be enuf that the x2 would probably overtake the fx...add to that antivirus and other crap running in the background (aim, quicktime, etc) and maybe it would outperform the fx...but not before. You'll never notice an actual difference between the two cpus, unless you're doing heavy multitasking...which almost nobody does. (unless you're a real cad...pun intended)"

    Finally--that is my point. Sure, teh FX57 under the best case scenario does 5-10 more FPS than the X2. Big woopie. Now add to that antivirus, tea timers, anti spy, firewall, browser, ICQ/Vintrillo/etc, and see what happens.

    So evern though youa re all more informed than I am, I stand by my argument that teh FX57 is not a deal when it comes to gaming when you could have a dual core that does just about as good when tehre is ONE program running, and much better when thwre are three or four running, such as Virus scaaner, firewalls, ingame chat programs, etc.

    Yes, it's "up to the person" to decide if they want 5FPS more than a X2 2.4Ghz processor can do, but that's really stupid. If anyone thinks they are getting a "better" paltform with a single core processor because they get 5-10 FPS more with nothing running except a single game compared to a processor, the X2 running 400Mhz slower clock speed, then they are a walking pathology. It's not even an argument really. Think about it. The arguments you are all employing are pretty specious really. You all know the dual core is king, really, in the back of your heads. You're jsut arguing to argue. And if you don't beleive it now, wait till the X2 2.8 comes out for about the same price as the FX57. Bet no one buys the single core--of course not because the only reason the FX57 beats the 2.4 Ghz X2, when it does, and only by 5-10 FPS total, is because of its 400Mhz advantage. Stupid to think that single core has much future over 1-2 years, since they cost about the same--the X2 is even cheaper right now.
  15. Intel Wuzy? NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Say it ain't so :frown:

    <pre>A part of everyone in the THGC dies inside</pre><p>
  16. Quote:
    It's not even an argument really. Think about it. The arguments you are all employing are pretty specious really. You all know the dual core is king, really, in the back of your heads. You're just arguing to argue. And if you don't beleive it now, wait till the X2 2.8 comes out for about the same price as the FX57. Bet no one buys the single core--of course not because the only reason the FX57 beats the 2.4 Ghz X2, when it does, and only by 5-10 FPS total, is because of its 400Mhz advantage. Stupid to think that single core has much future over 1-2 years, since they cost about the same--the X2 is even cheaper right now.

    Congratulations! You've just won an arguement with yourself. Now see if you can beat yourself up before someone here does it for you! :lol:

    9 out of 10 voices in my head said, "Don't shoot!"
  17. This whole thread is a joke. Its your own fault for buying the cpu without doing the proper research. Wusy is 0 right. that will teach u to spend that much money on just a processor. You are obviously new to this, and it was a very expensive lesson just learned. Hopefully your won't make it again.

    Also The Rod, you actually use that Norton POS Anti virus. You couldn't pay me to install the resource hogging junk on my system. Go with AVG its free and better.

    I don't even run anti virus software on my system. Haven't had any viruses in ages. I just am very careful about what I download and where I go on the net.
  18. P.S Butthead that is a very fitting name for u :P
  19. So you agree that the X2 2.8 is a better deal, even for gaming, than the FX57?

    Again, to restate myself, why don't one of you post me ONE review where the FX57 is more than 5-10% overall faster than the X2 in anything, including gaming? Let's see it. This means that you add up alll of the FX's and X2 scorcesw, and get an average FPS/score and show me that it is 5-10% faster overall--even just in games. OVERALL, not ONE game at ONE resolution.

    If you can show that to me, then I will admit I was wrong.

    Until then, I stand by my position on everything I've said to this point.

    Single core is dead. Sure, I didn't have all of the information I needed, but this is a relatively new switch. I had no idea the X2 was so powerful, plus being able to run games nearly as fast as it 400Mhz superior single core cousin.<--you know it's true.

    In other words, put your money where your loud mouths are, or simply shut up-which means SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!
  20. I'll do the dirty work, and let's see if you can prove me wrong. Again, money where the old mouth is or shut up bitches:

    Here is one:
    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/06/27/amd_fx_57/2.html

    Whipping the Lama's ass once again:
    http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=fx57&cookie_test=1

    And on and on and on:
    PC World Review:
    http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,121595,00.asp
    "In the gaming arena, it was no contest. The FX-57 system demonstrated its prowess on Unreal Tournament, where it produced 185 frames per second at 1024 by 768 with 32-bit color and 181 fps with 1280 by 1024 at 32-bit color. In contrast, the X2 system had 167 fps. . . ." (that's about 8.5%--butthead).

    More? Sure why not:
    http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-fx57/index.x?pg=2

    One more:
    http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Nzg3
    Here we see the FX going over the 10% mark in GAMES only, but were talking like the difference between 180 FPS compared to 157. Given that these benchmarks were done with NOTHING running except the game and those processes that are necessary to the gaming tests, like mouse drivers, this is not expceptional. Turn on the antivirus, spyware, firewall, etc., etc., processes and watch the X2 close the gap to within 5% or so.

    Once again my point was that for the price and performance you get in the real world while playing games, the X2 whips the FX's lama's ass hands down. True, it's "faster" but only on paper. Run it in the real world and it's not justified. This was a nice marketing scheme by AMD.

    So there you have it. I've made my case and set out the evidence for all to see from respected sites. Given this evidence, anyone who opts for the single core over the dual is an idiot. I'm an idiot, but only because I have a life and wasn't up on all of this information when I bought my FX57, and the X2 2.4 was just out and I was worried about compatibility.

    However, I'll be within a year or so the current 2.4 X2 will be down around the 600.00 mark, maybe even lower depending on what Intel does and AMD counters with. Since my motehrboard runs both, I can pick that up if I think I still need it. PLus, I can build another system with my FX57 suing last years MB and lower prices. So I guess it will all work out.

    So can we all be friends again? I could use your help on some issues I have.

    butthead out . . .
  21. Well, the fact taht you said "You lost" doesn't mean I lost. I don't think I ahve violated any of my premises and they lead directly to my conclusion.

    But I do think you are right in one repsect--to you I lost because no one can win with you no matter what the evidence is or how tight the terms are in an argument. You are the master of this forum, but you are also the master of the Red Herring and Straw Man.

    I'm done with this thread.

    To all out there contemplating either the FX or X2, go with the X2 after you read all of the review you talk with people on other forums, unless you are only trying to get the best 3D Mark score. It seems that the FX 57 can be clocked past 3500. At least that is what is showing on the 3D Mark 2005 boards. Have no idea how those people are getting the 57 to 3.5-3.7Ghz.
  22. I think Butthead need to stop smelling his butt to get high? Hay everyone. Let vote on this. Let get butt head anti smelly butt.
  23. A simple question, anyone else can answer it if they like. If I were told I could pick any chip in the world (for free of course), I would pick the FX for sure.
    Anyone else want to ring in?
  24. X2 4800+

    I don't need absolute gaming performance, but rather I need the multi-tasking options that it gives.
  25. You see the light too. Someone is thinking here. Good man. Plus, you won't see any difference in gaming using the X2 2.4. My friend and I have now dome some informal real world testing using Halflife 2 and Doom 3 and the X2, like I said, is only about 5-10% slower--SINGLE TASKING. He runs a C++ compiler in the background and runs HAlf Life with me while it's running full bore. I tried running half life last night while compressing a file with Win RAR and got 3 FPS---hahaah. My friend did the same thing and ran like silk with the X2 2.4. Don't listen to these guys. Their just kids trolling for attention. If you want a more adult forum, head on over to Hardo PC.
  26. Wusy, the reason I am pissed at buying the FX57 compared to X2 is becsaue I'M POOR BITCH! I start saving for a new system teh day I get one. In thisw case, it took me 4 years to get a new system. I just spent my last buck on that system, like I always do. Do you know what I was on before a week ago? I was working with an AMD 1200 with 384 MEGS of RAM and a GF2 GTS/PRO 64MB Video card. If I were rich, I would have already ordered the X2 and not even written this post. I'm gonna call my supplier tomorrow, or Tuesday, and see if I can swap it with the X2 2.4. If I can, that will be great. I just read their return policy, and I can return it if I want.
  27. LMAO u silly butthead. The only trolling kid in here is u. most of the people in this forum, that aren't noobs would never pick a FX over an X2 if the price was the same. that was your own fault for being a dumbass. but that doesn't hide the fact that in single threaded performance the FX is faster than the X2. It all comes down to your needs on the computer.
  28. I would take the FX57 also. I would think that most people that use the PC in the home would find the FX-57 the better choice. BTW, I wouldnt turn down the 4800 Dually either.

    ASUS P5WD2 Premium
    Intel 3.73 EE @ 5.6Ghz
    XMS2 DDR2 @ 1180Mhz

    <A HREF="http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php?PHPSESSID=792e8f49d5d9b8a4d1ad6f40ca029756" target="_new">#2 CPUZ</A>
    SuperPI 25secs
  29. The X2 is 250.00 dollars less than the FX57, which makes my point even stronger using your dumbass logic.
  30. Keep on using that language here and you will get a one way ticket to ARNOLDS place.

    ASUS P5WD2 Premium
    Intel 3.73 EE @ 5.6Ghz
    XMS2 DDR2 @ 1180Mhz

    <A HREF="http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php?PHPSESSID=792e8f49d5d9b8a4d1ad6f40ca029756" target="_new">#2 CPUZ</A>
    SuperPI 25secs
  31. Mozz,

    your logic is about as good at Makaveli's. You tell me to stop using "language" or suffer a penalty, but all I'm doing is using Makevelki's own language. Read his above post--dumbass.

    Anyway, I had it with you punks. Your information is misleading as hell. All applications are going dual tread in teh next couple of years, and all procesors are going dual thread also because of economies of scale. See you later dumbasses. Have fun in your high scool-like click.
  32. scool is spelled school! DUMBASS!!!!!!!!

    ASUS P5WD2 Premium
    Intel 3.73 EE @ 5.6Ghz
    XMS2 DDR2 @ 1180Mhz

    <A HREF="http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php?PHPSESSID=792e8f49d5d9b8a4d1ad6f40ca029756" target="_new">#2 CPUZ</A>
    SuperPI 25secs
  33. Quote:
    All applications are going dual tread in teh next couple of years

    It will become more common, but the <i>vast</i> majority will still be single-threaded. This is because of two main factors:
    1)Most tasks are not inherently suitable for multiple threads;
    2)It's a complete PITA to develop.

    Certainly I'm not writing anything other than single threaded apps if I can possibly avoid it. The potential for introducing weird bugs outweighs the potential benifit in 95% of cases, or more.

    The only one giving out misleading information is you. That statement is a great example. You have nothing to go on, yet claim that 'everything' will be multi-threaded is just BS, and shows you don't actually know whereof you speak.

    Games are still single-threaded (>99% are anyway) Some future game engines may or may not go multi-threaded, but that doesn't alter the fact that the FX-57 is faster for them than the X2, simply because the X2 will only use one core in that situation. virtually no-one in the universe thinks the extra 200Mhz is worth the ridiculous price premium, but the fact remains it <i>is</i> faster.

    If you didn't look into this thoroughly before shelling a grand out on a CPU, then you are a fool. You payed a 50% price premium for 5% more performance. Deal with it. To start accusing everyone in here of giving BS advice is actually fairly insulting, considering the amount of work some around here put into solving other's problems.

    Go buy an Alienware and shut the f<b></b>uck up.

    ---
    <font color=red>(") This is bunny's foot. Wingding ate the rest of him. At least he's now a good luck charm.</font color=red>
  34. I'm new to this forum and I've followed this interesting thread. I'm hoping that someone here can comment on problems occuring while gaming with AMD dual core chips. I read a thread on another forum (can't remember which one though) where more than one individual had problems with certain games stuttering and freezing when using AMD dual core chips. The problems went away when they changed to a single core chip. They traced the problem to a desynchronization of the internal clocks of the two cores. Has anyone heard about this problem?

    I'm planning on builing an AMD dual core system (4200 x2) for the flexibility it affords but I do like to play games sometimes and I don't want to get into problems because of the dual core chip.

    Any comments are greatly appreciated.

    Thanks,

    Mike
  35. ChipDeath is right about that. I have written my share of multi-threaded apps. Everything about it is harder. But... there are multiple threads running on every system, all the time. There are probably over a hundred running on my system as I type this. Yes, many of them are suspended on events or timers, and many of the rest do nothing other than check for messages and yield. But the ones that aren't suspended are still taking up some CPU resources. Processes are just a simpler way to deploy threads. I think what is unarguable is that the home PC, whatever it is used for, will continue to run more and more processes in the background. I would think that as this trend continues multi-core chips will continue to show their advantages. In BF2 now the manual advises you to disable as much running stuff as you can before starting the program. When I bought my last CPU I really agonized over the dually vs. the single core, and ended up with the 4400 X2. I hope not to be disappointed when I get the rig together.
  36. its funny that u can point out all the faults of the FX processor yet u still bought one. If u had any logic to begin with you would have made the right decision in the first place, and not be in here bitching about your Fuvk up!

    You quoting price differences doesn't mean anything, just showed how stupid your purchase was!

    Here's some Advice, next computer u build let someone who knows what they are doing do it.
  37. For me, the specter of getting a "download complete" notice in the middle of a major shagfest, means I will always shut everything else off while gaming. Other than that (and of course for folding), my resources just dont take up much of the cpu anyhow.
    I'll still have to get one for F@H, I guess, but that's about all it will do.
  38. You're such a moron. The reason I bought it was because I was not totally up on Dual Core and what they can do. I jumped too fast, true. I admit it.

    And it's no skin off my nose. I just got an over night RMA for 15.00 to replace not only the FX57 with the X2 4800 but also my RAM from Value Select Corsair to Corsair Pro. I came out 100.00 dollars ahead because the X2 4800 was like 860.00 compared to 1100 for the FX. The new RAM was exactly 100.00 more than the Value Select. So I saved 100 dollars and I'm going to put that on the BFG 7800 GTX that I am swapping out tomorrow for my BFG 7800 GT OC. So I come out exatly the same price-wise, and I get the X2 4800, the Pro Ram, and the BFG 7800GTX. I'll bet you wished you had that rig, don't cha?

    So how stupid is that? I got to real world test an FX 57 personally against my friends 4800 X2 with the same MB, and with the same RAM I am getting today, and I now own an X2 4800 and a BFG 7800GTX---hahaha.

    You've heard of Total Recall? This was Total Recovery pal. A potentially bad thing turned into a great thing with great hands on experience that you can't boast--I owned an FX57, I touched an FX57, I tested an FX57, and the same for an X2 4800. The only thing better than that was your mom.

    Remember punk, Nascar's on Sunday--hahaha.
  39. I'm happy for you. I hope you enjoy your rig, for years to come. Hey it's a great setup, no doubt about it. It's your money, so you should get what you want.
    It may not (as in not bloody likely) be my choice, but for what it's worth, you are entitled to your own opinion.
    At the end of the day, no-one can say you have a bad rig (for a while at any rate)
  40. wow a mom joke, you must be 15. I'm glad u saw the error of your ways and was lucky enough to be able to switch it up and not actually lose money. LOL as for the touching the FX part, u must be a geek, get a girlfriend LMAO what was that about.

    I still think your a rookie, but lesson learned.
  41. Here one thing I can say. A ture tech or someone that knows computers. Likes to wait and see what happens. Questions I had People ask me. Even from tech stores why Not buy P4 2x or Amd 4800 x2? There Not worth buying yet. There no logic to it. Best idea is wait untel the next verson. I can have windows 64 full verson now but I just have bata and windows xp pro so I can see where problems lie In windows 64. Everything works fine but my keyboard Mouse. When I told Nitwits at best buy my problem I need to buy a Mouse keyboard that use 64 bit drivers. The answers I get was I dont know man. Use google or Dogpile and check there. For computer tech they are some Dumb people.

    But the Fact is Everyone here Like to learn about computer. The ones that are skilled at computers stay a step behind. So we dont fall into the problem you had.

    I will be building my computer in 2 mybe 3 years Right now I have Amd 64 3000+ with windows 64 bata and windows Pro. And Intel Laptop 3.4 ee L3 2mb cache. With windows xp. But Things will change.

    And Butt head mybe you should stop smelling your mom butt to get high.
  42. lol I had to comeback to this thread so much fun. As for your great handson experience butthead that I can't boast.

    I've owned
    286
    386
    486
    Pentium
    Pentium 2
    Athlon
    Athlon XP
    and now Athlon 64.

    I've obviously been doing this alot longer than u!

    GG Son
  43. Not a bad list, but you must be young. Before the 286 you should have owned:

    Atari 800
    Color Computer or TRS-80
    Timex-sinclair
    8086

    Oh, now someone will bring up the Altair, but I warn you, I once had a PDP-11 in my garage ;).
  44. Is a Commodore PET, a C=64, and then a Tandy 8088 good enough to qualify for this game?

    :evil: یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:
    <font color=red><i>Deal with the Devil. He buys in bulk.</i></font color=red>
    @ 197K of 200K!
  45. I had a sinclair ZX80. Those things couldn't even do floating-point maths, and had 1Kb of RAM.

    ---
    <font color=red>(") This is bunny's foot. Wingding ate the rest of him. At least he's now a good luck charm.</font color=red>
  46. It's funny to think what we can put into a wrist watch these days. :O

    <pre><font color=green> ∩_∩
    Ω Ω
    (=¥=)</font color=green> ~ Parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme ~<font color=green>
    _Ū˘Ū_</font color=green></pre><p> :evil: یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:
    <font color=red><i>Deal with the Devil. He buys in bulk.</i></font color=red>
    @ 197K of 200K!
  47. Yeah those would have been before my time.
    I had the 286 in 1990 I would have been 10, my parents had bought that one. Everything else on the list I bought with my own money.

    i'm 25 now
  48. What's amazing to me is that I paid like $3500 for my first 286, a 12 mhz. Right after I bought it I spent about $700 more and upgraded it to a Harris 20 Mhz 286, because that was rockin' speed in those days.
  49. HAHA, Wusy, once again you get Wussd on by butthead. My new ram is in my machine right now:

    Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2PRO: 2 GByte matched memory kit; consisting of two CMX1024-3200C2PRO memory modules at 200 MHz, 2-3-3-6 and 2.5-3-3-6 AMD). Yeah it's crappy RAM.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs