FX 57 ripoff?????

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
In response to wusy's question, if it's directed at me, I used to go to all kinds of technology forums and I would have mis-stated something or said 1 thing that was not totally right, and somebody would always be there to flame, really annoying, I only signed up to the forums here because I noticed a question on Toms homepage and no one else gave him a good answer. But o well.
 
Seems there's quite a few mis-informed people here, let me lighten things up (that sounds arrogant, but bear with me please).
Click to expand...


Humm. if you haven't started your post this way...

To me it looks like "hey noobs, you have no clue about what your talking about.. Let me show you the light... I know it piss you that I'm smarter than you, but listen to me anyway.."


Anyway..
 
The answer to the subject, is the FX 57 a ripoff? I believe that it is, I would never pay that much money for a CPU, I would go with a cheaper one.
 
I won't either, but some peoples only lives for numbers.. the higher, the better... SATA1 vs SATA2, DDR1 vs DDR2.. FSB800 vs FSB400... 3GHz vs 2GHz..

As long as they don't use my money, they can get whatever they want
 
I know, I built a computer for a person last year or two years ago and here is what he got:

P4 3.2 Prescott
2 gig Ram (don't remember the brand, but it was expensive)
Radeon 9800 AIW
Creative Labs Audigy 2 Plat.
200 gig HD
Asus DVD Burner

He even got lighted IDE cables for it. What does he use it for? Internet only, he doesn't run a single game on it. Talk about overkill for the internet.
 
It has a side window, and as far as what kind of builder I am, I recommended he go with an Athlon 64. He said he wanted an Intel, so I told him go with a Northwood then, but he didn't listen, he ordered what he wanted. I just put it together.

EDIT: I did tell him not to get a prescott, because I heard about the heat problems.
 
It has a side window, and as far as what kind of builder I am, I recommended he go with an Athlon 64. He said he wanted an Intel, so I told him go with a Northwood then, but he didn't listen, he ordered what he wanted. I just put it together.

EDIT: I did tell him not to get a prescott, because I heard about the heat problems.
Click to expand...

Ask him from time to time if his case has started to melt.. Or the motherboard... This will make him worried..
 
GHz Means Little To Performance (But It Does Help) It Depends Alot More On The Combination Of Microarchitecture Efficiancy And FSB (Hypertransport In AMDs Case) And Dual Cores Do Still Help In Gaming Performance Even If The Games Arent Multithreaded (AKA: Designed For Dual-Cores) And It Can Be Proven Because.....

My System Specs Are As Follows:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2.0GHz Stock) @ 2.2GHz
2GB Of Gigaram CAS 2-4-4-7 DDR466 @ 240MHz "DDR440" (Why 240MHz) Because A 1:1 Memory/CPU Interface Ratio Means Better Efficiancy And Less Wait States)
Evga Nvidia 7800GT @ 500/1100
80GB Western Digital SE 7200RPM PATA w/8MB Cache
Etc. Etc.

This Thing Averages 130FPS In Half-Life 2 @ 1600x1024 (16:10) My SGI Flat-Panels Max w/4xAA And 8xAF Maximum Detail Settings

And My Friends Home Build 3.8GHz P4 Prescott With The Same Videocard And Amount Of RAM Averages Only About 113FPS At The Same Resolution
 
Now For The Dual-Core = More Performance In Games Heres More Proof.....

Before I Had My Dual Core I Had A 3200+ In Place Of My 3800+ (Wich The 3800+ Is Basically Just Two 3200+ In One Chip)
And Yes The RAM And Video Card Settings..Overclocked To The Same 2.2GHz

My HL2 Score (FPS) Was Only 117FPS At The Same Exact Settings

And Heres Why.....
The Process Schedualer In Windows Will Run A Non-Multithreaded Game (With The AMD Dual-Core Update) On The Core With The Least Load Leaving The Other Core To Handle Background Apps, Processes, And A Fair Share Of I/Os Not To Mention The Fact That The Latest AMD Forcware Video Card Drivers Have Dual-Core Optimizations Thust The Game Gets Better Scores In General
(True Multithreaded Games Should Get Even Better Boosts)
 
isn't 60 FPS enough? Why are you wasting 60 fps for nothing? Can you turn on the detail again more, or the resolution untile ou have the best visual at 40-60 FPS?
 
Yes 60FPS (Even 40) Is Enuff And Is Great But The Point Of Getting The Higest Framerates Possible Is That There Is Less Chance Of The Framerates To Drop Less Than That Witch They Do Even With The More Powerfull PCs Witch Results In A "Smoother" Gaming Experiance, Because During A Game You Dont Always Get 60 Or So Frames Per Second That Depends On Many Factors During Gameplay. Example: The Number Of Characters In The Map, Gunfire, Etc.
 
And You Can Never Have Too Much Power!!! LOL, AMD RULEZ Nah Seriously...Why Do I "AMD" Becuase I Get More For My $$ In General Than With Intel And Ive Built Many A System Been Building Since I Was 14 And Im Will Be 25 Next Month (Not Just My Own Systems... This Is My 7Th)
 
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...


Ahem, and I quote, "I run a AMD 3000+ Barton, 330 watt PSU, 1 gig dual PC2700, 250gig and 80gig ATA133, 9700 Pro not over clocked, and I can run F.E.A.R in good quality, at 1024 x 768 which for me is perfect and since I am paying more attention to my game and not the flaws that my card can't get rid of, so its just fine."

Now, I am Upgrading to a AMD 64 4000+ or X2 4400, and getting a X1800 Card, and 939 Crossfire mobo, with proper ram, in the next few months, cause I can, and cause my computer is over 2 and a half years old. Having Mobo issues and can't get it anymore except refurbished. Don't care for that, so just upgrade my Mobo, processor, ram, PSU and GFX.

Now My only thing is, go with ATI since I trust them, or switch to nVidia cause they have a nice thing going with SLI. Either way, if I can run the games I play and not care about a little bit of jaggies, great. Cause I enjoy the game more, and the rest can wait for when I become a fanatic about jaggies and how good water looks.
 
Oh I Quite Agree With That But Since I Had The Headroom I Thought To Myself: Why Not Overclock? And So I Did With A Nice Performance For My $$ Result And I Like Ta Run All My Games At Maxx For The Same Reason I Love My SGI 1600sw Flat-Panel 17.4" Wide-Screen (.23mm Dot Pitch, 40ms Responce) Becuase Of The Super Fine Dot Pitch And Super Near-CRT Quality Color.. By The Way Strange Is It Seems My 40ms Rating Is Smoother Than Most 16ms Screens Ive Owned/Used Im Curius As To Why But I Have A Theory But Im Wandering Thats Another Post Subject, Unless Of-Cource You Wish To Discuss It
 
Ok... Most LCD Manufactures List The Fastest average Responce Time The Panel Is Capable Of (Eg: 12ms) But Thats Not Alwayse The Case In Actual Performnce For Example Some 12ms Monitors During Gaming May At Times (For Example During Certain Color Changes At The Per-Pixel Level) May Result In Moments Where The Monitor Is Reatching Responce Times Of Say 30ms, Well Im Thinking SGI May Have Listed It Slowest Responce Rate To Be More Truthfull So During Its Fastest Per-Pixel Color Changes When Being Optimal May Be Reaching Speeds On The 16ms - 20ms Range If That Makes sence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom