$150 spanking FX-55 at hexus

**Zebo** · 06-04-2005, 04:59 AM

$150 A64 3000 Venice at only 2.79 Ghz putting the screws to $850 FX-55

http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews...lld19JRD0xMjU1

**[XC] leviathan18** · 06-04-2005, 05:02 AM

when you go and OC the fx 55 then it will put the nails in the coffin of the 3000 venice i want to see that venice matching an fx55 @ 3500

**CD 1986** · 06-04-2005, 06:45 AM

That's not the point though. It's just a good feeling to know that you've spent a fraction of the price on a "budget-chip" and got performance levels surpassing the most expensive single-core chip available!

**chunkylover77** · 06-04-2005, 06:50 AM

But the point lev was trying to make was that you are not comparing apples to apples. You overclock one chip but dont overclock the other. How would you feel if some site like Anandtech compared an Intel chip to an AMD chip. They overclocked the Intel but did not oc the AMD. They then shout to the world that Intel spanks AMD. You are not getting the power of the FX if you dont overclock it period. Nice OC on the 3000 though.

**ozzimark** · 06-04-2005, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by chunkylover77

They overclocked the Intel but did not oc the AMD. They then shout to the world that Intel spanks AMD.

perfect example, quoted for extra emphasis

**[XC] leviathan18** · 06-04-2005, 07:41 AM

^^ you hit the nail :P that was i wanted to say is not fear and if someboy buys an fx55 is to OC it simple as that

**Gogar** · 06-04-2005, 10:44 AM

Hey Zebo!

Just read that too.. did you get there through the INQ as well? (just wondering lol)

when you go and OC the fx 55 then it will put the nails in the coffin of the 3000 venice i want to see that venice matching an fx55 @ 3500

There are two kinds of overclockers. The ones that want the absolute MAX in performance. And then there are overclockers who go for the highest performance/price. I'm one of the latter.

Next week i'm going to start making a database of benchmark data and price data.
Here's a little preview of the form.. but it doesn't work yet or anything.. just to show you what i have in mind. http://math.gogar.com/bangforbuck.cgi I'm actually thinking i will make it different.. Usually people have their mind already set on a specific mainboard because of the layout or onboard features. So i should just let people pick their mainboard.. and have it search for a CPU, RAM, and video card that meets the search criteria.

**CD 1986** · 06-04-2005, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Gogar

There are two kinds of overclockers. The ones that want the absolute MAX in performance. And then there are overclockers who go for the highest performance/price. I'm one of the latter.

Next week i'm going to start making a database of benchmark data and price data

:thumbsup:

**Crazykooter** · 06-04-2005, 01:31 PM

That was a rather pointless review for the most part. I was nice to see it does well compared to chips NOT overclocked LOL

**groovetek** · 06-04-2005, 02:22 PM

i reckon if anything, they should've compared the value of the entire A64 venice series... and then it's fair enough to say the 3000+ would be the best value/performance ratio, since I'd say the max overclocks of all the chips would be within a rather small range.

in fact, there hasn't been much evidence to show that a 3500+ is better than a 3000+ for overclocking- in fact if anything i've seen more high results on 3000+ chips! not sure about the 3800+ though... that's already 2.6ghz at stock - a speed that is alot more difficult to achieve on venice cores in general than 2.4ghz at stock.

**i found nemo** · 06-04-2005, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by CD 1986

That's not the point though. It's just a good feeling to know that you've spent a fraction of the price on a "budget-chip" and got performance levels surpassing the most expensive single-core chip available!

i agree completely i had a 4 page thread on fx's vs my sempron, and really i was pretty close considering the budget you can look it up too

**Dumo** · 06-04-2005, 10:53 PM

Nemo, wanna try with FX55 SD

**Dumo** · 06-05-2005, 02:18 AM

Heres 3000@hexus (something is not right w/ their fx) compared to fx55bn@dumo

S

FX55bn

FX55BN

**justwOo** · 06-05-2005, 03:11 AM

I thought there was a brand spanking new fx-55 for $150
I've got to admit... I'm quite disappointed

**oasked** · 06-05-2005, 06:05 AM

But its nice to know that you can get a $175 chip to beyond the levels of a $1000 chip (or £100 vs £600) though.

Plenty of people buy FX-55's and don't intend to overclock them. Of course if you overclock a FX-55 its going to be faster, but you're also spending a hell of a lot more money.......

**mcnbns** · 06-05-2005, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by justwOo

I thought there was a brand spanking new fx-55 for $150
I've got to admit... I'm quite disappointed

I agree.

**i found nemo** · 06-05-2005, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Dumo

Nemo, wanna try with FX55 SD

sure, same .09 as me

but i call this review unfair, consider the fact that the 3000+ is 100+mhz faster than a STOCK fx

**i found nemo** · 06-05-2005, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by chunkylover77

But the point lev was trying to make was that you are not comparing apples to apples. You overclock one chip but dont overclock the other. How would you feel if some site like Anandtech compared an Intel chip to an AMD chip. They overclocked the Intel but did not oc the AMD. They then shout to the world that Intel spanks AMD. You are not getting the power of the FX if you dont overclock it period. Nice OC on the 3000 though.

these are two different brands you speak of...so tha's kinda taking it outta context .... also fx's do continue to shine as the frequency goes up, but then agian what cpu don't shine as the frequency goes up...sure you can say the htt/fsb makes a diff i'm sure it does, but we need a fx 55 at the same timings speed and all to TRUELY see what these "budget" chips are about

**pissboy** · 06-05-2005, 08:08 AM

This is Xtremesystems, not Valuesystems.

**i found nemo** · 06-05-2005, 08:12 AM

well valuesystems were the REASON o/cing came to be, buy a cheaper chip over clock the crap outta it and get gr8 performance now a days it's all so much $$$$$$ a value system is 400+ and hell tha's still expensive

i think it's nice to see the tradition still alive, the budget chips up against possibly the greatest cpu made atm it's like this v8 and a inline-4 same hp slightly different torque on the 4 cylinder with identical weight lower in this case(hp is speed l2cache is torque weight being htt/fsb ) but still a good run for the money

**perkam** · 06-05-2005, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by i found nemo

well valuesystems were the REASON o/cing came to be, buy a cheaper chip over clock the crap outta it and get gr8 performance now a days it's all so much $$$$$$ a value system is 400+ and hell tha's still expensive

$400 ??? What're you talking about ??? Good Value System now costs $800-$900. $400 would be the mobo, cpu, and hsf and maybe the monitor lol.

Perkam

**i found nemo** · 06-05-2005, 08:17 AM

**x3ro** · 06-05-2005, 09:06 AM

I think you cant compare a fx-55 to a venice 3000+... BUt its always nice to see how they compete

**Lithan** · 06-05-2005, 09:10 AM

Since so few oems sell rigs with FX's I'd imagine VERY few aren't getting overclocked.

**Ackbar** · 06-05-2005, 10:29 AM

Here's my problem with this... and it's not the same problems that others have. I think that they're giving the false impression that many (if not almost all) Venice 3000+'s will do that speed.

I'm sure many people will attest to this, you can buy a Venice 3000+ and may get "stuck" with one that only does 2000 MHz! I had a Winchester 3200+ that only did 2300 MHz at 1.6V!!! I feel that showing people that they can get ridiculous speeds is like showing someone your winning lottery ticket and saying, "Look for only $10, I won $10 million! Go buy yourself some lotto!" If you don't add to that statement that the chances of winning are whatever in a million, then you're going to have a lot of upset people. Take the results for what they are, that ONE PARTICULAR CPU got a certain overclocking result and was thus able to beat another chip. The guy at Nexus effectively had some good luck. But do not use this to say that, "Man the Venice are so awesome you can take a cheap one and beat an expensive FX!"

That's extrapolating your results of a particular sample onto the population, bad statistics usage even by statistics standards!

In reality, people like me that don't have good CPU luck get the bad stock and get very disappointed.

Thread: $150 spanking FX-55 at hexus

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

$150 spanking FX-55 at hexus

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions