AMd Winchester @2.6 vs FX55?

[HipHop.Ru Murda]

Anybody seen a review of AMD Winch(OCed) @2.6 vs FX55 @ 2.6
Especially games like Doom3,Far Cry and Hl2 @ high resolutions and AA AF enabled.
Thank you! :rolleyes:

[trakslacker]

I could be wrong, but I believe that clock for clock the FX chips will always win due in part to their superior memory controller.

That's partially why they cost about $800. :)

[reject]

no, its the double cache
superior memory controller means it can run more sticks at 1T or oc further
at high res they are identical mostly, in doom 3 and far cry, but source has a lot of AI so fx would beat in hl2

[MikeMurphy]

Pricewise it makes alot of sense for 99% of the people to go with the winchester (or so it would seem).

[IvanAndreevich]

HipHop.Ru Murda
Unlimited funds = FX. Limited funds = Winchester + better videocard. Period!

[blinky]

ok in games the difference will be like 1%, so its completely uneconomical to spend 400% more to get 1% more performance....

go with winchester

[HipHop.Ru Murda]

HipHop.Ru Murda
Unlimited funds = FX. Limited funds = Winchester + better videocard. Period!
nu da tochno...

[Mtemel]

ok in games the difference will be like 1%, so its completely uneconomical to spend 400% more to get 1% more performance....

go with winchester


This is really a silly comment

the difference in games wont b 1%

even if you get a lucky winchester that runs 2.6 (not all even run 2.5)

Fx has more cache also if you buy a fx55 you think it will be run standard??

Where the winny is topped out at 2.5 ghz the fx55 may clock upto 3.0 or more

this would kill the winny at 2.5 with its smaller cache

people who have winnie have them coz they cant afford fx55.

my advise if you got the cash get fx55 EVERYTIME

thx

[DrJay]

Where the winny is topped out at 2.5 ghz the fx55 may clock upto 3.0 or more

He asked how the two cpus would compare at the same speed.


This is really a silly comment
really? :confused: I thought it sounded fairly practicle...

[Der_KHAN]

but its not very objective, cuz you dont buy the fx to run 2.5-2.8ghz on water or sth.

u get it to put it under your prom and run 3.2ghz+
that is sth a winnie will most likely not do

[Joe_Beasley]

Actually my 2.6 3200 was 1 or 2s faster in SuperPI than a stock FX-55. You have to remember, that while the extra cache helps the FX-55 a little bit, the extra 60Mhz FSB is more of an advantage than the cache in todays applications.

FX-55 is 200x13
2.6 3200 is 260x10

that 60 Mhz means alot. Especially if you have RAM good enough to run 1:1 with it. Granted the FX can overclock and beat the 2.6 3200, but taking a 3200 and having it faster than an FX-55 at stock speeds is nice.

So, FX-55 1:1 RAM at stock speeds SuperPI 1m = 34s
3200 @ 2.6 RAM 1:1 SuperPI = 32s

Now you can argue that the RAM speed is much lower on the FX-55, but thats 1:1 with its stock speed. I could also argue that 1gig of PC4000 and a 3200 costs about half of what the FX-55 costs alone :)

Cheers.

BTW: performed this test at work tuesday because a customer bought a system with an FX-55 in it. I was pleased with the results obviously..lol

[DrJay]

Der_KHAN,
Good point. And you are right, of course. However, I was trying to point out that HipHop's question had nothing to do with what cpu is the best value or the best overclocker or even which to buy. Basically, he wanted to know how much of a difference in performance the extra l2 cache makes at like clock speeds.

[Joe_Beasley]

you can not do an exact clock speed test because of the difference in how they get there. I suppose you could make the FX-55 260x10, and then it would beat the 3200 with its extra cache. But at its stock speed, it will lose. Im not sure the core on the FX-55 would go to 260x10. I think it maxes at about 230-240 if im not mistaken.

Another example would be the 3000 and 3200 winchesters. the 3000 at 300*9 is actually faster than the 3200 at 270x10 because of the extra FSB in it. Even though they are both 2.7Ghz in that format.

[DrJay]

Most people have found HTT speed to make little to no difference. And the only difference from the 'fsb' would be that the higher it is the faster you can run the memory. Cpu and ram speed are the real factors here.

[longshot]

Well for what it's worth i sold my FX-55 and got a 3500+ Winny and have it running at 2.5ghz. For games the difference is about 2-5% from a stock FX-55 and my OC'd 3500+

Now before i get lots of silly questions why i sold a FX-55 and got a 3500+ i will tell you, FX-55's are difficult to find as of right now so i sold it used for what i paid for it new and got a Tested 3500+ from a member here for cheaper than i could buy it for new.

Moral of that story = I'm waiting for Toledo Dual core chip.

[scorp]

Well, depending on how you got to 2600 with the winnie you might get better performance than with a stock FX55, in some applications at least. Althrough A64s aren't very bandwidth hungry if you have your chip at 9.0x289 or 8.0x325 and manage to get your RAM to work 1:1 you might end up with a really great performer. However you can easily do the same with the FX-55 (drop its multiplier and increase the "FSB"), in wich case the FX-55 would again beat the 2600.

[HipHop.Ru Murda]

ok in games the difference will be like 1%, so its completely uneconomical to spend 400% more to get 1% more performance....

go with winchester


This is really a silly comment

the difference in games wont b 1%

even if you get a lucky winchester that runs 2.6 (not all even run 2.5)

Fx has more cache also if you buy a fx55 you think it will be run standard??

Where the winny is topped out at 2.5 ghz the fx55 may clock upto 3.0 or more

this would kill the winny at 2.5 with its smaller cache

people who have winnie have them coz they cant afford fx55.

my advise if you got the cash get fx55 EVERYTIME

thx
The question was about Winnie @2.6 ghzvs FX55....Most ppl can get it and that is the fact.....But to get a FX 55 to run @ 3.0 u might needa better cooling with costs another $$$$$...so fx is not the best choice....BTW with AMD(3500 vs FX55 stock) or (Winnie 2.6 vs FX55 3.0) Cpu's 400mhz Difference @ 1600x1200 4x8XAAAF is 1-8 fps(HL2-http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/29cpu-hl2.html....so i am not spending so much money for 5 fps difference....a lil offtopic....sorry
All i needed was a reviews of Doom3 FAR Cry and other heavy games @ high res on AMD Winnie 2.6 and FX55 2.6...

[HipHop.Ru Murda]

Der_KHAN,
Good point. And you are right, of course. However, I was trying to point out that HipHop's question had nothing to do with what cpu is the best value or the best overclocker or even which to buy. Basically, he wanted to know how much of a difference in performance the extra l2 cache makes at like clock speeds.
True..i was kinda talking about L2 cache speeds...I dont think there is any noticable difference....1-2 fps max?but yeah since so many reviews say that FX55 is a High End cpu and the best performa..which means that if i get my winn @ 2.6 i will have the same(High end) performer today....and save much money....and have no cpu bottleneck... :rolleyes:

[saaya]

check the madshrimps winchester review from jnav ;)

he compared an fx and a winnie at 10x200 and 10x250 iirc, it wasnt an fx55, yet the 55 doesnt have any improvements that make it scale better, so its the same as his fx5x vs winnie article...

at 2.5ghz the winchester already beats the fx at the same clocks in some apps, i think at 2.6 the winnie wins, unless an app really loves large cache. the winnies scale notably better than clawhammers and newcastles, the difference in improved scalability (not performence at the same clockspeed!) is much bigger than from northwoods to prescotts :)

fx is all about the multis, wich doesnt matter imo since we are all going for 300fsb+ (except for di ln2 and ps people who can make use of the extra multis , AND its about amd choosing the best and highest clocking chips to make them fx chips! (the best are actually opteron ee and he chips, but the second best chips are fx chips)

in practise this means fx chips have a higher average oc, maybe around 100mhz... if this is worth the price is up to each and everyone who thinks about buying a cpu...

i think its not :D

[dnottis]

There are a few good points brought up throughout this post.

1. Getting a winnie to 2.6 GHz isn't easy - it's taken me 7 winnies to get one that does 2.6.

2. The FX-55 is a 2.6 GHz CPU as well but also has 1 MB of cache (winnies only have 512k Cache) so in some applications that are more cache dependent the FX-55 will be faster.

3. The FX-55 will clock higher than 2.6, most winnies top out about 2.5 GHz (at least 6 of mine have), 2.6 takes a bit more luck and anything higher is really just a special chip. There is no consistent stepping or week that anyone has seen will guarantee a particular overclock with the winchesters so cross your fingers and hope for the best. (anyone remember the celey 300a - as long as you bought the right one, I can't recall the stepping, they all did 450mhz, those were the days!)

4. Is an FX-55 really worth $900? Even if it you manage to get a winnie that does ~2.55 Ghz (which seems to be the avg), for 5% more performance in games I can't see spending that much on a single component. He'll you can buy a winnie, GF6800 Ultra and a nice water cooler for $900.

5. Hypothetical - even if you manage to get a winnie running 2.6 GHz, performance differences will be minimal due to the cache of the FX-55 (as long as you aren't overclocking the FX-55).

So why not get the winnie and save the extra money for something else the FX-55 is just not worth it.

[JNav89GT]

look at my 3200+ article :)
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=230

they are both at 2.5Ghz but you get the point :P

[Der_KHAN]

at 2.5ghz the winchester already beats the fx at the same clocks in some apps, i think at 2.6 the winnie wins, unless an app really loves large cache. the winnies scale notably better than clawhammers and newcastles, the difference in improved scalability (not performence at the same clockspeed!) is much bigger than from northwoods to prescotts :)

interesting, i would have presumed that the fx would scale better. the larger cache should make it more independent from the ram esp. at high oc's beyond 3ghz

[dnottis]

look at my 3200+ article :)
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=230

they are both at 2.5Ghz but you get the point :P


Nice article. So then to re-iterate what most people here have told him - don't waste the money on the FX-55.
:)