Kamikaze_Badger Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 I've tried Google to no success, so does anyone here know if the FX-55 is a good folder? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 ummmmm KB! Why wouldn't it be? hmmmm it is an AMD that runs at 2.6ghz. uhhhh nah couldn't be a good folder haha dude seriously why even ask that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigr5026 Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 if ur getting one, yay Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamikaze_Badger Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 Well, I was referring to it's ability to get through with the binary interface. If it's like the x86 Athlon architecture in the sense that it interprets the x86 into MacroOp or something like that, then it would hinder performance a bit. I've only got $20, so no, I'm not getting one... unless you know where they sell for $20. I've seen $894 Retail box at the lowest with Froogle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alown Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 Dude i have the greatest bench sheet in the history of folding. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlou Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 Dude i have the greatest bench sheet in the history of folding. 438022[/snapback] Sweet cheat sheet ... But one complaint - WHERE the heck is my K6? And my P75 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 The Athlon64 3800 runs slower then the 3500 Something not right with that if you ask me Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
O(V)eGA_l2el) Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 Why is the A64 (s939) below the (s754) for gromacs, or an I reading incorrectly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r_target Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 Those numbers don't compare to actual performance. At least not what I've observed. Is the Gromacs time supposed to be an average time of all the Gromacs WU's at the time of the benchmark? There's lots of different Gromacs that take different times per frame. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayway Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 yea i run my fx-55 folding now and it kills my old 3500 in work units but im also @ 2950 mhz but yea its a great folder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabyBalrog Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 Why is the A64 (s939) below the (s754) for gromacs, or an I reading incorrectly. 438668[/snapback] 754 have 1 MB cache, Folding LOVES cache I wish we coudl put together a big set of data so we would know, and besides different Wu have different points ratios so it slowly distorts with time. But that graph still tells us one Big thing, AMD is more competative on Tinker then gromacs. For guys who use EMIII does it keep a full log ov every WU you've done? we could extrapolate from there? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICON57 Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 I have been moving up the ranks...i am at 290....and i hope to make it into the top 100...soon I am a folding noob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now