That FX57 Sick to my Stomach Feeling

butthead · Aug 30, 2005

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.

butthead · Aug 30, 2005

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.

WingDing · Aug 30, 2005

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

ChipDeath · Aug 30, 2005

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 think) 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:

---
"Life is not like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapeńos - what you do today might burn your ass tommorrow."

TheRod · Aug 30, 2005

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.

YOU 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!

-
GA-K8NF-9 / Athlon 64 3200+ @ 3800+
Infineon DDR400 (CL2.5) 2x512Megs
GeForce 6600GT 128Megs
<A HREF="http://www.getfirefox.com" target="_new">Get Firefox!</A>

mpasternak · Aug 30, 2005

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.

endyen · Aug 31, 2005

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.

butthead · Aug 31, 2005

Why don't you go read all of the reviews that are now online then?

butthead · Aug 31, 2005

Well, the lastest X2 CPU reviews were not out at the time I bought the 57. I got it right before they came out.

butthead · Aug 31, 2005

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.

K8MAN · Aug 31, 2005

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 BOBSHACKEdited by K8MAN on 08/30/05 11:22 PM.

mpasternak · Aug 31, 2005

%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.

TheRod · Aug 31, 2005

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 / Athlon 64 3200+ @ 3800+
Infineon DDR400 (CL2.5) 2x512Megs
GeForce 6600GT 128Megs
<A HREF="http://www.getfirefox.com" target="_new">Get Firefox!</A>

apesoccer · Aug 31, 2005

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 TimeEdited by apesoccer on 08/31/05 04:37 PM.

butthead · Sep 1, 2005

"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.

emogoch · Sep 1, 2005

Intel Wuzy? NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Say it ain't so :frown:

<pre>A part of everyone in the THGC dies inside</pre>

Cybercraig · Sep 1, 2005

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!"

Makaveli · Sep 1, 2005

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.

Makaveli · Sep 1, 2005

P.S Butthead that is a very fitting name for u

butthead · Sep 3, 2005

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!

butthead · Sep 3, 2005

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 . . .

butthead · Sep 3, 2005

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.

Atolsammeek · Sep 4, 2005

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.

endyen · Sep 4, 2005

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?

emogoch · Sep 4, 2005

X2 4800+

I don't need absolute gaming performance, but rather I need the multi-tasking options that it gives.

That FX57 Sick to my Stomach Feeling

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Share this page