oh hell yes that will thank you so much for your contribution to my experement :)
Printable View
oh hell yes that will thank you so much for your contribution to my experement :)
maybe it's a very "mhz" sensitive program???
this is an old screenie 2610mhz @ ~1.8 volts so can someone show me what an o/c'd fx 51 fx 53 and stock fx 55 do on sandra @ 2.6 on these bench marks?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...chmentid=27996
but its not in my pc right now. its in its retail box.
it's okay you do know how to put the cpu in the socket right??? c'mon now don't tease me with the fact that you have but won't/can't help...plllllz take it outta box and run it 4 meeeee?
well i cant, 1st of all i dont have registerd ram. (sold it)
2nd of all, if i did have ecc ram, i would have to build a whole new pc again.
you wanna buy it from me?
i'm skt 754 and no, cuz i don't have that kinda money laying around..got any old sandra benches or any thing saved to contribute sir?
Why dont u just use the countless reviews of the FX51/53/55 and instead of asking ppl to do tests at different fsb, just put your sempy at that speed. For one thing, the FX-53 runs at 2.4ghz stock...so just find an fx-53 run, clock your sempy to 2400 and fire away :)
Most with FX-55s here ARENT running it on air ;) and those with fx 53/51s just dont put it in their sigs or have moved on from them...so unless you're willing to go back in time when the AMD forums were literally flooded with FX-53s on the orb and everywhere, I'd suggest you use FX runs on air in reviews (anandtech, etc) and on xs to compare with your sempy.
..Yes, 2....and counting ;) .
Perkam
i dunno you must have this all wrong perk first off the first one was comparing the two then controversy over my htt being higher than 200 was the reason for my cpu's success and this is not 4 threads at all indeed but only 2
My point isnt the no. of threads, its that couldn't this have been continued on in the previous thread ???Quote:
Originally Posted by i found nemo
Anyway, you can ask Dumo to help you again or any other good willing member...but it really is a waste of time considering you're not even on the same platform. There are too many factors not accounted for: benefits from dual channel, benefits from the cache, benefits from bank interleaving, benefits from tighter timings, etc.
IMO, a more worthy comparison would've been to get someone with a Turion and then compare clock for clock, or even a 3700+ Claw, considering you're aiming quite high.
Perkam
it don't matter perk i wanna do comparisons of cpu not memory so dual channel won't be benificiary, chache yes the fx will stomp me but w/e apperently i already eat up the new sempron rev e's and if i go for a turion barly any one owns one so results will take for ever, even if the other person has one does not mean they are willing and i think but am not sure don't think hcc or opb will be helping with results and dumo just quit posting results i thought he sold i to charlie i'm not sure
Calm down, guys. And one thread on the same topic will suffice. New thread has been merged with the original thread. ;)
noticed that :) any opinoins on this conrad?
My opinions on this topic are as follows:
- FX = Flagship AMD Processor, catering to the high-end enthusiast and PC-user
- Sempron = Low-end AMD Processor, catering to the enthusiast and PC-user who craves maximum performance on a budget
The two processors can not be compared. The obvious is the fact that you are dealing with two different sockets. Other differences include memory controllers (single channel vs. dual channel), instruction sets (MMX, 3DNow, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, etc), OS compatibility (32-Bit vs. 64-Bit), and so on.
If you are able to obtain XYZ clocks on a Sempron, which happens to be the exact frequency someone else's FX is running at, you will naturally notice null differences in certain applications. However, the moment you start comparing the two processors on an application that makes use of the extra memory bandwidth, or instruction set, or OS-specific architecture, the differences between the two should be quite apparent.
Sempron vs. FX will always be an apples vs. oranges comparison. ;)
ask to some one with a 3800 or 3500 i think they are more common or somebody with a 3700 sandy
but my bet are on athlon in real world bench if both cpu have the same htt
will a 3700+ newark work?Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Nemo: what's your cpu score in 3dmark05?
this is at 240x10 with my ballistix at 2.5-2-2-10, 240mhz
LOL! Do you go to extremetech.com ? It should be ExtremeIntelfanboys.com!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebo
Tom's Hardware quide is actually quite reasonable, whilst Anandtech does seem to have an AMD Bias (or is it that they are objective hence apparent AMD Bias is actually superiority of AMD product?)
ozzi c'mon now tha's a vid card bench not to mention i've got a 64 bit pos 6200
Look closely at his SS, he's asking to compare CPU Marks ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by i found nemo
Perkam
wish i had more cache show some of the other benchmarks that were posted up here
"Sempron vs. FX will always be an apples vs. oranges comparison. " <---that means "leave me outta this" lmao
try running the bench twice. i always always always get higher scores the second time through. i should also note that that is from the rig in my sig, 3200+ clawhammer
edit: though, it looks like 3dmark loves cache.
uuuuh huh ok let me know when you get the rest of the results in
ok...quick bump
c'mon man lol hurry up ozzmark get ur cpu in here
semprons are deff alot of bang for the buck. IMHO I would say in 3dmark01 tho and alot of games a fx has 300MHz over you, so what you do at 2500 an fx can do at 2200.
lol same here.Quote:
Originally Posted by i found nemo