hey steve ... give us a preview like you did with the venice cpus :D
Printable View
hey steve ... give us a preview like you did with the venice cpus :D
The reason I post this thread is to find out (if its possible :) ) if 59 will be cold bugged big time like 57 0531 CAB2E. On the other hand 57 0530 APMW performed ok. like 0528 or 0516....
Well, I get this perception that ATI mobos were tuned for lower htt and will suit well with CAB2E @-90C....if it can even boot :)
Or at least it can bench like this one......
http://img477.imageshack.us/img477/5050/05129dw.jpg
Found this earlier...dunno if it's real or not, but something to ponder....
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...chmentid=39053
You sound like a real AMD fanboy. Don't get me wrong, I love AMD. They just aren't up to par these days though. There are a couple things I think they could do better. One thing is to make their own motherboard chipsets again. The Via, Nvidia, and ATI solutions just don't seem to cut it. They're are just to buggy. Another thing is that the dual core processors don't work like they're supposed to, you have to install patches before they somewhat work. Of course we all know about the cold bug which is another big problem for us xtremists. If they fixed those three things, they'd be untouchable. As far as unlocked multipliers, I need them for a 24/7 stable setup. I'm one of those guys who love tight timings so I can't run my RAM to 300MHz+. I'm shooting for a 3.2GHz+ 24/7 stable dual core AMD setup which can't be done right now. Intels processors may not be unlocked or as fast, but at least they are 100% working and stable. I probably won't jump on the Intel bandwagon just yet but I have been considering it for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute_0
-There are rumors that when Fab36 ramps up to full production, fab30 may devote some of its resources to chipsets...Quote:
Originally Posted by B5I8
-I would not call NF2/3/4 "buggy" in the least bit. These are great chipsets and one of the primary reasons AMD is where it is today! Now if you OC to insane levels, there are of course limitations. Besides some early teething manufacturer specific bios issues, I dont know what you are talking about.
-You simply cant knock AMDs dual core implementation, especially when compared to Intels grade school cut and paste approach. Patches are needed simply because WinXP wasnt designed with dual core procs in mind. This will be a null issue with Vista and possibly XPSP3.
-I agree the cold bug problem is not good, but its low on AMDs "to solve" list. I doubt we will see and 90nm procs suddenly fix this. 65nm may or may not.... it could be a AMD "problem" from here on out. Hard to say.
more like fx60Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumo
http://www.avault.com/news/displayne...=10242005-5234
Doesnt make much sense to me :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by B5I8
If it cant be done now, it cant be done now.
Its not like Intel are doing it and AMD arent.
All of my AMD chips are 100% working and stable :toast:
B5I8
You can't get AMD to be stable? Sounds like your need the hands.sys driver :fact:
What I meant is that I'm only interested in 100% stable speeds. I don't care if someone can bench at 3.6GHz but it fails Prime instantly. What I'm saying is that I need the unlocked multi's so that I can hit my desired speed with the right combination of multi's and fsb. For instance, I'm not one to run my CPU at 300x10, I run it at 250x12 because I like tight timings. If for example if my max speed for my RAM was 250MHz and I had a CPU with a locked multi of 12x, my max speed would be 250x12 or 3000MHz. If I wanted to go higher, I'd need a higher multi. I think everyone is misunderstanding what I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanAndreevich
It would be great to see another FX hitting the market at the new year. And I agree that 3ghz would be a nice spot to stop and move on to dual core. But I'd stick with my FX57 till the end of Socket 939 platform I think.
Have you ever heard of dividers :stick:Quote:
Originally Posted by B5I8
my AMDs are running "100% working and stable" wasn't too hard to doQuote:
Originally Posted by B5I8
3.2 Ghz stable isn't possible on an AMD chip? Well i have only to mention my buddy njkid here, who's got a 3200+ venice that'll do 3.4 Ghz stable all day long under his single stage. Yes, coldbug is a problem, but if you don't know about dividers, you're not in the position where coldbug is going to hurt you. I dont know if i should consider myself an AMD fanboy, i've just been suprememly disappointed with Intel since they botched 90nm with the prescott and lost inspiration after that.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
Look at the bottom of the pice list 'AMD Confidential'. I wonder how u managed to get this price list.
Anymore insider's storties?? :p:
Then buy a CPU with higher multi :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by B5I8
:slapass:
Hmmmm first of all.......2 levels of 128k L1 cache? this would probably be an entirely different architecture!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by i found nemo
2MB L2 Cache. With current architecture it would be a waste. A64's hardly need cache at all. All that it would do is add a substantial amount of heat for almost nil benefit.
Personally I would hope that they would lower the L2 Cache Latency. That would increase performance significantly IMHO.
Anyway rumour is that when Dual Core FX come out they will feature a Shared L3 cache. Here's hoping for at least 2mb!
The problem here being that clearly stated the a64 3000+ continuing, when we know its already being phased out. So OUT OF DATE at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
it says last updated 26/9/2006
Well the highest multiplier for a X2 is 12 (4800+ = 2.4GHz) so they don't make them any higher :stick:. Hence the need for a FX dual core.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
Running dividers just kills performance. The best performance comes from 1:1 divider.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute_0
That's absolutely false with A64s...
That's right it is false, because with AMD you always run a divider. 1:1 is a divider with AMD, the same as any other. Do some quick SPi test will tell you that for it's actually better to run a higher htt with a lower divider if your system can manage. If you've a board that reliably does 400X9, then you are not limited until you reach 3.6GHz, hey with a 10X multiplier you could reach 4GHz :) yes, you would be better off running 1:1 If your ram was running DDR800, but that would be due to the ram speed and nothing to do with the divider :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
I think all of u guys ignored my post, fx60 info is HERE : http://www.avault.com/news/displayne...=10242005-5234
TALKS ABOUT THE SHEET U GUYS SEE IN THE THREAD IN THE ABOVE LINK
FX-60 is likely nothing more than FX-59 for M2 if it even exists.
That document is out of date AT BEST.
This is well said. If you don't or can't define for yourself what a ram divider is then why bother bringing that up as a point. Even on a Intel system there is a divider and this allows you to find the max speed of your CPU while not exceeding the limits of your DDR. AMD provides more updates this way as with every CPU revision comes a improved MEM controller. I prefer to buy a new cpu at the lower end of the AMD line and get a new mem controller designed to work specifically with my CPU each and every time. Intel has to wait on updates in motherboards. This costs the board makers money and consumers confusion in the long run. Also the use of ddr2 over the last year or more has been a hinderance as most of the chipsets implemented have not been able to take advantage of it until just recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by :banana::banana::banana:in
So, Intel has forced the use of more expensive parts on there boards while not providing a performance hit worth a sh*t. AMD is not only more reasonable in pricing but much more in tune to the everyday user. 775 CPU's are pricey and in need of dire OC'ing so whats the use. Not likely you can take a intel cpu out of box and oc it where it beats a AMD youll need something more, like dry ice. :slap: