If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
AMD Athlon 64FX first impressions
Well today we received 2 NEW AMD CPU's, the Athlon 64FX and Athlon 64 3200+.
The mainboards were pre-production Gigabyte, GA-K8NNXP and GA-K8NNXP-940. A good start CPU coolers fit like the P4 so the risk of damage when fitting is much lower. We found that the N-vidia FX5900 (Asus) video cards did not perform that well and that the ATI Radeon 9800 pro (Sapphire) worked much better and had an easier install on both systems. We monitored both CPU's with a NAMAS calibrated thermocouple 'K' type recording 48c idle for the Athlon 64 and 56c under load, the FX chip was hotter by 4c at idle and under load but neither caused a problem, though this is on a bench not in a case. We loaded Windows XP some updates and patches both ran stable on the 3 day burn in test, though the 32bit OS on the Athlon 64 3200+ showed results no better than the Athlon XP3200+, the FX did how ever but at double the price you would expect this. Then came out our BETA Windows XP64 OS, loaded well on both machines and seemed stable, then we loaded the drivers and bang, blue screens, rebooting and all sorts of driver conflicts, we have narrowed it down to the USB2 driver the IEEE1394 and onboard sound, if we disable any one of these the other 2 work but not all 3 together. So at the moment we have a cheap soundcard in which has helped but not entirely cured the problem. Both systems ran quite a bit faster using the 64bit OS though in real terms it was not something you would see by eye. We used 1Gb (2x512Mb) of OCZ EL DDR RAM PC3200 Dual Channel Platinum memory CL 2-2-3-5. At present cost of the chips and the 63bit OS make this an expensive option and in comparison to a 3.2GHz P4 system the Athlon 64 3200+ was 20% more expensive for no gain if you used a 32bit OS, the Athlon XP3200+ would be a cheaper and better bet. The price of XP64 will determine the success of this chip, chip prices may fall in the future but Microsoft is not known for dropping the price of it's OS and XP64 bit edition is likely to be 50% more than the 32bit version. -- Chris Technical director CKCCOMPUSCRIPT Apple Computers, Intel, Roland audio, ATI, Microsoft, Sun Solaris, Cisco and Silicone Graphics. Wholesale distributor and specialist audio visual computers and servers FREE SUPPORT @, http://www.ckccomp.plus.com/site/page.HTM |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris" skrev i en meddelelse ... Well today we received 2 NEW AMD CPU's, the Athlon 64FX and Athlon 64 3200+. The mainboards were pre-production Gigabyte, GA-K8NNXP and GA-K8NNXP-940. A good start CPU coolers fit like the P4 so the risk of damage when fitting is much lower. We found that the N-vidia FX5900 (Asus) video cards did not perform that well and that the ATI Radeon 9800 pro (Sapphire) worked much better and had an easier install on both systems. We monitored both CPU's with a NAMAS calibrated thermocouple 'K' type recording 48c idle for the Athlon 64 and 56c under load, the FX chip was hotter by 4c at idle and under load but neither caused a problem, though this is on a bench not in a case. We loaded Windows XP some updates and patches both ran stable on the 3 day burn in test, though the 32bit OS on the Athlon 64 3200+ showed results no better than the Athlon XP3200+, the FX did how ever but at double the price you would expect this. Then came out our BETA Windows XP64 OS, loaded well on both machines and seemed stable, then we loaded the drivers and bang, blue screens, rebooting and all sorts of driver conflicts, we have narrowed it down to the USB2 driver the IEEE1394 and onboard sound, if we disable any one of these the other 2 work but not all 3 together. So at the moment we have a cheap soundcard in which has helped but not entirely cured the problem. Both systems ran quite a bit faster using the 64bit OS though in real terms it was not something you would see by eye. We used 1Gb (2x512Mb) of OCZ EL DDR RAM PC3200 Dual Channel Platinum memory CL 2-2-3-5. At present cost of the chips and the 63bit OS make this an expensive option and in comparison to a 3.2GHz P4 system the Athlon 64 3200+ was 20% more expensive for no gain if you used a 32bit OS, the Athlon XP3200+ would be a cheaper and better bet. The price of XP64 will determine the success of this chip, chip prices may fall in the future but Microsoft is not known for dropping the price of it's OS and XP64 bit edition is likely to be 50% more than the 32bit version. Nice. Hovever, I saw some guys at an AMD forum, who were pleased about the results they got by testing the 64. This was in terms of overclocking abilities. -- Mvh Morten Holberg Nielsen In an interstelaaarrr buuuurrssst im baaack to saaaveeee the uuuunivereerse! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Chris wrote:
Well today we received 2 NEW AMD CPU's, the Athlon 64FX and Athlon 64 3200+. The mainboards were pre-production Gigabyte, GA-K8NNXP and GA-K8NNXP-940. A good start CPU coolers fit like the P4 so the risk of damage when fitting is much lower. We found that the N-vidia FX5900 (Asus) video cards did not perform that well and that the ATI Radeon 9800 pro (Sapphire) worked much better and had an easier install on both systems. We monitored both CPU's with a NAMAS calibrated thermocouple 'K' type recording 48c idle for the Athlon 64 and 56c under load, the FX chip was hotter by 4c at idle and under load but neither caused a problem, though this is on a bench not in a case. We loaded Windows XP some updates and patches both ran stable on the 3 day burn in test, though the 32bit OS on the Athlon 64 3200+ showed results no better than the Athlon XP3200+, the FX did how ever but at double the price you would expect this. Then came out our BETA Windows XP64 OS, loaded well on both machines and seemed stable, then we loaded the drivers and bang, blue screens, rebooting and all sorts of driver conflicts, we have narrowed it down to the USB2 driver the IEEE1394 and onboard sound, if we disable any one of these the other 2 work but not all 3 together. So at the moment we have a cheap soundcard in which has helped but not entirely cured the problem. Both systems ran quite a bit faster using the 64bit OS though in real terms it was not something you would see by eye. We used 1Gb (2x512Mb) of OCZ EL DDR RAM PC3200 Dual Channel Platinum memory CL 2-2-3-5. At present cost of the chips and the 63bit OS make this an expensive option and in comparison to a 3.2GHz P4 system the Athlon 64 3200+ was 20% more expensive for no gain if you used a 32bit OS, the Athlon XP3200+ would be a cheaper and better bet. The price of XP64 will determine the success of this chip, chip prices may fall in the future but Microsoft is not known for dropping the price of it's OS and XP64 bit edition is likely to be 50% more than the 32bit version. I suggest you look over the above monolythic paragraph and consider how you expect people to read it. It simply rambles. Breaking it up into paragraphs, each dealing with a single thought, would make a major difference. I, for one, won't bother. -- Chuck F ) ) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. http://cbfalconer.home.att.net USE worldnet address! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Morten Holberg Nielsen wrote:
Nice. Hovever, I saw some guys at an AMD forum, who were pleased about the results they got by testing the 64. This was in terms of overclocking abilities. And you'd expect 'some guys at an AMD forum' to form a different opinion of AMD's newest chip? -- Stacey |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I suggest you look over the above monolythic paragraph and consider how you expect people to read it. It simply rambles. Breaking it up into paragraphs, each dealing with a single thought, would make a major difference. I, for one, won't bother. Seconded! __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Stacey" skrev i en meddelelse ... Morten Holberg Nielsen wrote: Nice. Hovever, I saw some guys at an AMD forum, who were pleased about the results they got by testing the 64. This was in terms of overclocking abilities. And you'd expect 'some guys at an AMD forum' to form a different opinion of AMD's newest chip? No, but the results i saw was really good. You missed the actual point. I was just writing that for overclocking, its doing quite well. Dont know the price for it yet, but if its too high, the 64 isnt really interesting. Not even in terms of oc'ing. -- Mvh Morten Holberg Nielsen In an interstelaaarrr buuuurrssst im baaack to saaaveeee the uuuunivereerse! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Well today we received 2 NEW AMD CPU's, the Athlon 64FX and Athlon 64
3200+. The mainboards were pre-production Gigabyte, GA-K8NNXP and GA-K8NNXP-940. A good start CPU coolers fit like the P4 so the risk of damage when fitting is much lower. We found that the N-vidia FX5900 (Asus) video cards did not perform that well and that the ATI Radeon 9800 pro (Sapphire) worked much better and had an easier install on both systems. We monitored both CPU's with a NAMAS calibrated thermocouple 'K' type recording 48c idle for the Athlon 64 and 56c under load, the FX chip was hotter by 4c at idle and under load but neither caused a problem, though this is on a bench not in a case. We loaded Windows XP some updates and patches both ran stable on the 3 day burn in test, though the 32bit OS on the Athlon 64 3200+ showed results no better than the Athlon XP3200+, the FX did how ever but at double the price you would expect this. Then came out our BETA Windows XP64 OS, loaded well on both machines and seemed stable, then we loaded the drivers and bang, blue screens, rebooting and all sorts of driver conflicts, we have narrowed it down to the USB2 driver the IEEE1394 and onboard sound, if we disable any one of these the other 2 work but not all 3 together. So at the moment we have a cheap soundcard in which has helped but not entirely cured the problem. Both systems ran quite a bit faster using the 64bit OS though in real terms it was not something you would see by eye. We used 1Gb (2x512Mb) of OCZ EL DDR RAM PC3200 Dual Channel Platinum memory CL 2-2-3-5. At present cost of the chips and the 63bit OS make this an expensive option and in comparison to a 3.2GHz P4 system the Athlon 64 3200+ was 20% more expensive for no gain if you used a 32bit OS, the Athlon XP3200+ would be a cheaper and better bet. The price of XP64 will determine the success of this chip, chip prices may fall in the future but Microsoft is not known for dropping the price of it's OS and XP64 bit edition is likely to be 50% more than the 32bit version. I suggest you look over the above monolythic paragraph and consider how you expect people to read it. It simply rambles. Breaking it up into paragraphs, each dealing with a single thought, would make a major difference. I, for one, won't bother. I found it an informative and interesting read, don't bother reading if you don't want to, but don't bother critisizing either in that case. Steve |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I found it an informative and interesting read, don't bother reading if you don't want to, but don't bother critisizing either in that case. Steve Spot on. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:09:58 +0200, "Morten Holberg Nielsen"
holberg19@ DELETETHIS ofir.dk wrote: And you'd expect 'some guys at an AMD forum' to form a different opinion of AMD's newest chip? No, but the results i saw was really good. You missed the actual point. I was just writing that for overclocking, its doing quite well. Dont know the price for it yet, but if its too high, the 64 isnt really interesting. Not even in terms of oc'ing. .... and it's an important point, means that they shouldn't have any problems ramping up the speeds released, if the tested CPUs are a fair representation. Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:25:36 +0100, "Stephen Austin"
wrote: I suggest you look over the above monolythic paragraph and consider how you expect people to read it. It simply rambles. Breaking it up into paragraphs, each dealing with a single thought, would make a major difference. I, for one, won't bother. I found it an informative and interesting read, don't bother reading if you don't want to, but don't bother critisizing either in that case. Steve It's a fair criticism when a writing is meant for public consumption, rather than private scribble. Minor readability problems are easily overlooked, but whose keyboard lacks an Enter key? Futher it's rather unnecessary for YOU to tell others not to criticize, that they could not "bother reading", when this is exactly what you did to the above post.... the pot calling the kettle black. Dave |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Asus A7V333 rev. 1.02 + AMD XP1800+ | Jean | General | 0 | September 6th 03 08:57 PM |
Which fan is best for Athlon XP 2600+ | James Walton | General | 22 | July 24th 03 06:33 PM |
Is Athlon XP 1700+ much cooler than Athlon 1300? | robc | General | 3 | July 10th 03 04:27 PM |
Computer won't boot with 2000+ Athlon, 2100+ Athlon works just fine | Cyde Weys | General | 4 | July 3rd 03 12:16 PM |
quick questions regarding Athlon XP | fred.do | General | 4 | June 25th 03 06:07 PM |