FX 57 ripoff?????

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I'm with you on this one. Bothe are San Diego cores, and Amd's binning has never been that exact. I'm sure that it depends more on the individual, and luck, as to which will OC higher.
 
Amd through out the years have feigned being the victim, thereby securing a mass of brain dead protective mongrels.

Amd puppies like to wag their tails when ever they see green...

Amd is clearly ripping off their fan base.
 
my fsb is 800 mhz, stock. i have an intel not an amd.
it runs in dual channel mode, unlike the measely 400mhz bus on an amd.

if i wanted oc ram i'd get something higher rated than ddr400.. obviously.

400x2 = 800

I dont look at manufacturer spec sheets to buy memory.
Click to expand...
That's why all the computer gaming magazines use AMD cpu's and the benchmarks are way faster with everything the same except cpu. I guess you just can't stand it can you?
 
True, but my computer is a AMD 3200barton, 9700pro

^
|
|

So you run F.E.A.R. on 800 X 600 ?
That must look worse than wolfenstein 3d... :mrgreen:

that is definately worth an upgrade.

and yes i agree, most of you couldnt tell the difference
between an overpriced 7800gtx running FEAR at MAX on an amd or intel.
Click to expand...

F.E.A.R. runs fine at 1024x768, on my 9700pro, newb, it's the same as a 9800pro.

Learn to read before you make a stupid remark about ones system!

Here, i'll give you a link, my 9700pro is the oldest card out there to be able to still play the newest games. Even at high level, LMFAO, your name should be changed to the noob!! http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/07/05/vga_charts_vii/
 
F.E.A.R. runs fine at 1024x768, on my 9700pro, newb, it's the same as a 9800pro.

Learn to read before you make a stupid remark about ones system!

Here, i'll give you a link, my 9700pro is the oldest card out there to be able to still play the newest games. Even at high level, LMFAO, your name should be changed to the noob!! http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/07/05/vga_charts_vii/
Click to expand...


Dear mr. n00b.
You consider "playable" to be 20 fps at 1024. please stfu mr. n00b.

And next time include benchmarks with FEAR in it... as there obviously are no links to FEAR there.

ohh and whats this radeon9700 does 19 fps w/ no AA or AF in riddick... pathetic mr. n00b.
whats that mr. noob? you say thats playable?



Sincerely,

The Master
 
well b4 you go further note this quote from THG

You might be asking, "What is the cause for this disparity among gamers?" In November, we published an article testing all consumer processors from the Intel Pentium 4 (Northwood) 2.0 GHz and AMD Athlon (Thunderbird) 1.4 GHz single core processors all the way up to the Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 840 (Smithfield) 3.2 GHz and AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4 GHz dual core processors. Of the 28 tests, only 8 of those were won by an Intel processor, and of those 8 victories, 7 were in synthetic benchmarks leaving only one real world application victory. Combine this with a price point that is attractive to performance-hungry but budget-limited gamers, and AMD becomes clearly the way to go. Even with the debut of Intel's 65 nm process and the Pentium D 900 series added to the lineup, there wasn't a major improvement in the situation.
Click to expand...

this is from the latest gaming machine review from THG....

and i think that this should be brough to you attension



and since i'm not good with the graphic card thing i can't really help there except to say that maybe a newer driver with less "optimized"crap would run faster? or else an older one that don't have newer "optimization"
 
when you say the people "upgrade" to 2.6ghz amd, it's like km/h vs mph, where miles per hour is amd, 1 mile per hour is more then 1 kilometer per hour.

1 amd ghz is equivalent to more than 1 intel ghz... or so i think... even though ghz is the same unit, amd get's more done then intel

Ara
 
my fsb is 800 mhz, stock. i have an intel not an amd.
it runs in dual channel mode, unlike the measely 400mhz bus on an amd.

if i wanted oc ram i'd get something higher rated than ddr400.. obviously.

400x2 = 800

I dont look at manufacturer spec sheets to buy memory.
Click to expand...

Your P4 run a quad pumped bus, so it id rather 4x200MHz=800 .. and it is even not MHz, this is data transfer. Dual channel doesn't add speed, but bandwidth.

Bandwith is a must with Intel CPU. Their innefficient netburst architecture need high speed and high bandwidth to maintain an acceptable level of performance. Hyper threading use wasted pipeline level to execute another thread.

Now, if you take a look at the Intel Pentium M, this CPU is clocked at a much lower speed, but, out perform your beloved Northwood. Because it uses a different internal way of doing thing that don't rely only in MHz. The processor do more for each clock cycle so it needs less. Just like the other company that produce CPU, that I won't name becuse this instructive post will the be called fanboyism.

But, the problem with troll like you, opposed to fanboy, is that they don't have a clue about the thing they are trolling for. At least, fanboy knows their stuff.

Troll post then become innacurate and would likely mislead new one that come here to look for information. That's why unlike fanboy, trolls are not really welcome here. There is enough misleading information running on these forum by ignorance, we surely don't need more cause by purpose.

I suggest to get mature or go out and get a life.
 
my fsb is 800 mhz, stock. i have an intel not an amd.
it runs in dual channel mode, unlike the measely 400mhz bus on an amd.

if i wanted oc ram i'd get something higher rated than ddr400.. obviously.

400x2 = 800
Click to expand...

Wow. I dunno where to even begin with these statements.

Let's start with your 400x2 = 800 statement. The Pentium 4 architecture (northwood in this case) achieves actually runs on a 200mhz FSB x4. (4 pipelines at 200mhz each). The theoretical bandwidth of such a system is 1x800mhz. But make no mistake, the FSB only runs at 200mhz. The same is true w/ the Athlon 64's. They speak to the RAM at 200mhz (400mhz DDR) with dual channel.

Now the AMD Athlon 64 runs on a 2Ghz bus. It speaks to the Northbridge at 2Ghz (DDR) while the Intel Pentium 4 speaks to it's northbridge at 800mhz.

So how exactly is AMD's FSB "measly"? The Pentium 4 and Athlon speak to the RAM at the exact same speed (200mhz) and the Athlon64 actually has a faster system bus compared to the Pentium 4.

-mpjesse
 
@ Jesse My 2x1GB sticks run 280mhz @ 3-3-3-7. Love my PDP.


@ Master. Your FSB IS 200, just quad pumped = 800mhz, dont be fooled.

Athlon64's are FSB integrated. But the HT is 200x5 =1000mhz effective.

Clock speeds mean about nothing in today's work. Its about instructions per CPU cycle. Also, the A64 doesnt "speak" to the NB about memory instruction, hense the integrated memory contoller.

Pentium 4's are bandwith starved, which is the result of how Intel lengthed the pipes to drive up clock speed. Another reason why their so inefficient is the lack of cache in the L1. Ranging from 8-16kb....thats a joke. So in order to compensate, need alot of L2.

As for the question in the topic "FX 57 ripoff" --Hell yes.
As much as I love AMD, I can buy a 4000+ for half the cost and produce the same frame rates.

P.S. I've seen BF2, WoW, FEAR etc benchies @ higher resolutions on AMD and Intel systems. Sometimes the difference can be as much as 25FPS, in AMD's favor. Then Intel claims a 5% preformance gap(25FPS lower when compared to 60FPS isnt 5%...I see a broken keyboard)

( I kinda blame compiling, but thats for another day)


@ PAT *claps* Very nice, good to see somebody with the same track of thinking.
 
Seems there's quite a few mis-informed people here, let me lighten things up (that sounds arrogant, but bear with me please).

mpjesse - not to insult you, but when you said "4 Pipeline 200MHz FSB", that's no where near right. What it is is Intel's Front Side Bus sends 200MHz 4 times per clock cycle (also referred to as Quad Pumped) because it uses 4 sides of the Square Wave (I don't know alot about the Square Wave, but I know how it's used). AMD on the other hand, sends 200MHz 5 times per clock cycle, it would appear that either the Square Wave has to have 5 sides or more, or something else is happening (I don't know what).

For the "2GHz AMD FSB", what it really is is 1GHz Full Duplex or Dual Channel. It sends 200MHz x5 both ways (Sending and Receiving from the CPU to NorthBridge) at the same time, thus producing a 2GHz effective system speed. Whereas Intel has 200MHz x4 1 time and cannot send/receive at the same time. Also HyperTransport (AMD's FSB) uses 64-Bit Packets (Nothing to do with 32/64-bit computing) and Intel's FSB uses 3 parts of Command/Data/Address whereas HyperTransport combines those into it's 64-bit packets. (Also makes HyperTransport take longer to send the packet which would explain why 1GHz AMD FSB !> 800MHz FSB on Intel)

For Caches, Intel needs to be bumping up that L1 Cache, that is the most important cache in a CPU (basically it determines what the CPU is to process and the order in which to process it in). But Intel hasn't realized that more L2 Cache is a no-no. More L2 Cache, theoretically, means faster CPU, but when you're already as inefficient as Intel and you have a pipeline of 31 (the fastest Presscott) whereas AMD has pipeline of 10 (fastest FX, and most Athlon 64's if not all), you have no chance.

And to clarify it, GHz is nothing. I myself, yes, use AMD, but because I spent years researching and learning physically how both architectures work, and come to the conclusion that AMD is more efficient and faster. Intel relies on MHz to sell, since their marketers for one, demanded they do it, and because AMD was creeping on them.

One thing I have come to find, is that the Onboard Memory Controller also has it's cons. Such as for Bus Mastering. Bus Mastering (For those who do not know) is loading data directly from Hard Drive into RAM w/o CPU intervention, it appears though that for an AMD CPU, the CPU must reserve a few clock cycles and would almost eliminate Bus Mastering all together (I may be wrong, if I am, please inform me). So Intel would have an edge on AMD in loading times, but with HyperTransport, that would almost nullify that I believe.

For those interested in the latest AMD news, AMD does have HyperTransport 2.0 which raises clock speeds to 1.4GHz x2 (2.8GHz Effective System Bus) which I hope will be implimented into M2's or Socket 1207 Opterons, that would be really nice.

For the RAM discussion, both companies (AMD/Intel) kept their system clock at 200MHz for 1:1 ratio with RAM (Intel eliminated that with DDR2, stupid move in my book). And the RAM is simply Dual Channel (Grabs from 2 sticks at 200MHz simultaeously) and both companies have Dual Channel CPU's (Though Intel is trying Quad Channel with Xeon's, going to be a disaster). That is also, I believe, the reason for the wait on M2. AMD will have 1:1 Ratio with FSB to RAM at 333MHz with DDR 2 667, whereas Intel DDR 2 platforms have 200MHz FSB to 333MHz (w/ DDR 2 667) and produces something like 16:5 RAM/FSB Ratio.

As to the topic, I believe the higher-end CPU's from AMD/Intel are higher priced because they only want enthusiasts (rich people) to be purchasing them (also because they're greedy). The reason AMD released the Opteron 254 (2.8GHz) was because they said their clients (companies) wanted faster Opteron's for their servers. I myself chose an AMD Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego and am very happy with it, overclocking to 2.8GHz stable with 250MHz FSB x4 is just fine for what I need. Hope this helped, and I didn't mean to offend anyone or sound arrogant (though nearly impossible to avoid). Some information here may be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, it should be correct.

Peace.
 
mpjesse - not to insult you, but when you said "4 Pipeline 200MHz FSB", that's no where near right. What it is is Intel's Front Side Bus sends 200MHz 4 times per clock cycle (also referred to as Quad Pumped) because it uses 4 sides of the Square Wave (I don't know alot about the Square Wave, but I know how it's used). AMD on the other hand, sends 200MHz 5 times per clock cycle, it would appear that either the Square Wave has to have 5 sides or more, or something else is happening (I don't know what).
Click to expand...

Yes, the Pentium 4 bus is Quad Data Rate. Excuse my lack of exact technical terms, but I think everyone knows what I meant. Here's a block diagram of the Pentium 4:

http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/2004/volume08issue01/art01_microarchitecture/p03_netburst.htm

I do remember saying the P4's FSB was 200Mhz x4.

For the "2GHz AMD FSB", what it really is is 1GHz Full Duplex or Dual Channel. It sends 200MHz x5 both ways (Sending and Receiving from the CPU to NorthBridge) at the same time, thus producing a 2GHz effective system speed. Whereas Intel has 200MHz x4 1 time and cannot send/receive at the same time. Also HyperTransport (AMD's FSB) uses 64-Bit Packets (Nothing to do with 32/64-bit computing) and Intel's FSB uses 3 parts of Command/Data/Address whereas HyperTransport combines those into it's 64-bit packets. (Also makes HyperTransport take longer to send the packet which would explain why 1GHz AMD FSB !> 800MHz FSB on Intel)
Click to expand...

Again, thanks for further breaking that down for us. I really didn't want to get in a long drawn out post on exactly how the bus systems of AMD and Intel work. I was going for effect.

The point is that an Athlon 64's bus architecture is far superior (and faster) to that of a Pentium 4.

Seriously though, thanks for the lesson in bus architectures. 🙂

-mpjesse
 
Seems there's quite a few mis-informed people here, let me lighten things up (that sounds arrogant, but bear with me please).

mpjesse - not to insult you, but when you said "4 Pipeline 200MHz FSB", that's no where near right. What it is is Intel's Front Side Bus sends 200MHz 4 times per clock cycle (also referred to as Quad Pumped) because it uses 4 sides of the Square Wave (I don't know alot about the Square Wave, but I know how it's used). AMD on the other hand, sends 200MHz 5 times per clock cycle, it would appear that either the Square Wave has to have 5 sides or more, or something else is happening (I don't know what).
Click to expand...


What.. While you're right about the Intel, The AMD dont use 200x 5 for the FSB.. The memory bus run at 200x2. 200 MHz is the base clock for the system. The memory run at 200, but data are sent at raising edge and at falling edge of the wave, so two time the the amount of data for one clock cycle. On the intel, the data is sent at the"low to going high" edge, from the "going high to high", from the "high to going low" and from the going low to low" edge.

There is no such crap as 5 side wave.. 5 is only a multiplier for the hypertransport bus that take the base clock of 200 and multiply it by 5 (actualy, you divide the signal in 5 in order to raise the frequency, but I think you far from figure that out..). That's why when you overclock, you raise the base clock 200 MHz, and then the memory run faster and the HT bus too. So, in order to keep everything at specs, you use divider and/or lower multiplier to adjust the component clock.

For the "2GHz AMD FSB", what it really is is 1GHz Full Duplex or Dual Channel. It sends 200MHz x5 both ways (Sending and Receiving from the CPU to NorthBridge) at the same time, thus producing a 2GHz effective system speed. Whereas Intel has 200MHz x4 1 time and cannot send/receive at the same time. Also HyperTransport (AMD's FSB) uses 64-Bit Packets (Nothing to do with 32/64-bit computing) and Intel's FSB uses 3 parts of Command/Data/Address whereas HyperTransport combines those into it's 64-bit packets. (Also makes HyperTransport take longer to send the packet which would explain why 1GHz AMD FSB !> 800MHz FSB on Intel)
Click to expand...

Damn.. what a non sense again... First, there is no FSB on amd. it is either the memory bus or tha HT link.

And to clarify it, GHz is nothing. I myself, yes, use AMD, but because I spent years researching and learning physically how both architectures work, and come to the conclusion that AMD is more efficient and faster. Intel relies on MHz to sell, since their marketers for one, demanded they do it, and because AMD was creeping on them.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you should have spent more time...

Anyway, you have the "whole idea" about how thing works, but has no clue about buses timing..

Don't want to seem arrogant, but when I was talking about false information, post like yours is a good exemple.
 
Wow, Pat, I am speechless. Everything you said was about as wrong as it can be (besides the thing about AMD FSB not being one). I said FSB instead of HT Link because people understand that better, and yes, it does run at 200MHz x5, and yes, it uses a diff. bus for Memory. The memory runs at 200MHzx2 because it's Double Data Rate, you're right, meaning it runs on Falling and Rising signals. One thing I must fix, is I said it uses 64-bit packets, that is incorrect, it uses 32-bit packets but HyperTransport 1.05 has an option allowing an additional 32-bit control packet to be prepended when 64-bit addressing is required.

For the "crap as 5 sided wave" I said I wasn't right about that, so don't put words into my mouth. The "Memory Bus" as you refer to, is the Memory Controller that resides next to the HT Link (physically on the chip). And it does operate at 200MHz in DDR 400MHz Dual Channel mode, whereas the "Memory Bus" on an Intel platform resides inside the Northbridge.

I think because you've had 3000+ posts that you must be special, sorry, you're not. And no, I do no want a flame war because I usually avoid forums because of such things, do not respond to this to simply rag or flame on me, as it is not necessary. And if you caught at the end, I said "Some information may be wrong, but to my knowledge, it's right". Means "Hey, don't quote me buddy". So don't.
 
Thank you for elaborating a bit. As I didnt have the time to do so (In the middle of an Economics class)

Just to add to the downside of an integrated memory controller.
A64's in my experience have some issues with RAM and the controller.
Examples, if your running a 3200+, and you are using all the DIMM slots, the memory contoller defaults the RAM to a 2tcommand line. Dont ask why, but it does (I know becuase my 3200 does it lol)

Then, not running dual channel can really hurt.
Most of us who own A64's came up from AXP, I had a 2500M (RIP)
Where dual channel, not even required, made a maximum 5-6% preformance increase. Where on 939, anywhere from 6-15% preformance increase. So not having matched sticks can really hurt.
Also, I said 4 DIMMs puts you @ 2t....having 3Dimms can mean occasional cold boots. I realize this is 99.9% of the time a mobo/PSU issue, but I've switched out so many boards and supplies, I've ruled that one out.

@jesse

didnt quite fully comprehend...my apologies.
 
Thank you for elaborating a bit. As I didnt have the time to do so (In the middle of an Economics class)

Just to add to the downside of an integrated memory controller.
A64's in my experience have some issues with RAM and the controller.
Examples, if your running a 3200+, and you are using all the DIMM slots, the memory contoller defaults the RAM to a 2tcommand line. Dont ask why, but it does (I know becuase my 3200 does it lol)

Then, not running dual channel can really hurt.
Most of us who own A64's came up from AXP, I had a 2500M (RIP)
Where dual channel, not even required, made a maximum 5-6% preformance increase. Where on 939, anywhere from 6-15% preformance increase. So not having matched sticks can really hurt.
Also, I said 4 DIMMs puts you @ 2t....having 3Dimms can mean occasional cold boots. I realize this is 99.9% of the time a mobo/PSU issue, but I've switched out so many boards and supplies, I've ruled that one out. You'd have to troll online to find the many things people have come up with on the issue of RAM and A64's 939's.

@jesse

didnt quite fully comprehend...my apologies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom