Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

[O.T]:amd 55 fx vs amd 64 bit (any speed)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    [O.T]:amd 55 fx vs amd 64 bit (any speed)

    more than once, on the internet ive seen that the 55fx is better than any amd 64 bit. so my question is this, how can a 2.6ghz proc (the 55 fx) be better than a 3.6 (random number) amd 64 bit?

    #2
    the 3.whatever systems dont actually run faster, it is the comparable speed of a pentium 4 system.

    ie. a 3500+ runs pretty much the same as a 3.5ghz p4.

    the amd fx 55 is THE top of the line cpu.

    Comment


      #3
      Re: [O.T]:amd 55 fx vs amd 64 bit (any speed)

      Originally posted by Esproc
      more than once, on the internet ive seen that the 55fx is better than any amd 64 bit. so my question is this, how can a 2.6ghz proc (the 55 fx) be better than a 3.6 (random number) amd 64 bit?
      mmm, check your numbers. the AMD64 3500+ actually is clocked at ~2.2GHZ.
      Plus, the AMD64-FX 55 has some other features as well, such as a larger L2 Cache (1MB compared to 512KB) which really helps speed things up.

      Comment


        #4
        While were on the subject im planing on upgrading which would be better AMD 64 3200+ or the pentium equievelant in price?

        Comment


          #5
          amd are almost always cheaper...

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Donut
            amd are almost always cheaper...
            There have been some really cheap intels on newegg lately though.

            Comment


              #7
              Really, its mostly preference. The AMD64 line I find is pretty good, using a 3500+ myself. works great.

              Comment


                #8
                lemem re-phrase the question. how is it tha the FX, a 2.6 GHZ proc is better than any 64 bit proc even tho that the 64 bit proc (the non FX one) has a greater ghz?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Esproc
                  lemem re-phrase the question. how is it tha the FX, a 2.6 GHZ proc is better than any 64 bit proc even tho that the 64 bit proc (the non FX one) has a greater ghz?
                  Check your numbers, as your taking its model number to literally, the 3500+ is clocked at 2.2GHz. Also, as I said before the FX series have more L2 cache, the FX55 has 1MB instead of the 512KB. Thats double, and it does make a big difference.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The problem with most people is that nowadays everyone thinks "Ghz" is what counts, when actually the CPU industry is moving towards bigger pipelines, fast memory, instead of racing towards higher ghz. :P An AMD FX-55 could beat even a 4.5 ghz P4 probably, pretty easily. It's the king as of right now.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Rhl
                      The problem with most people is that nowadays everyone thinks "Ghz" is what counts, when actually the CPU industry is moving towards bigger pipelines, fast memory, instead of racing towards higher ghz. :P An AMD FX-55 could beat even a 4.5 ghz P4 probably, pretty easily. It's the king as of right now.
                      Actually, Intel recenly scrapped there 4GHz plans for the P4. they may just be moving on to something new. Although I know some people have gotten the current P4's to that speed, I don't know if they have them stable enough, and with cooling that isn't too over the top for the average user.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        basic english...
                        Y IS FX55>AMD64 2.2GHZ TRUE?

                        2.2 IS RANDOM NUMBER

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Esproc
                          basic english...
                          Y IS FX55>AMD64 2.2GHZ TRUE?

                          2.2 IS RANDOM NUMBER
                          No, its not, as I happen to have that specific processor
                          Here is the info from /proc/cpuinfo (linux)
                          Code:
                          processor       : 0
                          vendor_id       : AuthenticAMD
                          cpu family      : 15
                          model           : 15
                          model name      : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+
                          stepping        : 0
                          cpu MHz         : 2248.775
                          cache size      : 512 KB
                          fdiv_bug        : no
                          hlt_bug         : no
                          f00f_bug        : no
                          coma_bug        : no
                          fpu             : yes
                          fpu_exception   : yes
                          cpuid level     : 1
                          wp              : yes
                          flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext lm 3dnowext 3dnow
                          bogomips        : 4407.29
                          And as I said before, one other reason, is because of the fact it has 1MB cache, instead of 512KB. Cache is where recently used instructions are stored so the CPU doesn't need to access memory so much. Now, I am not going to go into all the details, since I happen to be studying this currently, and their are alot of details, but doubling the L2 cache to 1MB adds quiet a bit to the processor, being that it can hold more instructions for execution in a faster location then memory (L2 cache runs at CPU speed on AMD 64's iirc) were as memory is slow comparitively.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Xipher
                            Actually, Intel recenly scrapped there 4GHz plans for the P4. they may just be moving on to something new. Although I know some people have gotten the current P4's to that speed, I don't know if they have them stable enough, and with cooling that isn't too over the top for the average user.
                            That's what I said. "The problem with most people is that nowadays everyone thinks "Ghz" is what counts, when actually the CPU industry is moving towards bigger pipelines, fast memory, instead of racing towards higher ghz." :alien:

                            Comment


                              #15
                              ....I dont even understand the main question, the 2.6GHZ FX-55 is the fastest by GHZ measurement anyhow, the fastest regular Athlon64 processor runs at 2.4ghz...the FX-55 is faster ...however you look at it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X