A64 3400+ is owning!

[NaHeMiA]

Well guys here you have it. Another execellent review from Anandtech!

Im glad I ordered one :)

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1946

Enjoy!

[Maxvla]

agreed. nice to see all those intels coming in last place!

[charlie]

Don't worry, [H] will have Prescott's handing them their lunches...

lol

C

[Maxvla]

Originally posted by charlie
Don't worry, [H] will have Prescott's handing them their lunches...

lol

C

DOOM 3

Prescott 3.4ghz 1000000 fps

A64 FX 51 2.2ghz .0001 fps

[Tedinde]

Originally posted by charlie
Don't worry, [H] will have Prescott's handing them their lunches...

lol

C

Depends if intel send the extra grease $$ with the cpu.

[Maxvla]

i'm sure intel will send them alot of 'instructional papers' on how best to run the prescott.

[BBThumper]

.......strange, once again I see benchmarks with a 9800pro that my 9700pro at default beats :confused: ...........

[NaHeMiA]

LoL

I dont read many reviews/ect. So [H] is just like THG?

[afireinside]

I guess... I mean common the guys favorite watercooling rig is the exos :|

[interman]

hehe yeah, really [h]ard cooling there, but it's at least more convenient when testing a lot of system combinations

[StormPC]

The 3400+ is very good. It definitely represents the best value in CPU's. It's performance is still behind the FX-51 however, especially where overclocking is concerned.

I am sure Anandtech's benchmarks are tainted. Think about it. How could the FX and 3400+ bench so many identical and nearly identical scores? There are several benches with identical FPS or seconds marks, even down to the tenth of a frame or second. How could that be possible? Anyone who has ever ran a bench knows that there is always variation, even on the exact same system. Here we see identical benchmark numbers on completely different systems. Would anybody like to guess the likelihood of this happening statistically?

When a 3400+ knocks OPP off the #1 spot then I may believe the 3400+ is superior to the FX. Until then it's just a 3200+ with a larger multiplier. Clock for clock the 3200+ is faster because the FSB must be higher in order to run equal internal clocks. I've tested 3200+'s, 3400+'s and FX's, and the FX's overclock higher on air. I'd say somebody is BS'ing!

Anand is like all the rest of the review sites. They report whatever fits their agendas at that particular moment.;)


Edit/

According to this roadmap http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1947 the 3700+ (which will not be available until the 2H of this year) is nothing more than a 3200+ with a 12 multiplier.

If that's the case the FX-51 will still be faster. My FX-51 runs at 2530 (230x11) and is happy as hell to do it, on air without vmods

[rashio]

well if u look at their adverts on their site the largest ad is the amd 64+ and that is every where so amd must be paying http://www.anandtech.com aload to advertise on that site and what companies do is they pay the reviewer to give better reviews
it happens everywhere, car reviews, hi-fireviews(i know i am in the business), etc...
u can't trust reviews the only really way is to try it out yourself, but that can be alittle costly :p
dont get me wrong i like the new 64+ cpus as i am thinking about getting 1 so i am not a fanboy of intel

[StormPC]

No doubt manufacturers pay review sites. I don't think AMD would pay Anand to modify their benches to make their $720.00 CPU look the same as their $420.00 one though.

I think Anand has his own reasons for that.:D

[bigZ]

Originally posted by Maxvla
DOOM 3

Prescott 3.4ghz 1000000 fps

A64 FX 51 2.2ghz .0001 fps

did you get that off tom's hardware by any chance :D

[mdzcpa]

Anandtech's review isn't really out of line with the other reviews around the net. Most reviews have the 3400+ only a tiny fraction behind the FX-51.

And it's hardly surprising. They both are running at the same frequency on essentially the same core. On one hand, the FX does included dual channel 128bit memory, versus the single channel 64bit of the 3400+, but on the other hand, the FX has to use latency penalizing registered ram.

The FX still excels in memory bandwidth intensive apps...but not by much. And perhaps not enough to justify the $300+ price difference. I think that is the point most sites are trying to make about the 3400/FX51 comparison.

[NaHeMiA]

Originally posted by mdzcpa
Anandtech's review isn't really out of line with the other reviews around the net. Most reviews have the 3400+ only a tiny fraction behind the FX-51.

And it's hardly surprising. They both are running at the same frequency on essentially the same core. On one hand, the FX does included dual channel 128bit memory, versus the single channel 64bit of the 3400+, but on the other hand, the FX has to use latency penalizing registered ram.

The FX still excels in memory bandwidth intensive apps...but not by much. And perhaps not enough to justify the $300+ price difference. I think that is the point most sites are trying to make about the 3400/FX51 comparison.

I agree. Also the 128memory does not translate into real world performance for several benchmarks.

mdzcpa check out my sig...looks good?

[Geforce4ti4200]

well said. socket 939 should solve this and the fx-53 at 2.4GHz using regular dual channel ram. can we say 33k marks for Oppainter and the entire front page full of 30k plus scores? also perhaps low to mid 22k on a ti4200 :D

[bigZ]

Originally posted by mdzcpa
Anandtech's review isn't really out of line with the other reviews around the net. Most reviews have the 3400+ only a tiny fraction behind the FX-51.

And it's hardly surprising. They both are running at the same frequency on essentially the same core. On one hand, the FX does included dual channel 128bit memory, versus the single channel 64bit of the 3400+, but on the other hand, the FX has to use latency penalizing registered ram.

The FX still excels in memory bandwidth intensive apps...but not by much. And perhaps not enough to justify the $300+ price difference. I think that is the point most sites are trying to make about the 3400/FX51 comparison.

Agreed, hence their aptley named article "Athlon 64 3400+: The Death of the FX51" :)

[Maxvla]

Originally posted by bigZ
did you get that off tom's hardware by any chance :D
nope sure didn't.. the one at toms was just a little too unbelievable to post here ;)

[mdzcpa]

Originally posted by NaHeMiA
mdzcpa check out my sig...looks good?

Looks very nice indeed:toast:

Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
well said. socket 939 should solve this and the fx-53 at 2.4GHz using regular dual channel ram

Yep...that's when I'll make the jump. I didn't want to be saddled with useless underperforming reg ram after the need for reg ram goes away. The newer round of mobos in the spring should be more full featured with fewer quirks too.

[Geforce4ti4200]

I can also understand why macci didnt blow a grand on an FX. good idea for all to wait for socket 939. think you can blow by 30k?

[Major]

I need a job = no money :(

[StormPC]

Death of the FX-51? That's rediculous.

I remember when the 3200+ and FX-51 first came out and everybody thought the 3200+ was faster because several of them hit the front page knocking most of the P4's off. The first month they had it made, that is until a few good overclockers got their hands on an FX. Then everyone realized they were wrong.

The idea that the FX is dead because AMD released an 3200+ with an 11 multiplier instead of 10 is just wishful thinking on the part of people who want to have the fastest system without having to pay for it.

Just as you all learned the truth about the 3200+ and FX-51, so will you learn that the 3400+ is nothing more than a 3200+ with a higher multiplier. The same will be the case for the 3700+, which is the same as a 3200+ but with a 12 multiplier.

You are too funny! :D

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by StormPC
The same will be the case for the 3700+, which is the same as a 3200+ but with a 12 multiplier.
Notice something odd about that...

If a 200mhz jump will take their PR from 3200+ to 3400+, then how can another 200mhz jump take it from 3400+ from 3700+?

What I see happening here, is AMD playing the PR game. They know Intel is releasing a 3.4Ghz CPU. Therefore, they name their CPU 3400+ accordingly, even though in my opinion the PR is wrong, and it should actually be higher (3500+ or so).

When they have one clocked at 2400mhz (200x12), then it would be worthy of the 3700+ moniker.

Also realize that it will do 2400mhz on the stock cooler. You can't say that for a lot of their previous chips that maxed out around 2300mhz. It should be a better clocker.

[Geforce4ti4200]

the higher multi could be benefical for the lack of pci lock

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
the higher multi could be benefical for the lack of pci lock
Everyone is going to be benching with NF3 250.....

[Hallowed]

Soul, I think their "PR Game" is simply trying to give the 2.4GHz chip where credit is due.

Considering that a 200MHz gain is a much higher precentage for the A64 than it is for the P4, and also that upping chip speed also increases memory efficiency... 3700+ sounds accurate. You probably know this though. :|

@Storm:

IRL the 3400+ is acting exactly the way review sites around the web attest to. Hell you have access to these things, you should notice by now how sensitive AMD's are to latency. Registered ram adds a cycle to each clock... 2-2-2-6 becomes 3-3-3-7, etc.

So in that comparing the 3400+ and FX, its basically lower latency vs 175% bandwidth. Hence FX slightly outperforming it, but not by large margins. Once 939 arrives there will be a greater parity between the FX chips and the mainstream.

Look at the ORB sometime. Stinger is only 4% behind OPP's score.

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by Hallowed
Soul, I think their "PR Game" is simply trying to give the 2.4GHz chip where credit is due.

Considering that a 200MHz gain is a much higher precentage for the A64 than it is for the P4, and also that upping chip speed also increases memory efficiency... 3700+ sounds accurate. You probably know this though. :|
I do know this, and that's what I stated in my post, 3700+ would be accurate for 2.4Ghz.

What I said was not accurate however, is the 3400+ rating for 2.2Ghz. It is the same 200mhz boost each time, however it goes from 3200+, to 3400+, to 3700+.

3400+ should really be 3500+.

[Hallowed]

One could say "is there a Pentium 3.5?"

Then again the same could be said of a Pentium 3.7. AMD is caught between a rock and a hard place here.

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by Hallowed
So in that comparing the 3400+ and FX, its basically lower latency vs 175% bandwidth. Hence FX slightly outperforming it, but not by large margins. Once 939 arrives there will be a greater parity between the FX chips and the mainstream.
And even moreso than most think, because the A64's will only be carrying 512kb L2 cache and the FX's will be carrying 1mb cache.

[Hallowed]

Agreed wholly. And thats one very big reason why I havent bought an A64 yet. ;)

[bigZ]

Originally posted by Hallowed
@Storm:

IRL the 3400+ is acting exactly the way review sites around the web attest to. Hell you have access to these things, you should notice by now how sensitive AMD's are to latency. Registered ram adds a cycle to each clock... 2-2-2-6 becomes 3-3-3-7, etc.

So in that comparing the 3400+ and FX, its basically lower latency vs 175% bandwidth. Hence FX slightly outperforming it, but not by large margins. Once 939 arrives there will be a greater parity between the FX chips and the mainstream.

Look at the ORB sometime. Stinger is only 4% behind OPP's score.

I couldn't agree more mate, once s939 comes around, the story will be a whole lot different :)

[macci]

Look at the ORB sometime. Stinger is only 4% behind OPP's score.
Indeed and OPP has higher card clocks. Make a clock to clock comparison ;)

[mdzcpa]

Originally posted by StormPC
Just as you all learned the truth about the 3200+ and FX-51, so will you learn that the 3400+ is nothing more than a 3200+ with a higher multiplier. The same will be the case for the 3700+, which is the same as a 3200+ but with a 12 multiplier.


Ya think? :rolleyes:

lol...this is about the funniest thing I've ever heard. Of course it's the multiplier that changes. The core isn't changing.

But, I suppose that's why the XP 2200 wasn't any faster than the XP1800..right?

Or the 1.333ghz Thunderbird wasn't any faster than the 1200ghz?

Or the P4C 3.2 isn't any faster than the 2.4P4C?

Please.

As silicon improves, and clock speeds rise (due to a multiplier change), there is more performance to be had. It's been that way for many years now.

Now, the same speed bump will apply to the FX obviously. So when the FX 53 comes out it will indeed widen the gap yet again. But when it does this in the 939 pin incarnation, it will be even a wider gap due to not needing reg ram.

LOL...Face the fact...the 3400+ puts up numbers only slightly less than the FX 51 at $300 cheaper:)

[DR. YT]

so your saying that the higher multi on the 3400 has nothing to do with the better overclocking potental? and on another note ive got a sinking fealing that amd is binning the hell out of the 64 chips. how bout you.

[StormPC]

Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
the higher multi could be benefical for the lack of pci lock

It could be, but it's not unless you have crappy RAM. It's just like the P4 2.4C vs 2.6C. The 2.6C is not as fast as the 2.4 clock for clock, but if you have the cooling for it you can clock it higher internally. A 2.4C will smoke a 3.2C with both at 3.5GHz.;)

Again, if you guys are right about the performance of the 3400+ then we should see one passing OPP at any moment, as the 3400+ is much cheaper and so are probably in the hands of more overclockers at this moment than the FX's. If two weeks pass and nobody has been able to beat OPP then I think you will realize the FX did not become obsolete just because AMD released a 3200+ with an 11 multiplier.:cool:

[QuadDamage]

Storm,

but not everyone has OPP's cooling. Stinger and me use modded Prommie's and that's not even close to OPP's cascade not to mention that i'm not as knowledgable as Cpt Cascade in VPC department. macci for example squised over 3Ghz from his 3200+ and if he gets a 3400+ any time soon i can guarantee you FX-51 will go down.

[StormPC]

Originally posted by QuadDamage
Storm,

but not everyone has OPP's cooling. Stinger and me use modded Prommie's and that's not even close to OPP's cascade not to mention that i'm not as knowledgable as Cpt Cascade in VPC department. macci for example squised over 3Ghz from his 3200+ and if he gets a 3400+ any time soon i can guarantee you FX-51 will go down.

I'd like to see it.

Still, even if that happens that doesn't mean the FX is dead. You know enough about computers to know what will happen when the 64 bit OS's and apps come out, right? The FX will slaughter the single channel chips in 64 bit, which is afterall the true reason for having 64 bit processors. It's not to run 32 bit apps fast, though they do that as well. The FX is not meant to compete with the 3400+. It's a completely different market. The fact that they are close in some 32 bit benchmarks is completely irrelevant.:D

[QuadDamage]

yeah if you say so. I won't argue with you on this one, but i just know it's not true. Anyway by the time 64-Bit OS is out we'll have prolly A64's at 3700+ and FX's at 2.6Ghz so it's really hard to say.
Peace my man.

[StormPC]

Originally posted by QuadDamage
yeah if you say so. I won't argue with you on this one, but i just know it's not true. Anyway by the time 64-Bit OS is out we'll have prolly A64's at 3700+ and FX's at 2.6Ghz so it's really hard to say.
Peace my man.

My FX runs at 2.53GHz on air already with no mods. Since I was never able to accomplish that on a 3200+ or 3400+ I have to assume that the process for making the FX's is already more refined. It is possible that it's the 940 pin motherboards that allow the better overclocks, but I don't think so since the K8V is almost identical to the SK8V except for the sockets. Anyway, the addition refinements may account for some of the additional cost of the FX's. Unlocked multipliers are also a huge plus.

What's not true? That the 940 pin chips will have an advantage over the 754 on 64 bit applications? I hope that's not what you are saying.

As for arguing, I think it's good for people to present arguments as long as they are actually arguing some point as opposed to merely contradicting each other.:toast:

[Walrusbonzo]

AFAIK ALL Opterons, A64s and AFXs are internally, physically, the same core.

The ones that pass all the appropriate Hypertransport tests get put in the "Opteron" bucket.

The ones that maybe dont pass all the Hypertransport tests, but pass the dual channel test get put in the "AFX" bucket.

The ones that don't pass the hypertransport or DC tests get put in the "A64" bucket.

They are then packaged into the according socket format with the relevant bridges set.

Obviously AFXs are generally going to OC better than A64s, this is because they have the required better cores for dual channel operation, and so the rest of the silicone quality is most likely to be higher, and thus overclock more.

That's the logical way I see it anyhow.

It also recently came to light that the new 512k L2 cache A63 3000+ are not Newcastle cores, they are infact the same core as the others above, they are just the poorer quality ones coming out of the fabs, thus half the L2 cache is disabled.

This happens all the time, look at the 9500s, 9800ses, the current Tbred A and B Durons, the Thortons..... All binned down with something disabled that maybe didn't pass the tests required for their initial potential. But it's often for market demand too.

[StormPC]

Originally posted by Walrusbonzo
AFAIK ALL Opterons, A64s and AFXs are internally, physically, the same core.

The ones that pass all the appropriate Hypertransport tests get put in the "Opteron" bucket.

The ones that maybe dont pass all the Hypertransport tests, but pass the dual channel test get put in the "AFX" bucket.

The ones that don't pass the hypertransport or DC tests get put in the "A64" bucket.

They are then packaged into the according socket format with the relevant bridges set.

Obviously AFXs are generally going to OC better than A64s, this is because they have the required better cores for dual channel operation, and so the rest of the silicone quality is most likely to be higher, and thus overclock more.

That's the logical way I see it anyhow.

It also recently came to light that the new 512k L2 cache A63 3000+ are not Newcastle cores, they are infact the same core as the others above, they are just the poorer quality ones coming out of the fabs, thus half the L2 cache is disabled.

This happens all the time, look at the 9500s, 9800ses, the current Tbred A and B Durons, the Thortons..... All binned down with something disabled that maybe didn't pass the tests required for their initial potential. But it's often for market demand too.

That sounds really good. The only problem is that the A64's use a completely different insulator material. Then there is the pin count difference. Are you saying they test the cores without any insulator material or pins? I don't think so. They can get a good idea of the relative quality of the run by the sharpness of the circuits, but actual testing is done once the chips are assembled (less the IHS of course).:D

[Walrusbonzo]

Originally posted by StormPC
That sounds really good. The only problem is that the A64's use a completely different insulator material. Then there is the pin count difference. Are you saying they test the cores without any insulator material or pins? I don't think so. They can get a good idea of the relative quality of the run by the sharpness of the circuits, but actual testing is done once the chips are assembled (less the IHS of course).:D

I'm assuming they would test the core before physically putting it in it's packaging. I honestly don't know how it's really done though.

I'm pretty sure the cores would be the same though, has anyone removed the IHS of an A64, AFX and an Opteron. If the core is the same size then it's definitely going to be the same.

[st0nedpenguin]

Originally posted by StormPC
My FX runs at 2.53GHz on air already with no mods. Since I was never able to accomplish that on a 3200+ or 3400+ I have to assume that the process for making the FX's is already more refined.

And some will hardly run anything over stock on air with no mods, it's hardly conclusive proof of an improved manufacturing process. :D

[StormPC]

st0nedpenguin,

Don't believe everything you read at THG.

Somebody lied to you.;)

I'm not interested in proving anything, just stating my experience based on building (35) 3200+'s, (3) 3400+'s and (6) FX-51's.

[Walrusbonzo]

That's some experience, I have yet to touch a 64bit Athlon.

[Hallowed]

Originally posted by StormPC
If two weeks pass and nobody has been able to beat OPP then I think you will realize the FX did not become obsolete just because AMD released a 3200+ with an 11 multiplier.:cool:

...

Storm, you know there are more factors than chip alone. To surpass OPP you would need equivalent cooling, an XT capable of the same clocks, and then have the tweaking knowledge to get as many points-per-clock.

Very few people can get the points per clock that Viggen and OPP get, and I've seen noone who could pass macci on the same equipment... unless anyone remembers Jazmon. Yet nearly all comparisons of somewhat lesser overclockers are referenced to their results. This alone skewes results.

There are too many variables present, and two weeks is a ridiculous timeline. Hell, it took people what... a month plus to pass FUGGER and his EE, even though the FX was introduced at the same time.

I'd also like to see the benchmarks proving the assertion that the FX is that much better at 64 bit compared to a 3400+. :rolleyes:

[StormPC]

Hallowed,

The FX took so long to do well because nobody had one even though they were released the same time as the 3200+. The 3400+ is a much more realistic value and the price makes them twice as obtainable. Since it took a little less than a month for the FX to succeed I figured 2 weeks should be about right for the 3400+.

Mickey,

I agree. I take issue however when irresponsible types like Anand make articles called "3400+..The Death of the FX-51".

Anand (like most of the media) is an attention whore. He's just trying to be controversial to compete with [H] and THG! In my opinion all of these sites are getting very close to being nothing more than Xbit or Inquirer type of sites.:toast:

[Hallowed]

And now you expect these people with FX-51's and 3200+'s to fork out even more cash in order to prove what should be an obvious point? Yes its possible to sell old gear to make up for an expense but it remains a spendy process regardless.

I dont think a two-week timeframe allots for this. I think the less-than-four-percent-difference of Stinger / macci's 3200+ should already prove the point that the same chip... only now capable of higher clocks... is indeed very, very close to the same performance of an FX.

[StormPC]

I respectfully disagree Hallowed. Bumping the multi up by 1 does not negate the fact that the the FX is a superior archecture.;)

EDIT/

Hallowed,

I don't expect it, AMD does. Actually, many of the top OC'ers have connections for freebies, so the person on top will not necessarily be buying it. Also, many of the top OC'ers value being on top so much that money is not as much of a problem for them as it might be for us.:D

[Hallowed]

FX is 90%+ same architecture. Only small difference is the memory bus width and requirement for ECC. Newcastles wouldnt be on shelves this early if there were a larger discrepancy between dies. And we know that isnt the case. Once 939 is on both platforms, the extra cache will be the only seperating feature between A64 and FX series, and thereby throw the different architecture line out the window. Theyre essentially identical in every other respect (registers, cache density and architecture, pipeline length, FPU units, etc).

True, some of the top OC'ers are given freebies (DigitalJesus comes to mind) but in the end they do pay quite alot and usually cant spring for each and every part in a continuous cycle.

[mdzcpa]

Originally posted by Hallowed
FX is 90%+ same architecture. Only small difference is the memory bus width and requirement for ECC. Once 939 is on both platforms, the extra cache will be the only seperating feature between A64 and FX series.


I couldn't agree more.

Let's not forget that the FX wasn't even suppose to exist. It was dreamed up in a hurry when the AMD64 single channel desktop solution proved not to be fast enough (at current silicon yields) to beat the P4. So they grabbed an opteron, gave it DDR400 support, and called it a desktop solution.

There certainly was no master plan to design a "superior architecture". They took their server/workstation solution and dressed it up in desktop clothes. The extra memory channel was meant more for server duty than for desktop use. But, when the chips were down, they used the opteron's strength to fight in the desktop arena.

There is so little difference between the Opteron/FX/AMD64 that's it's hardly worth noting at all. Yes, the FX has the extra channel for 128 bit, versus the single channel 64 bit, and the extra transport buses, but that's about it.

BTW, the difference in subtrate material is totally irrelevant. If any argument could be made at all, it is that the Opteron/FX twins took a step backwards by using the old ceramic subtrate versus the organic subtrate introduced during the XP line (and which is used by the AMD64 chips). The only reason the FX uses ceramic is because it comes off the Opteron line.

It's not surprising one bit that the chips are so close in performance when run at the same clock speeds. They are simply more alike then they are different. It's no secret why AMD bumped the mhz of the FX in the first place....they needed to seperate the "flagship" from the next tier down. With the release of the 3400 it has become quite apparent just how close these chips are in performance capability:).

[Geforce4ti4200]

if not enough buy the fx, itll get discountinued I guess

[StormPC]

Originally posted by mdzcpa
I couldn't agree more.

Let's not forget that the FX wasn't even suppose to exist. It was dreamed up in a hurry when the AMD64 single channel desktop solution proved not to be fast enough (at current silicon yields) to beat the P4. So they grabbed an opteron, gave it DDR400 support, and called it a desktop solution.

There certainly was no master plan to design a "superior architecture".

This is one of the most obvious examples of speculation I have ever read, and you are sounding a lot like a raving fanboy. I think you are confusing the FX with the P4EE.

Your post makes no sense at all. How could your statment relating to the reason for the FX's existance be true when even the slowest A64 (the 3000+) is faster than the fastest P4C? The FX may not have always been planned as a desktop chip (it is after all an Opteron 148), but I doubt you have been told this by anybody that actually knows the true story, and there is strong evidence that it was indeed planned for quite some time. Motherboards like the SK8V and other top-notch desktop boards are such evidence. If the FX was not meant to be a desktop chip why are there so many good desktop boards for it?

Your comments are highly suspect and appear to be selfserving. What is the source of your information, THG?:confused:

[StormPC]

Agreed.

Maybe the Gigabyte isn't good but that's another issue. It is still an FX board. Anything with a single socket, AGP and DDR400+ support is clearly not a server board. What about the Leadtek?

I know based on information obtained directly from an AMD employee that the FX was part of the plan since before March 2003, though before that time I am not sure. I first heard of the FX then.:D

[Hallowed]

Originally posted by StormPC
This is one of the most obvious examples of speculation I have ever read, and you are sounding a lot like a raving fanboy. I think you are confusing the FX with the P4EE.

Your post makes no sense at all. How could your statment relating to the reason for the FX's existance be true when even the slowest A64 (the 3000+) is faster than the fastest P4C? The FX may not have always been planned as a desktop chip (it is after all an Opteron 148), but I doubt you have been told this by anybody that actually knows the true story, and there is strong evidence that it was indeen planned for quite some time. Motherboards like the SK8V and other top-notch desktop boards are such evidence. If the FX was not meant to be a desktop chip why are there so many good desktop boards for it?

Your comments are highly suspect and appear to be selfserving. What is the source of your information, THG?:confused:

Oh boy.

Since mike is away...

What the FX is, was a good guess on AMD's part that Intel would do something entirely lame in an attempt to shut down hype for a chip that they know they couldnt compete with. At that moment in time, current drivers, BIOS, and motherboards were not allowing the A64 to perform at the level it is today. So they rebadged an 146 Opteron, chopped the extraneous HT links and upped the mult. The P4EE came out (and subsequently remained out of stores for 4 months) and proved AMD's suspicions right.

Your arguments about the SK8V make little sense. You think their sole purpose is for the FX? You do realize there are 1XX series Opterons that were on S940 long before FX was "created".

If you honestly thought AMD intended... all along... to offer a desktop solution REQUIRING registered memory out of their own accord with no outside influence, then there isnt much more that needs saying.

[mdzcpa]

Originally posted by StormPC
This is one of the most obvious examples of speculation I have ever read

Really? Speculation?
LOL...I thought all of this was pretty much common knowledge for those who follow the industry. But for those who fell a little behind on their reading:

http://tech-report.com/reviews/2003q3/athlon64/index.x?pg=2
Because of AMD's late decision to go with a SledgeHammer-based desktop chip, the Athlon 64 FX drops into Opteron motherboards with 940-pin sockets like the Asus SK8N.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx51_3.html
Now let’s try to figure out what are the differences between the mass Athlon 64 and the elite Athlon 64 FX for enthusiasts. In fact, the differences between them are not so numerous. AMD Athlon 64 is the CPU that AMD was going to launch a while a go already. Its major feature is the single-channel integrated memory controller supporting DDR400/DDR333 SDRAM. This is exactly the CPU that we managed to test about half a year ago...

As for Athlon 64 FX, the idea to introduce a product like that occurred to AMD just recently. AMD decided to release an extremely fast gaming solution because the performance of the regular Athlon XP working at 2GHz was not high enough, as AMD desired it to be. Athlon 64 FX is a full analogy to AMD Opteron processor with the dual-channel memory controller. It even uses the same processor Socket 940 as Opteron CPU. The only thing that has become really different is the die marking. That is why Athlon 64 FX inherited some server features from the Opteron family.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884&p=5
With the release of the 865PE and 865G chipsets, Intel has ensured that virtually all Pentium 4 processors on the market are paired with very high-bandwidth dual-channel memory subsystems. Ignoring the performance boost Intel gains by going to dual-channel, OEMs demanded a dual-channel solution from AMD simply as a checkbox feature.

Not having the time or resources to undertake introducing a brand new dual-channel desktop processor, AMD simply took their existing dual-channel design and called it an Athlon 64 FX. The existing design was the Opteron of course, and the first incarnation of the Athlon 64 FX is almost directly borrowed from the Opteron.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.html?i=1901
For those who had been following AMD's slow progress to A64 launch, it certainly looked like AMD was worried and wanted to make absolutely sure that A64 would outperform anything Intel could throw at the launch. Perhaps the EE chip info leaked to AMD, and the FX was the insurance just to make CERTAIN Athlon64 would maintain a performance lead. Perhaps AMD was concerned that lack of Dual-Channel memory support on Athlon64 might make consumers think A64 was a slower chip. It isn't, but perceptions sometimes matter more than facts. We don't know the real reason for the FX launch, but whatever the reason, it is clear that it was a last minute decision. FX51 is basically an Opteron with a different name.

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_a64fx51/
At 5 minutes to midnight, AMD has added a surprise momentum to the launch in the form of the "FX-51" edition, featuring the same dual channel memory controller found otherwise only in the Opteron series, clocked to 2.2 GHz and running a 400 MHz memory interface. This latest "trump card" should ensure that the Athlon 64 FX-51 is the undisputed king of the desktop CPUs, despite a nominal handicap in raw clock speed.

Yep...just speculation:rolleyes:


How could your statment relating to the reason for the FX's existance be true when even the slowest A64 (the 3000+) is faster than the fastest P4C?

It's obvious that when the decision was made to to use the server chip to ensure desktop dominance that AMD had no concrete knowledge of just how far the P4 would scale, or what Prescott might bring to the table for Intel (remember Prescott should have already been out).

Your using hindsight and knowledge of current facts to prove a point about a decision made months ago. That doesn't prove anything.


The FX may not have always been planned as a desktop chip (it is after all an Opteron 148), but I doubt you have been told this by anybody that actually knows the true story, and there is strong evidence that it was indeen planned for quite some time.

May I see some links to this strong evidence please?


Motherboards like the SK8V and other top-notch desktop boards are such evidence. If the FX was not meant to be a desktop chip why are there so many good desktop boards for it?

LMFAO...now this is funny:D:D

Everyone who has even a shred of knowledge knows that the choice of 940 boards leaves A LOT to be desired. It was slim pickins' indeed for the first couple of months. Now, finally 3 and a half months after launch, a few new boards are finally appearing.


Your comments are highly suspect and appear to be selfserving.

How so? I've been in this hobby longer than most and I couldn't care any less about any brand loyalty of CPU, mobo, HD, or whatever. I go with the hardware I feel like trying. I've been to the top of the ORB. Have you?

Bottom line...I go with what I think will be fun for me to try, or what tickles my fancy. I don't try to be "better than anyone". That's not my thing. Heck, my P4EE is the largest frivolous expenditure I've made this year. If I felt that I just had to have the fastest rig no matter what, I would've gone with the FX 51 like everyone else. But I wanted to be different. I certainly don't feel the need to jump into every thread I can to say "hey...look at me. See how my air cooled blah blah blah is faster than yours." I'm just not that insecure and attention seeking.

Just because my opinion differs from yours does not mean my mtoives are suspect at all.

Fact is fact, and the AMD64 3400+ is only slightly slower than the FX 51 and hundreds of dollars cheaper. Can you refute that?

That's not a slam to the FX 51, just a reality. Heck, you can make the same argument about the P4EE easily. The price premium just isn't worth it for most folks. You would never catch me denying it either.

EDIT- BTW, your right on point Hallowed...thanks:)

[macci]

Fact is fact, and the AMD64 3400+ is only slightly slower than the FX 51 and hundreds of dollars cheaper. Can you refute that?
Indeed.
And its not only the chip price difference. How much does 2x512 Corsair RE cost? and how much does normal 2x512 corsair cost? The 940 boards cost more than the 754 ones too.
So as far as price/perfromance goes the 3400 is a clear winner.

[Hallowed]

NP Mike. :)

macci: considering running a 3400+?

[Slickthellama]

no, he just said price/performance.

Here is what I see. But i am not an AMD owner and not to smart with AMDs but here's the thing. FX-51s will be faster than the 3400+'s but the gap will narrow between the two. Thus making lots of people who would otherwise go FX-51 due to the notable performance gap, go 3400+ instead. The majority of the overclocking community wishes to get the best price/performance. But there is a small percentage of people who are willing to pay rediculous amounts of money for the BEST hardware available. These are the people who will continue to support the FX-51. However, sales will drop due to the narrowing of the FX and 3X00+ performance margain.

[macci]

Hallowed, well why not :D
If it clocks up to 3200 (which seems to be possible) it might be just enough to push the FX from the top. It will require 270-zone RAM speed minium but its been done before :D

[Malves]

Perhaps AMD was concerned that lack of Dual-Channel memory support on Athlon64 might make consumers think A64 was a slower chip. It isn't, but perceptions sometimes matter more than facts. We don't know the real reason for the FX launch, but whatever the reason, it is clear that it was a last minute decision. FX51 is basically an Opteron with a different name.

What's the possibility of AMD releasing the FX51 - DC - just to get some share of the market, and now introducing the 3400+ to bite that share and discontinue the FX51?

The concern was people going away from the A64 because of lack of DC; but now the 3400+ is proving that, even with SC, it can hold up to a DC setup.

[StormPC]

It has not proven anything yet Malves. When one gets close to or beats OPP's FX then it will have proven something. Until then this is just useless speculation.

I'd like to see you try to beat the FX with a 3400+ Macci. I don't think you'll even try it because you know it's a waste of your time and money. Prove me wrong buddy!:D

mdzcpa,

Never been to the top of the ORB because I use air cooling exclusively. I have had the number one 100% air-cooled score however, and my system on air is in the top 50 computers in the world right now regardless of cooling/mhz/OS/VC, etc....

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by StormPC
I'd like to see you try to beat the FX with a 3400+ Macci. I don't think you'll even try it because you know it's a waste of your time and money. Prove me wrong buddy!:D
I don't think its a waste of time at all. Why do you doubt him, when he was the first to bench A64 at 3Ghz+?

[StormPC]

Originally posted by Soulburner
I don't think its a waste of time at all. Why do you doubt him, when he was the first to bench A64 at 3Ghz+?

I don't doubt Macci's abilities. It's because I know how good he is at this stuff that I know he already knows the futility of such an action. He knows it would be a complete waste of time to try to beat an FX with a 3400+. Macci has proven my point better than I ever could.:toast:

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by StormPC
I don't doubt Macci's abilities. It's because I know how good he is at this stuff that I know he already knows the futility of such an action.
Judging from what he just said, it doesn't look like that's true.

[StormPC]

Originally posted by Soulburner
Judging from what he just said, it doesn't look like that's true.

It's one thing to talk and another to do. I don't believe Macci believes what he said.

[Soulburner]

macci, what's on your hand?

[tritium]

It has not proven anything yet Malves. When one gets close to or beats OPP's FX then it will have proven something. Until then this is just useless speculation

What am I missing here. What is there to prove-- The A64 3400+ is just a few % points behind the AFX-51.
Like it or not but thats the truth.

[Malves]

When one gets close to or beats OPP's FX then it will have proven something. Until then this is just useless speculation

But what is close in your opinion? Early in this thread, it was said that Stinger is about 4-5% behind OPP.

[StormPC]

Originally posted by macci
Indeed.
And its not only the chip price difference. How much does 2x512 Corsair RE cost? and how much does normal 2x512 corsair cost? The 940 boards cost more than the 754 ones too.
So as far as price/perfromance goes the 3400 is a clear winner.

It's about $290.00 per gig for RE and $255.00 for non-reg on average.

Malves,

You act like I'm saying the FX is a better value. That's not even close to what I'm saying. I'm saying that the FX is the best performer, not the cheapest. The 3400+ is very good for a bargan chip, but when idiots like Anand write articles entitled "A64 3400+, Death of the FX-51" I have to ask myself what the motive here is because the two chips are not even targeting the same market. All Anand was doing is trying to bait people so they would visit his site and read his useless banter. Next thing you know he'll have an article talking about how wonderful the Prescott is entitled "Michael Jackson likes Girls!!!":slapass:

[StormPC]

Originally posted by tritium
What am I missing here. What is there to prove-- The A64 3400+ is just a few % points behind the AFX-51.
Like it or not but thats the truth.

Can't that be said about almost any two CPU's?:rolleyes:

[Hallowed]

Originally posted by StormPC
when idiots like Anand write articles entitled "A64 3400+, Death of the FX-51" I have to ask myself what the motive here is because the two chips are not even targeting the same market.

His "motive" is informing people not to spend a $300 premium for a 5% (at best) performance upgrade. And why do you keep insisting the 3400+ isnt close to the FX-51?

The §§§§ing 3200+ is only 4% behind OPP's FX-51, and Stingers card clocks are lower. If you dont consider 4% close, what is?

[Soulburner]

There was nothing wrong with the title of Anandtech's article.

[StormPC]

Originally posted by Hallowed
His "motive" is informing people not to spend a $300 premium for a 5% (at best) performance upgrade. And why do you keep insisting the 3400+ isnt close to the FX-51?

The §§§§ing 3200+ is only 4% behind OPP's FX-51, and Stingers card clocks are lower. If you dont consider 4% close, what is?

And he couldn't inform them without the colorful title, eh? Right!

The 3400+ is a 3200+ with an 11 multiplier. It is not some magical new architecture and has no enhancements over the 3200+. It does not compete with the FX. It can score close to the FX in some benchmarks, but it is not as good as an FX in most realworld applications, especially apps where bandwidth is utilized.

Where does Anand get off thinking he can tell us what is worth what? For that matter, where do you? Everybody has their own values.

The bottom line is, if you haven't had an FX then you don't know! I thought the 3200+ was amazing when it first came out, but I didn't have an FX to compare it to. Now that I've had FX's for awhile I could never go back to a single channel chip.

Knock yourselves out if you want to believe a P4EE or 3400+ is as good as an FX, but you've all been in this game long enough to know that YOU NEVER GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING!!!

Cheers!:toast:

[mdzcpa]

Originally posted by Soulburner
There was nothing wrong with the title of Anandtech's article.

Your right. The few extreme enthusiasts around might well indeed pay at %60 premium for a 4% gain...as foolish as that sounds. Not digging anyone, I certainly did a worse price/performance buy with my EE.

However, there are indeed very few of these people. From an entire market perspective, now that it has been clearly shown that the 3400+ is only a few percent in back of the FX 51, many potential mainstream and moderate enthusaists buyers of the FX will change thier mind. For these folks the FX 51 is indeed "dead".

When Anand says the FX is dead, he means as a "product". He doesn't mean the 3400+ is faster. It's pretty simple to see what he is saying.

More than that, he isn't even preaching the concept is true. He is only offering thought provoking concept for the market he serves. You know, that's what that little symbol was on the end of his article title was for. It's called a question mark. It looks like this: ? It's called begging the question. A common literary technique. It's meant for the readers to draw their own conclusions.:rolleyes:

The only thing I see in this thread is total denial from someone whose system is already growing obsolete and cannot face the fact :rolleyes: I won't say who though:D

Edit: oh BTW, I had an FX 51 system and sold it. It was nice and all but too quirky for my tastes. Of course the only board to be had at the time was the POS Asus NF3 Operton board. Somehow I missed all those other "high quality boards" that were released in early October...cause, you know, the mobo makers had plenty of time to work up the boards...it was all a long term plan ;)

It's rough debating with those so far in denial. I'll retire from this thread.

[Hallowed]

Yes, this does seem more like a bad case of denial rather than a legitimate argument. :stick:

[mdzcpa]

Originally posted by StormPC
mdzcpa,

Never been to the top of the ORB because I use air cooling exclusively. I have had the number one 100% air-cooled score however, and my system on air is in the top 50 computers in the world right now regardless of cooling/mhz/OS/VC, etc....

Oh...one last point. Please don't think that I was trying to throw the ORB experiences in your face. That wasn't the point. The point was that I've had the "fastest" and the "best" and the whatever. Been there and done that. For some it's still plenty fun....more power to them. But for me, it's not for me anymore.

All I'm saying is you need to step back, relax, and open your mind up a little. You are obviously worried that someday the FX will not be at the top of the heap. It's inevitable. Debates like this are useless and it makes those who resist common sense seem a bit to zealous. No one is bashing your beloved FX. Another chip has come along that is indeed VERY close in performance to the FX. And everyone knows it. So what? Why the harsh defensiveness? It's the natural progression of technology. Just relax and enjoy your system. It doesn't matter.

[QuadDamage]

I miss the 2280mhz opteron setup before I will the shuttle 3400+@2.9ghz setup

cos you got yourself a crappy Shuttle mobo "mate".:)

[QuadDamage]

chill Jason, i have seen these pics already:) yeah Shuttle is a good mobo but not as good Gigabyte. And shuttle kills chips, remember? i've lost one shuttle mobo before i got into windows:(

and awesome scores Jason "AS ALWAYS":D

[StormPC]

Originally posted by mdzcpa

The only thing I see in this thread is total denial from someone whose system is already growing obsolete and cannot face the fact :rolleyes: I won't say who though:D

LOL... If my FX is becoming obsolete, wtf is your EE? Want to guess who will be kicking 64 bit A$$ and who won't be between the two of us? You paid a hell of a price to be different. You could have saved $300.00 and had a faster computer while being different if what you said about the FX-51 market being so small holds any water at all. You also would have been different than all the millions of users who do not have a 64 bit machine and thus will be required to buy one to be able to run the newest Windows XP and 64 bit applications.

I hope you like being different. To me your P4EE is just more of the same. Every P4 on the front page is a P4EE. A strange way to be different.:confused:

I have no hostility towards you or anyone else. I am simply telling you that you are wrong and you do not care for that too much.:D

[JAMES]

Originally posted by MickeyMouse
hehe Im not saying its the best of the best for everything, but its a good/bets A64 3dmarking board :) and yes I know its a chip killer and yes I know of a list of other things I hate, but dont want to discuss ;)...

MSI all the way I think, "LOL"

Damn i am lucky... i was almost going to throw my expensive giabyte k8nnxp and get myself a shuttle.... i dont care much about benchmarking but i would love to run 2.6ghz+ and 260fsb+ and aggressive timings all day without killing anything...

Now Jason tell me one thing... y cant the corsair pc3500cas2 ver1.1 do 240fsb+ @ cas2 on a gigabyte k8nnxp???

Cause if i let in SPD it boots.. or else it doesnt...but i am sure the stick did 240fsb 2-2-2-11 on my nforce2...

what could be the problem... am i missing something???

[JBELL]

Hey MM might wanna settle a little bit bud ..... and for the love of monitors resize your §§§§ before attaching!

[QuadDamage]

what, you're on 15" monitor JBELL? :D Don't tell me you ran all those benches at 1280x1024x32 jason... it decreases performance for gods sake!

and yeah Trandescent and MSI rule:D

[macci]

I don't believe Macci believes what he said.
Why not? :D
I guess I need to draw you a map.

I'll use Stinger's great A64 result as a starting point here and compare it to OPPs current FX top score. The A64 is running at 2800MHz (280x10 1:1 on Shuttle) and FX is running at 3071MHz (256x12 1:1).
Heres how those compare:
http://www.akiba-pc.com/a64/a64_fx_1.gif

OPPs XT was at 654/466 and Stingers card was at 634/459 (IIRC). So a lot of the difference comes from video card clocks alone.
So lets put a 654/466 clocked XT on Stingers rig and we see the real deal:
http://www.akiba-pc.com/a64/a64_fx_3.gif
(I took dragos, nature and car low from OPPS score - that is very close to a real world situation, the FPS would be very tiny bit lower but his lobby scores would go up a bit too because of higher card clocks - so all in all its a fair comparison)

A64 3200 at 2800MHz vs. FX at 3072MHz and only 768Marks difference. Make a clock to clock comparison and then tell me "It does not compete with the FX" ;)

Now wheter the 3400 will beat the FX or not when ran at 3072MHz remains to be seen but I wouldn't go and say its impossible. Hell it may very well clock higher than 3072MHz.

The shuttle board that was used in this comparo may or may not be the fastest A64 board clock to clock and 280 1:1 ain't the highest ram clock on A64 either. The FX mobo used on the top score is the fastest FX board and 256 1:1 2-2-2-6 with registered RAM is pretty much as fast as it will go.

[StormPC]

Stinger is using an external device to generate his clock. You will never get a current A64 motherboard to run 280MHz 1:1 without it. Since most people will never do this I think it's a joke to compare the A64 3400+ to the FX. Also, everybody knows how much 2k1 loves a high FSB. 257 for OPP compared to 280 for Stinger is a bit of an advantage for the 3200+.

I think one of our problems here is that you guys seem to be thinking only in terms of the 2k1 ORB, where as I (being a system builder) look at it in terms of over usefulness and performance in everyday life. I think most of you missed Mickey's point. He was not saying that his Opteron was faster than his 3400+. He was saying that he missed the Opteron because it made for a more robust computer overall.

[mdzcpa]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by StormPC
LOL... If my FX is becoming obsolete, wtf is your EE?

What does my EE even have to do with the topic of this thread? I clearly said it isn't the fastest, nor the best price/performance choice out there...LOL. Man...nothing like going out on the attack when feeling threatened eh? :)


Want to guess who will be kicking 64 bit A$$ and who won't be between the two of us? You paid a hell of a price to be different. You could have saved $300.00 and had a faster computer while being different

Hate to break it to ya bud, but I rotate through boards and CPUs more than most rotate their underwear:D I'm not even worried about the $300...I'll be into what ever system I feel like being into, whenever I feel like it. When it's 64 time...perhaps I'll go:) I'll likely jump when the 939 pin FX shows up and doesn't rely on crappy reg ram. Everyone who knows me on the board knows that is my current plan.

You also would have been different than all the millions of users who do not have a 64 bit machine and thus will be required to buy one to be able to run the newest Windows XP and 64 bit applications.

Being "different" was not my only qualification. I was personally interested in the performance of the EE. Whether or not it was THE top performer didn't matter you see. I already had a Canterwood board and plenty of ram of different brands. It was an easy decision, my friend. Most folks here, besides you of course, can understand that. ANd, like I said above, I may indeed go AMD 64 when the OS is out...who knows:)


I hope you like being different. To me your P4EE is just more of the same. Every P4 on the front page is a P4EE. A strange way to be different.

Front page of what? Ohhhhh...the ORB thing again.

If you need to use the ORB in order to understand things better, than see how many total P4EE systems are published versus FX 51 and AMD 64 systems. It should dawn on you then..LOL.


I have no hostility towards you or anyone else. I am simply telling you that you are wrong and you do not care for that too much.:D

What am I wrong about? Someone started the thread about Anand's article and virtually everyone has agreed with him. You stand here almost entirely alone defending the concept the the FX 51 is somehow greatly superior to the 3400+. Well it's not. Just about everyone here agrees with that. Don't you feel a bit foolish. The benches don't lie. And Macci just drew you a map.

I have nothing against you either...at all. You're the one jumpin into everyone's thread boasting about your air cooled FX all the time. I don't think many folks care for that. But you are so in love with that silly piece of silicon you can't be reasoned with so why anyone on this thread bothers to discuss anything with you is beyond me. And that includes me. I just hate giving up on difficult cases:)

[macci]

Stinger is using an external device to generate his clock.
He is? And where did you read that from?? I smell BS :D
FYI several people have been above 280 1:1 with Shuttle. MrIcee up to 310 1:1 2-2-2-5.

Since most people will never do this I think it's a joke to compare the A64 3400+ to the FX.
I was comparing 3200 and fx

Also, everybody knows how much 2k1 loves a high FSB. 257 for OPP compared to 280 for Stinger is a bit of an advantage for the 3200+.
A64 can run at that speed FX can not. Its A64 advantage just like DC RAM is FX advantage.

PS. I think that you are the only one missing the point in this thread ;)

[st0nedpenguin]

Originally posted by StormPC
LOL... If my FX is becoming obsolete, wtf is your EE? Want to guess who will be kicking 64 bit A$$ and who won't be between the two of us?

I cant help but think that by the time a 64 bit version of Windows and all the requisite applications are released, both the FX-51 and the 3.2EE are going to be pretty obsolete anyway...

[Hardass]

StormPC why is it every time you post your opinion about your system it turns into a thread about to get locked. You need to get off the soapbox. State your opinion and let it go, stop coming back with the same arguement over and over again. Another thread gone off topic because of you. It stops now or I will stop it.

[mdzcpa]

Originally posted by MickeyMouse
NO your go through "HW" in genral more than most people do underwear as I do also :0 including cooling and so on. :)


Hehe...yeah that's probably true...Just don't tell my wife:D What's even funnier, I've gone through a lot of stuff that I don't really even post about either. My first SFF box, an early FX 51 system, my water cooled 2.4/P4C800 combo, etc, etc.

Good luck on the dually MM!


Originally posted by st0nedpenguin
I cant help but think that by the time a 64 bit version of Windows and all the requisite applications are released, both the FX-51 and the 3.2EE are going to be pretty obsolete anyway...

I couldn't agree more:)


BTW, sorry Hardass...I didn't mean to instigate anything.

[isp]

Originally posted by StormPC
my system on air is in the top 50 computers in the world right now regardless of cooling/mhz/OS/VC, etc....

Cool, where can I see this list? I want to know where I am...

[Severian]

Heh, the most amusing point about all this is that within the next month or so the FX-53 will be out, which is reportedly a new stepping (and if the way the Opteron steppings have improved is anything to go by, this one will kickass).

[mdzcpa]

I agree. I am surprised, though, that AMD has released the 3400+ as it did before the FX 53 was released. If there's one thing we learned from the 3400+ release, it's that clock speed was the biggest advantage for the FX51 over the 3200. At equal clock rates, the 3400 falls only a little behind.

As long as AMD keeps the leading FX chip clocked ahead of the AMD64, a few of the lesser informed will not know the difference and the FX will remaining looking more dominent than it really is (but, yes, the FX will always be a tad faster).

Then again, when the 939 pin comes out and we can do away with latency penalizing rag ram, I think the performance spread between the FX and AMD64 will definitely expand. At equal clock rates I see the FX just pulling away.

[TheDude]

Originally posted by isp
Cool, where can I see this list? I want to know where I am...

Me too! Hope I made the top 50... :bows:

[D/SCoNn3Ct3D]

Well guys this thread has scared the living h3|| out of me.

I ordered the following system and I have already recieved my parts. Just waiting to build.
A64 FX-51
Asus SK8V
Prommy Mach2
Asus R9800 Xt
2x256 OCZ PC3200 ECC Reg DDR 2-2-3-6 (please tell me what you think about this ram..it is very important)

Now I am hoping for 2.8ghz..Do you think it is possible with my current setup.

Ok back on topic. This thread has really scared me. I was originally planning on getting an A64 3400+ w/ the shuttle an50r but on friday my budget increases by $1500. I immediatly began debating if I should go with the EE or the FX-51. I was planning on buying a highend system (best that money could buy) so i narrowed the choices down to 2 cpus. I picked the FX-51 because it is 64bit and soon 64bit apps/games will be out. WinXp 64bit is already out for distributions with new pcs. I didnt pick the fx-51 because it was cheaper. Now I have read this thread entirley and I am worried if my cpu will soon become obsolete. How much time do you think I got. Right now the fx-51 is a force to be reckoned with but soon it might turn into a barton 3200+ :(

One arguement that I have to make on this matter is that the A64 market is not that small. Lets compare the amount of a64 3000/3200/3400/fx-51's purchased.

I will be using newegg. Now this is # of product reviews. I know that not everyone does a review but lots of peopel tend to. This will give us all a good idea.

by reviews
3000's purchased: 7oem + 18 retail = 25
3200's purchased: 27 + 30 = 57
3400's: 7+1 = 8
FX-51's: 7 +11 = 18

by votes
3000:71
3200:180
3400:16
fx-51:91

Now can you gusy please tell me what you really think about the fx-51 and do you think i have made the wrong choice by buying it instead of the ee. I want a system that I can keep for about 2years.

Also another thing Im intrested in. Does the sk8v feature agp/pci lock that works?

I wont be building until tuesday or weds because i have to wait for my asus 9800xt

[D/SCoNn3Ct3D]

well i just want it be able to play all the latest games and run progs w/ speed

after 1yr or less i will give this system to someone else and get the latest cpu/mb combo. i dont want the cpu to become useless the the p3 atm.

well i remember reading the forums here and charlie and others were saying that the sk8v is a better board than the sk8n and can be overclocked further. is this true?

can i expect 2.8ghz?

[D/SCoNn3Ct3D]

lol yeah :d

well i had bought the mach2 before my budget increase and i dont want to sell it. its a nice toy :D

think i made the right choice picking fx-51 over the ee?

what do you think of the ram? heres its link http://www.excaliberpc.com/product_info.php?products_id=2799

i got the asus xt instead of the ati original...i like the asus more for some reason :D

[Tedinde]

Are all these chips dying getting RMA"d with no problems??

[D/SCoNn3Ct3D]

mickey unfortunately at the time i could only rder for paypal accepting sites and none of those sites had the corsair...

what makes the ati orig better?

i just wated to try the asus. because everyone already have saphire, powercolor, and ati orig but no one has the asus.

[Soulburner]

The FX has one main advantage over the A64 on these current boards with no bus locks.....multiplier adjustment....

If you run into a hurdle at say 230fsb, start upping the multi like you would on an Athlon XP.

[D/SCoNn3Ct3D]

i hope i made the right decision

sometimes i am ike hey why dont i ebay this and get an ee lol

[TheDude]

Eggzakly....I had the board, ram and video card, but couldn't wait for the cpu so I got the 3200 and then a month later traded it even up for the 3400.;) I tried to find EE in Europe but couldn't. Now I can't afford it, but I do like the 3400...just wish the boards were better.

[TheDude]

Originally posted by MickeyMouse
shuttle nf3 isnt bad and the asus k8v if ya run a nvidia VC is good ;)

Hell, I loved the Chaintech, it was just buggy.:(

[TheDude]

Well if my Shuttle dies in the next month, I will try the Abit next. Funny I always end up with an Abit no matter what.;) Except for the Asus P4C800-E...you're right, that was a keeper.

[JAWS]

Originally posted by MickeyMouse
asus k8v if ya run a nvidia VC is good ;)

this is great news! I'm finally getting a 64 setup and this is the mobo I'll be running with a ti4200. :rolleyes:

[Stinger]

Stormpc--->wtf are you talking about? "Stinger is using an external device to generate his clock. You will never get a current A64 motherboard to run 280MHz 1:1 without it. are you on drugs? dont talk about something you dont have a clue about.
Mickey--> Yes its time to get an 3400+ now OPP took my third place I want it back :-)

[macci]

Yup OPPs 3400+ at 30340 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7486188) 11x272 1:1 on Shuttle Board with Mushky BL2, card 628/460 :toast:
Lobbys 410/187 :D
Now lets see a 280x11 run (with 2x256MB RAM - it helps a bit for lobbys right?) and cascade card clocks and FX51 score is pretty much beaten :D

The 3400 should arrive here in a week or so.

[Stinger]

MM give me 200-300mhz more cpu-power and 25mhz more gpu-power and we'll see :-)

[QuadDamage]

LMAO. So where's Storm? It was like a week ago when he "asurred" macci that he's wrong and FX-51 won't ever be taken down by an 3400+.:D

[Stinger]

hehe

[D/SCoNn3Ct3D]

TheDude,

I must say you are very lucky that you got rid of the sk8v. That board does not work with my mach2. The prommy wont boot the board at -33C. Looking for another alternative....

What do you guys think. I need a board with 100% mach2 compatibility...3.2EE, Prescott, 3400+?

[D/SCoNn3Ct3D]

Yeah kindof a mixed issue. Works for some doesent work for others. Just like the vapo and the p4c800. Some get it to boot others dont. Depends on the other hardware as well..

Mickey give me some advice please. Getting rid of the fx-51 ssytem. Iwant to get a highend setup for 24/7 usd and gaming. Thinking of 3400+, 3.2EE, prescott 3.4. But the mb has to be guaranteed to work with the mach2. Btw mickey list all of the a64 mbs that you tried with the mach2 that worked fine without any bugs/hiccups

[macci]

ya think macci?? 280x11=3080mhz so fx51 speeds, but i think it will still be favored to the fx51 by 200-400 points.

279x11 = 3069 so far:
(click for full screenshot)
http://www.akiba-pc.com/e107_images/articles/a64_3000/31088_s.gif (http://www.akiba-pc.com/e107_images/articles/a64_3000/31088f.gif)

Its awfully close to FX-51 like I told ya :D

http://www.akiba-pc.com/e107_images/articles/a64_3000/3400vsfx51_3070mhz.gif
FX card clocks 654/466
A64 3400 clocks 641/466

I have had it thru dragos at 661/466 so there is some room for improvement - FSB might go up by 1-2MHz too.

[Hallowed]

:slobber:

Congrats on a new high-score. :)

Sehr Eindrucksvoll. :)

[Diablo II]

so the new A64 3400+ is the same of the FX at same clocks?

[Hallowed]

Originally posted by Diablo II
so the new A64 3400+ is the same of the FX at same clocks?

With macci behind the wheel, sure. ;)

[zakelwe]

Originally posted by Hallowed
With macci behind the wheel, sure. ;)

Using his 1MB chip and not 512KB chip .. still thinking about 939 512 v 754 1MB for non FX soon ......


Regards

Andy

[blinky]

nice thread ressurection macci

now that 3400+ is out we see that it is in fact a great clocker

how bout OPP's FX-53, he said he can run 3.1ghz 3d stable already, and he had a 3.2ghz screenie :)

[hrhrhrfoot]

lol i think storm was trying to justify his overpriced purchase(fx 51)

Anyways, congrats to macci for the sweeeeet overclock.

[CrashOv3r1De]

Awesome results macci! Your almost there :toast:

[Geforce4ti4200]

Originally posted by blinky
nice thread ressurection macci

now that 3400+ is out we see that it is in fact a great clocker

how bout OPP's FX-53, he said he can run 3.1ghz 3d stable already, and he had a 3.2ghz screenie :)


his fx-51 does within 50MHz of his fx-53 anyway but needs slightly more volts


edit: just noticed CrashOv3r1De got banned?! wow anyone know what he do :eek: :stick:

[The Mofo]

LOL it says like 5 people are banned under their names!

Anyways.. Im getting a Vapo LS and a 3400+.

Memory is my only problem.