Thread: Fx

**cadaveca** · 05-31-2005, 05:19 PM

It's the new skt, w/ddr2, probably, and the dualcoreFX.

**~~totensiebush~~** · 05-31-2005, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by extremecorvette

So is the FX57 going to get any better thant he FX55 if they are both going to be a 90nm core and only 200mhz apart?

its going to be binned higher, i don't think they will do much more than that on such a new process.

**s7e9h3n** · 05-31-2005, 05:26 PM

Ok all, let me settle this once and for all before any bickering arises from this thread.......Ladies and gentlemen, let me present my cpu.......

Sorry if I dissapointed anybody, but this in fact IS an FX55.

This cpu was one of a few "special" fx55's hard-coded by AMD's DVT (Design Verification Testing) team as an FX57. These cpu's were mainly used to test the bios compatibility of the upcoming FX57 without acutally using one of the few ES's. I believe this was the type of cpu that WWM was trying to pass off as the "uknown" fx-57 when he posted. It now becomes obvious why he never posted a picture of his cpu when asked.

for knowingly misleading XS members

.
I'll post screenshots of it's default settings when I get home (I think I need to remount my evap though, since temps seem unusually high). So is this cpu not special anymore???

**s7e9h3n** · 05-31-2005, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by shadowing

It could be something else. Something unexpected... It might not even be the FX-57... Wasn't the FX-57 slated for release in June?

June is a little optomistic.....

**cadaveca** · 05-31-2005, 05:29 PM

So that's why the low voltage ratings. You work for Sapphire or DFI. THanks.

**extremecorvette** · 05-31-2005, 05:32 PM

So far I know that the FX57 is a 90nm Sledgehammer rev E version ADAFX57DAA5BN. It's 2.8GHz, 89W

**s7e9h3n** · 05-31-2005, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by cadaveca

So that's why the low voltage ratings. You work for Sapphire or DFI. THanks.

LV ratings? It's rated the same as an FX55 Diego. And are you implying I work for Sapphire or DFI? If I did work for sapphire, trust me - I wouldn't be using a 6600GT and if I worked for DFI, I wouldn't have a hole in my pocket for the 5 ultra/sli d's I've killed

**s7e9h3n** · 05-31-2005, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by extremecorvette

So far I know that the FX57 is a 90nm Sledgehammer rev E version ADAFX57DAA5BN. It's 2.8GHz, 89W

No that's cpuz's error. It in fact is a San Diego.

**Vapor** · 05-31-2005, 05:35 PM

I was kinda close then...just it was intentionally bugged. Anyway, you think they could flash it into an FX-61 and you run it under a phase change? If for no other reason just to say you had a program legitimately read a processor as an FX-61 a VERY long time before it ever came out (if it ever comes out).

**cadaveca** · 05-31-2005, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

LV ratings? It's rated the same as an FX55 Diego. And are you implying I work for Sapphire or DFI? If I did work for sapphire, trust me - I wouldn't be using a 6600GT and if I worked for DFI, I wouldn't have a hole in my pocket for the 5 ultra/sli d's I've killed

on the other cpu's you got. not that one. that's why you got the big tray "from santa".

and yeah, you'd have that hardware as personal, becasue pride is everything, and your an overclocker that kills hardware. Guys that work at tech companies don't all make millions, ya know

**s7e9h3n** · 05-31-2005, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by cadaveca

on the other cpu's you got. not that one. that's why you got the big tray "from santa".

and yeah, you'd have that hardware as personal, becasue pride is everything, and your an overclocker that kills hardware. Guys that work at tech companies don't all make millions, ya know

I don't know if I should consider what you said as an insult or not

because my only pci-e card is a 6600gt and while it's nothing to brag about, I don't think I should hang my head because of it

And I'd like to think of myself as an above-average oc'r

**s7e9h3n** · 05-31-2005, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Vapor

I was kinda close then...just it was intentionally bugged. Anyway, you think they could flash it into an FX-61 and you run it under a phase change? If for no other reason just to say you had a program legitimately read a processor as an FX-61 a VERY long time before it ever came out (if it ever comes out).

What would be the purpose of running it under phase? I promise you, there aren't any fx-61 cpu's floating around. The whole reason this was done was to test compatibility with the already announced fx-57. I don't beleive anybody has even though ahead to an fx-61

**extremecorvette** · 05-31-2005, 05:50 PM

So how much longer do I have to wait for the 57? I'm just getting my 2-Stage 3-Compressor Cascade system done. I have dual evap, one for the CPU and one for my X850XT PCI, It should hit -95C under full load on both evaps

I know the FX55 130nm didn't like it cold but the FX55 90nm are suppose to? What do you know about the 57?

**s7e9h3n** · 05-31-2005, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by extremecorvette

So how much longer do I have to wait for the 57? I'm just getting my 2-Stage 3-Compressor Cascade system done. I have dual evap, one for the CPU and one for my X850XT PCI, It should hit -95C under full load on both evaps

I know the FX55 130nm didn't like it cold but the FX55 90nm are suppose to? What do you know about the 57?

AFAIK, you're better off with the FX55 .13 at the moment. I don't believe anybody's tested a 55BN @ -100, but the .13's on average didn't have a problem @ that temp. BTW what stepping 55's do you own?

**~~Onepagebook~~** · 05-31-2005, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

AFAIK, you're better off with the FX55 .13 at the moment. I don't believe anybody's tested a 55BN @ -100, but the .13's on average didn't have a problem @ that temp. BTW what stepping 55's do you own?

I will test fx55 BN @-100c soon, 4600+ as well.

**extremecorvette** · 05-31-2005, 06:31 PM

And

**Dynasty** · 05-31-2005, 06:33 PM

I know the FX55 130nm didn't like it cold

Of course they do

, the question is will San diego fx55's like the
extreme cold.

**Absolute_0** · 05-31-2005, 06:35 PM

Stephen, you must introduce me to your friends that keep hooking you up. I'm sure they would like me as well

**REBEL900** · 06-01-2005, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by Onepagebook

I will test fx55 BN @-100c soon, 4600+ as well.

I await patiently

**HARDCORECLOCKER** · 06-01-2005, 07:47 AM

Shouldn't FX-57 be released in Q2 2005? Now we are close to the end of Q2.........

**chunkylover77** · 06-01-2005, 08:04 AM

My feeling's on this are that Stephen works at one of the companies that checks AMD's chips out for them. I dont know if he tests these chips himself or he just works in the company. Of course I could be talking out my ass. Good stuff Stephen. Have fun with that awesome chip. And what is this? You are not an XIP yet? Will have to talk to Saaya about that. You bring XS all these AMD chips first and then test them for us. That is an XIP if I ever heard of one. Good stuff. I am awaiting your results on the 4400 x2 as that is the chip I want very badly.

**cupra** · 06-01-2005, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

It's not what you think

More info tomorrow.......

ammm s7e9h3n today is the tomorrow of yesterday

and you promise more info today

**Vapor** · 06-01-2005, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

What would be the purpose of running it under phase? I promise you, there aren't any fx-61 cpu's floating around. The whole reason this was done was to test compatibility with the already announced fx-57. I don't beleive anybody has even though ahead to an fx-61

You saying that the SD 55s can run 3.2GHz on air?

Not that it would be a 61, but just imagine having a chip from AMD that, for all intensive purposes, read as an FX-61.

If nothing else you could stir up some talk at some forums about a clockspeed ramping breakthrough at AMD...

**Ref** · 06-01-2005, 01:42 PM

Why do you cover some parts of CPU? Don't you think that by saying how many of which CPU do you have AMD can find out who you are? i see no point in hiding parts of CPU ...

**Rabidmoose171** · 06-01-2005, 01:56 PM

SErial number... i believe it protects the warrenty.

Thread: Fx

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions