Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Amd 64 X2 5000+ & Fx-60


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#25 suchuwato

suchuwato

    suchapotato was formerly known as lego

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6318 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich, UK

Posted 14 November 2005 - 04:17 PM

lego is crouched in a corner crying... dang you bigred!

:lol:

Your'e gonna have to crank them up nice and high :)

#26 bigred

bigred

    Don't even get me started

  • Folding Member
  • 9685 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 November 2005 - 04:55 PM

btw the FX-59 is confirmed as a no go :( AMD has decided to hold shy of the 3ghz barrier for now... that is for now only :)

I may have to fight them tooth and nail too... they want mine back so it can be youthanized
Some people are like Slinkies. Totally useless, but you just can't help but laugh when you push them down the stairs.

#27 BabyBalrog

BabyBalrog

    Fighting the Retro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1650 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mobile, AL

Posted 14 November 2005 - 05:05 PM

They want your FX-57 back?

I like the point that the X2 5000 is suppose to be 2.6 and dual core. SO is the only difference going to be that the FX will ahve a full MB cache each? then what about the 5200+

Even if they weren't hittign 3 Ghz, I'd liek the FX line to stya different, like... 2.8 and 2 MB cache :)
Posted Image

#28 bigred

bigred

    Don't even get me started

  • Folding Member
  • 9685 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 November 2005 - 05:09 PM

no they want my FX-59 back. the 57 is toast as far as AMD is concerned. the only difference now is going to be the slightly larger cache, and the unlocked multiplier (thus OC'n will be a little simpler with 2 cores).
Some people are like Slinkies. Totally useless, but you just can't help but laugh when you push them down the stairs.

#29 BabyBalrog

BabyBalrog

    Fighting the Retro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1650 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mobile, AL

Posted 15 November 2005 - 11:01 AM

So like
X2 5000+ is 2.6 512
X2 5200+ is 2.6 1MB
FX 60 is 2.6 2MB ?? <--- read "AWESOME"
Posted Image

#30 alown

alown

    Still an ATI fanboy!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 856 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WI

Posted 15 November 2005 - 02:19 PM

i was thinking the FX60 will be for desktops and the X2 5000 would be for workstations.
lets make things simple
daul core FXs are called FX2.

BTW i would buy a X2 5000 over the others. i have learned that cache isn't whorth the cost.
AMD Thuban X6 1055T @ 4.0Ghz
Corsair H70 & Cool Master HAF 932 (painted)
8GB of PC12800 OCZ Reaper @ 1900Mhz
ASUS Crosshair IV
2 WD Blacks in 0 RAID
AIT 6870 @ 960 gpu 1140 mem
Cooler Master GX 750W

#31 BabyBalrog

BabyBalrog

    Fighting the Retro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1650 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mobile, AL

Posted 15 November 2005 - 04:33 PM

True cache isn't a great deal of importance, Think about how all P4 600s are 2MB versions yet aren't that much better then the 500s and xbit labs did a review when Semprons came out that showed at BEST in ONE benchmark a 20% increase going 4 levels... from 128 KB to 1 MB. But for databasing, and *caugh* folding cache can be very usefull. But average user, $90 sempron is enough....

http://www.xbitlabs....ron-2600_5.html

Forgot to say there are two pages, and File Compression seams to get a boost on the order of 15%

The end of the article introducign teh 600 seriers has two nice graphs depicting the differance between 1MB and 2MB

http://www.xbitlabs....um4-6xx_21.html
Posted Image

#32 GlimmerMan

GlimmerMan

    Creamed Rice

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 448 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 15 November 2005 - 04:44 PM

so.. whos gonna make some folding bets :D
Phenom II X3 720 (4th core unlocked) @3.4 stock volts | GA-MA790X-UD4P | 4GB Team Xtreme PC2-1066 | HD4870 512MB | 2x Dell E248WFP

#33 BabyBalrog

BabyBalrog

    Fighting the Retro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1650 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mobile, AL

Posted 15 November 2005 - 04:56 PM

Notice for the tinkers how the AMD's with one meg cache are at the top of the list. Gromacs matter less when cache is involved.
Posted Image

#34 Kamikaze_Badger

Kamikaze_Badger

    (⌐■_■)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8337 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 15 November 2005 - 07:53 PM

The TINKERS core is like Battlefield 2. It's coded less efficiently. GROMACS (Runs On Most Computers... sorry, couldn't resist putting in the rest of the name) is more recent and open source, allowing for much more enhancement to the code for speed and such.

And if you didn't read that, TINKERS = Old. GROMACS = New.

Edited by Kamikaze_Badger, 15 November 2005 - 07:54 PM.

Is my Razer Diamondback retro yet?
s

Graciously recommended from KB, is some muffricken Christian death metal. It is a must hear, it pushes envelopes, explores new ground. Words can't describe just now incredibly awesome this is. Cue the alter smashing, bench flipping, and bible reading while thrashing away at guitars and drums.

I witnessed regional Special Olympics and Challenge Day; there's far more intellect there than there is in internet arguments.

#35 bigred

bigred

    Don't even get me started

  • Folding Member
  • 9685 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 November 2005 - 08:09 PM

um, it's 1mb per core... 2mb total. the 5000+ is 1mb total (ie 512k per core).

nothing fancy there at all if you ask me :(
Some people are like Slinkies. Totally useless, but you just can't help but laugh when you push them down the stairs.

#36 BabyBalrog

BabyBalrog

    Fighting the Retro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1650 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mobile, AL

Posted 15 November 2005 - 09:42 PM

Nothin' fancy indeed,

is AMD even planning on a 5200+ for s939? I thought the line ended there? so i guess the FX will still be the champ untill socket M.

btw Bigred have you heard if socket M will use FB DIMMs?
Posted Image