Amd 64 X2 5000+ & Fx-60

[suchuwato]

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

 

 

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

[bigred]

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

[BabyBalrog]

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

[bigred]

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).

[BabyBalrog]

So like

X2 5000+ is 2.6 512

X2 5200+ is 2.6 1MB

FX 60 is 2.6 2MB ?? <--- read "AWESOME"

[alown]

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.

[BabyBalrog]

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.com/articles/cpu/displ...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.com/articles/cpu/displ...um4-6xx_21.html

[GlimmerMan]

so.. whos gonna make some folding bets

[BabyBalrog]

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.

[Kamikaze_Badger]

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 November 16, 2005 by Kamikaze_Badger

[bigred]

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

[BabyBalrog]

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?