$150 spanking FX-55 at hexus

[ferrari_freak]

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

Same here

Ackbar, I say truly spoken there my man. It's all about luck and their saying that, "Hey, go buy yourself a $150 chip and your ready to beat the crap out of an FX!" Very misleading.

Usama aka Ferrari Freak

[Quanticles]

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.

We need to test 100 of these chips and see what the results are x.x

[Lostfaith]

this sounds so much like the fanboi's stating the Dothan is better than the FX cause toms & gamepc included an overclocked sample in the tests...

that's why I tell them that such things aren't a fair comparison, cause a $150 3000+ can spank an FX too and better than a $600 Dothan...


ppl are such weird creatures at times...

[i found nemo]

lol start a rumor 3000+ spanks dothan

[Dumo]

@ the same overclocked speed 2.79Ghz, 3000 cant keep up with fx...

[Zebo]

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.......

Only reason I posted it... but some poeple read too much into things.

[HiJon89]

@ the same overclocked speed 2.79Ghz, 3000 cant keep up with fx...

I would hope not, for $600 more it better be faster clock-for-clock.

Although I think this review is unfair in that it overclocks the Venice and not the FX-55, and then gives results that would make an uninformed person think the Venice is a far superior CPU, I also think that's not the point of the review. I think the article was written to show what a good value a Venice can be and how well they overclock if you get lucky, and they just threw the FX-55 as a performance reference point. Without other CPU's in the graph how am I supposed to know if a score of 4.43 in picCOLOR v.40 is a good score? By having the FX next to it it gives the reader a better indication of what performance levels the Venice is actually achieving, I don't think its meant to be a head-to-head comparison.

[Gitsum]

Well you know what? I bought a FX-55 a little while back and I am disappointed with it. It won't overclock past 2750 mhz for me with air. So I'm selling it and buying one of those new $150 dollar cpu's. Hell, I'll have enough money from selling the FX-55, I can buy about four or five.

[Dumo]

Well you know what? I bought a FX-55 a little while back and I am disappointed with it. It won't overclock past 2750 mhz for me with air. So I'm selling it and buying one of those new $150 dollar cpu's. Hell, I'll have enough money from selling the FX-55, I can buy about four or five.

FX55 wont shine with air.

[i found nemo]

any thing will shine as long as it's above rated spec not cuz of the processor, but just because frequency is raised

[s7e9h3n]

If it's worth anything, my $200 3200+ Venice spanks the crap out of my POS FX55/57 BN

[ferrari_freak]

Well you know what? I bought a FX-55 a little while back and I am disappointed with it. It won't overclock past 2750 mhz for me with air. So I'm selling it and buying one of those new $150 dollar cpu's. Hell, I'll have enough money from selling the FX-55, I can buy about four or five.

You gotta give the thing at least water if you want it to really shine...

Usama aka Ferrari Freak

[burningrave101]

I never have seen the point in spending an outrageous amount of money on the fastest CPU when there are almost always slower ones that overclock well and will give nearly the same performance level if not better at times. I mean seriously, for the cost of one FX-55 you could go out and buy four 3200+ Venice cores and even if you only got 2.7-2.8Ghz out of it that would still perform as well if not better then the stock FX-55. Sure, you can overclock the FX-55 as well and get even more performance out of it but is it really worth it to spend 4 times the amount of money for a marginal performance increase thats rather useless outside of benchmark bragging rights?

I'm more then satisfied with 2.8Ghz out of my 3200+ Venice and i'd much rather spend that extra $650 elsewhere.

[Ackbar]

I never have seen the point in spending an outrageous amount of money on the fastest CPU when there are almost always slower ones that overclock well and will give nearly the same performance level if not better at times. I mean seriously, for the cost of one FX-55 you could go out and buy four 3200+ Venice cores and even if you only got 2.7-2.8Ghz out of it that would still perform as well if not better then the stock FX-55. Sure, you can overclock the FX-55 as well and get even more performance out of it but is it really worth it to spend 4 times the amount of money for a marginal performance increase thats rather useless outside of benchmark bragging rights?

I'm more then satisfied with 2.8Ghz out of my 3200+ Venice and i'd much rather spend that extra $650 elsewhere.

If you haven't noticed, the people that buy the FX aren't the people that feel that they could save the money and spend it elsewhere. For the most part, they're building systems with huge budgets and many people even buy expensive cooling (phase) on top of that!

You can't compare the buyer of a 3000+ Venice to a FX owner. It would be equivalent to comparing an owner of a Ferrari to that of a highly modified Camaro/Firebird (F-Body). While its possible to get both cars at the same level of performance, that's not the point, the Ferrari owner doesn't care that a much cheaper car can possibly beat his/her Ferrari. Its more about buying something out of the box that's faster, and if he/she wants to then he/she can modify the Ferrari to be even faster! You guys are comparing apples and oranges.

The point is that people shouldn't be led to believe that these chips will always produce these results! I think its irresponsible journalism to not at least mention that overclocking results are HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY variable! I know from chip to chip, some will overclock maybe 50% on air while some will barely do 10-15%. If you want guaranteed performance, you HAVE to buy a more expensive chip. If you're willing to take the risk and take what you get, then the cheaper CPU is great.

The comparison is a poor one to make at best.