First FX-57 Review

ScourggeFX said:
One thing that would impress me, testwise, is to see Dsclaer being run at the same time a game is being played. I know Dscaler (depending on options selected) uses up to 100% CPU, so to have 2 CPU intensive apps running at the same time would be something marvelous indeed.

BTW (to editor) Is the experience of video encoding and counterstrike playing at the same time really that smooth? transparent?
Click to expand...

Yep, I can play CS Source and never know it is encoding video.
 
Kyle, I know you include some OC'd cpus in your reviews/comparisons. Since the new Venice cores are the hot items now, could you include a Venice 3000/3200+ clocked @ ~2.7g in future reviews for comparison? I know there's a lot of us sitting in that camp now. :p
 
Kwincy said:
HardOCP's decision not to include Intel P4 CPU's against the newest AMD CPU wasn't too bad, as comparing one company's current product against it's own older product to see what benefits a customer could get by upgrading is a great idea. However, by saying "The simple fact of the matter is that while Intel would have you believe that they do make "gaming" processors, the AMD Athlon FX-57 simply kicks the crap out of anything Intel makes in the realm of gaming." is nothing new and sounds like AMD F@nBoy talk. Tell us something we don't know, like, how much faster is this chip compared to Intel's top chip, not "Intel would have you believe..."

Sound like you guys were paid to say Intel=BAD, AMD=Good.

(And I own an Athlon64 3500!)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts. If you find a huge check from AMD with my name it on laying around, please forward it to me so I can cash that badboy.

On another note, if you come into my forums again and make baseless statements pertaining to bribes like you have above, you will be banned.

I have no problem with you telling me how bad we suck all day, as long as you have a basis for your statements but I will not allow anyone to question our integrity as you have done here. You are warned.
 
In previous HardOCP reviews, the gaming benchmarks usually included resolution bencharks, showing if a new CPU or GPU could actually handle higher settings or if the framerate actually increased using high settings.

Unfortunately, this review only focusses on low visual game settings, showing the tested CPU with unrealistic performance increases over previous CPU's.

This becomes even more relevant if you consider that the GPU is usually the limiting factor when you select good visual settings, even if it is a GF7800.

I even doubt if changing a S775 P4 into a FX57 will give you a noticable increase in framerate, if you fully enjoy the visual options the GF7800 offers, including 8xSS transperancy AA and all ingame settings maxed out, with a 1600x1200 resolution.

For this test, it is also possible to just compare the FX57 at 2.4 versus 2.8 Ghz with the best possible visual settings, because if the difference between those is less than 5%, it allready proves my point.
 
T8000 said:
In previous HardOCP reviews, the gaming benchmarks usually included resolution bencharks, showing if a new CPU or GPU could actually handle higher settings or if the framerate actually increased using high settings.

Unfortunately, this review only focusses on low visual game settings, showing the tested CPU with unrealistic performance increases over previous CPU's.

This becomes even more relevant if you consider that the GPU is usually the limiting factor when you select good visual settings, even if it is a GF7800.

I even doubt if changing a S775 P4 into a FX57 will give you a noticable increase in framerate, if you fully enjoy the visual options the GF7800 offers, including 8xSS transperancy AA and all ingame settings maxed out, with a 1600x1200 resolution.

For this test, it is also possible to just compare the FX57 at 2.4 versus 2.8 Ghz with the best possible visual settings, because if the difference between those is less than 5%, it allready proves my point.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts on this, we simply do not currently have the resources to spend the hundreds of man hours on testing to accomplish this right now.
 
SpoogeMonkey said:
Kyle, I know you include some OC'd cpus in your reviews/comparisons. Since the new Venice cores are the hot items now, could you include a Venice 3000/3200+ clocked @ ~2.7g in future reviews for comparison? I know there's a lot of us sitting in that camp now. :p
Click to expand...

So you want me to write a review about what you are already doing? Why don't you simply run some of the benchmarks we have already provided for you and do you own analysis. I take this stance because I just dont see the point in doing such a pointed review.

We might do an overclocking review on the Venice in the future, but that is not clear right now.
 
Not as a review, but included as one of the "other" cpus for comparison against newer cpus. Just a thought......
 
Kwincy dont troll man. Last FX beat P4 to the pulp, why bother having P4 face even a faster proc?

BTW, XP-M2500+ @ 2.5Ghz, here lol, it is funny how similar clocks give such different performance.

RIP doubling clock rates, was fun while it lasted ;p
 
Kwincy said:
...
Click to expand...

Actually, if you weren't too lazy and you checked previous reviews that included BOTH AMD and Intel, you would notice that Intel CAN NOT keep up with AMD.

Now we have a new CPU which outperforms EVERY AMD cpu in gaming. Using logical reasoning you will find that this CPU is by far the best gaming CPU.

Is that hard to figure out ? His statement was completely correct and Intel should read this review to get their acts together if they should market their CPU's as gaming CPU's.

Sorry Kyle for talking in your behalf. ;)
 
Jason711 said:
anybody know when amd is slated to reach 3.2? :confused:
Click to expand...
FX-61.. you guess is as good as mine, if it will even come out.. i'm thinking we hit dual core FX's before then.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
FX-61.. you guess is as good as mine, if it will even come out.. i'm thinking we hit dual core FX's before then.
Click to expand...

that sucks... u'd figure it wouldnt be that tough to get another 400mhz out of the chip. but hey.. what do i know? :)

im all for the dual cores though.. i dont even really multi-task too heavily. but having that much power on tap is just awsome. :D
 
I don't think there will be a dual core FX. They are still different consumer segments.

Unless you want to play Doom III and CS: Source at the same time. THEN, I guess I would consider you a hardcore gamer.
 
Chix4mat said:
I don't think there will be a dual core FX. They are still different consumer segments.

Unless you want to play Doom III and CS: Source at the same time. THEN, I guess I would consider you a hardcore gamer.
Click to expand...

im thinking some ppl would pay for an unlocked x2... some, but not many.
 
Chix4mat said:
I don't think there will be a dual core FX. They are still different consumer segments.
Click to expand...
amd has said that once enough games are multithreaded to make it justifiable, the FX line will go dual core (though.. it's kinda subjective :p)
 
Good review. I really enjoyed the benchmarks comparing the higher-end AMD models against the 3200+, since my current rig uses a 3200+. The FX-57 looks like a kick ass CPU, and if I had pockets as deep as the Grand Canyon, I would be sure to include one in my rig.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
amd has said that once enough games are multithreaded to make it justifiable, the FX line will go dual core (though.. it's kinda subjective :p)
Click to expand...

in that case, wouldnt it be more logical for amd to push the fx higher?
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
in a good multithreaded app, 2.4ghz x 2 > 3.2ghz x 1
Click to expand...

of course, that goes without saying... but what i was getting at is it is going to take a bit longer for good multithreaded apps (atleast in games). so a 3.2ghz processor is more likely to be in demand.
 
more than 3-6 months? they've been in the works for a while (unreal3, woot!)

remember that it took about 8-9 months to go from 2.6ghz to 2.8ghz.. they can keep scaling up the mhz, but dual core really is the future.
 
maybe i missed it, but what kind of heatsink is sitting on it? have any of those sites tried overclocking with phase/water cooling?
 
I for one would have loved to see a P4 included in the review. Even though I know it would get the crap beat out of it. A qualitative result such as "Intel can't compare" means much less to me than intel = 60fps, amd = 90fps. That is much more useful to me. I hope the [H] will include results from both sides of the fence next time so I don't have to go to another site to get more useful results.
 
misfitsfiend said:
maybe i missed it, but what kind of heatsink is sitting on it? have any of those sites tried overclocking with phase/water cooling?
Click to expand...

Asked some question earlier, they OC'd it on water.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
I loved my Northwood. I would have had babies with it if I could have.
Click to expand...
N* cores = awesome. i <3 newark :D

though, it reminds me of newcastle.. which isn't lame, but isn't cool either :p
 
They are about the same, until oc'd @ 3.5Ghz..

fx57sp15yq.jpg
fx55sp11ka.jpg
 
Pretty damn fast, but do FPS honestly matter when you're over 100 in the first place? I see a huge jump in those gay 3dmarks, but when your gaming over 100fps, going from 130 to 170 isn't that big of a jump....

maybe its just me though..
 
To bad they didn't release this 3 months ago, before the X2 benchmarks hit.

The guys over at XtremeSystems.org will buy it and go for the world records. But most will take the X2 since it's only a few frames differance. I don't give it a must have hardware award.

I'll keep my FX53 with a smirk on my face. To me, the FX53/4000+ is the best band for the buck chip going right now. One was selling in the FS/FT forums for $450, and it's right there with the FX57.

When it comes to frames at high resolution, the GPU is what makes the bigger differance, than the CPU.
 
Circuitbreaker8 said:
Pretty damn fast, but do FPS honestly matter when you're over 100 in the first place? I see a huge jump in those gay 3dmarks, but when your gaming over 100fps, going from 130 to 170 isn't that big of a jump....

maybe its just me though..
Click to expand...

The CPUs are benchmarked at only 640x480 on games, so when you get up to the highest resolutions you'd notice about an average of 5 FPS for your minium.
 
If anything this review made me want an X2 even more. Seeing as I am stuck on my OC'd AMD 2500M for now with no money I will continue wanting. I appreciate the real words too, I think in your "simple" statements I get more than in some of the fancy mumbo-jumbo I don't always understand:) Cheers.
 
Skrying said:
The CPUs are benchmarked at only 640x480 on games, so when you get up to the highest resolutions you'd notice about an average of 5 FPS for your minium.
Click to expand...

Wow, ur right! Lol....I guess my A64 3400 is here to stay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top