Crunching Data With An AthlonFX-53

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjAy' target='_blank'>http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjAy</a><br /><br /></div>"Today AMD is launching the second CPU in the Athlon FX series. With the roll out of the FX-53, clocked at 2.4GHz, the FX-51, clocked at 2.2GHz will be retired from service. While there will certainly be some overlap of the two CPUs in the market place, don't expect much. Few FX-53s have been seen in the wild as of yet and from what we have been told, there are very few on the way to retailers in PIB (Processor In a Box) form. With that said, do not expect the release of the FX-53 to force any big price dips in the FX-51 part. The AthlonFX will remain the flagship CPU with flagship prices to match. If you are looking for the full run down on the AthlonFX processors, please check out our leading article on the subject. Today we are going to focus solely on the performance of the CPU with as little verbiage as possible..."<br /><br />Next to gaming, crunching digital media (whether it be a 10 GB video file or a 6 MP image) is one of the most power-hungry tasks you can do on your computer. The Athlon FX CPU is neck in neck with the Pentium 4 3.4 Ghz Extreme Edition CPU from Intel, despite running a full 1200 Mhz slower. Unfortunately, it bears the same ungodly price tag as the P4EE, so only pick one up if your desire for performance exceeds your desire to save money.

[Suhit Gupta]

Wow 8O. It is really interesting to see that AMD has beaten Intel in most of the gaming benchmarks.

Suhit

[Jason Dunn]

Wow 8O. It is really interesting to see that AMD has beaten Intel in most of the gaming benchmarks.

It's even more impressive when you consider the clock speed deficit that AMD is at, and it still matches or beats Intel. Still, in the end, it's performance that matters the most (and cost of course).

[Suhit Gupta]

It's even more impressive when you consider the clock speed deficit that AMD is at, and it still matches or beats Intel. Still, in the end, it's performance that matters the most (and cost of course).
Of course. And the clock speed deficit exists mainly because Intel is bent upon cranking the MHz while AMD (and IBM/Motorola) are not. Hmm, so much for the megahertz wars ;-)

Suhit

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

So, are the new Athlons better to manage, heat-wise? I recall even the XP series, which were said to be less hot, were still troublesome to manage. I like Athlons a lot (running one myself), but man, if you're not careful, you'll end up with a toasted CPU!

[Suhit Gupta]

So, are the new Athlons better to manage, heat-wise? I recall even the XP series, which were said to be less hot, were still troublesome to manage. I like Athlons a lot (running one myself), but man, if you're not careful, you'll end up with a toasted CPU!
Right out of the box, with default settings and a good standard heat-sink, I think the Pentium as well as the Athlon are similar in terms of heat output. However, you are right that heat needs to managed more carefully on the Athlon especially since the Athlon can be overclocked (well, at least trivially so). I used to run Athlons all over (servers home and work workstations) but I just switched my work PC to a P4. I am still happy with the Athlons and my next purchase is probably going to be the Athlon FX or the Athlon 64.

Suhit

[Jason Dunn]

Of course. And the clock speed deficit exists mainly because Intel is bent upon cranking the MHz while AMD (and IBM/Motorola) are not. Hmm, so much for the megahertz wars ;-)

Indeed - and what's even more interesting is that Intel, who has long mocked AMD's campaign to get consumers away from thinking only about Mhz, is about to do the same thing themselves - they're going to be rebranding the way they talk about Mhz. They had the EXACT problem with Centrino - the Pentium 4 M is is more powerful than a Pentium 4 on a clock-cycle basis (entirely due to the cache I believe), and people were buying the slower P4-based notebooks instead of the Centrino units because they thought they were slower! Intel reaps what they sow. ;-)

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Actually, Intel's come full circle in a way. I recall a 1994(?) pullout in PC Magazine or PC World where Intel talks about mHz not being the end-all spec to look at. They compared it to RPM ratings in a car, IIRC.