Fx-57

Adam Warren

Adam Warren

New Member
Holy shit! just came across it on tigerdirect.ca looks insane!!!!!! Whats the verdict on this cpu? Anyone have it yet?
 
It would kicks so much ass to have that with two 6800ultra 512mb's in sli, with 2 gbs of ram and a couple of sata hd's! im like drueling!
 
I was considering getting the previous version to this, the FX-55, that seriously kicks some ass aswell. And now with the FX-57 being released the 55 will drop in price, woo hoo
 
Anyone have it yet?
Click to expand...
Had and sold. It's been up for pre-order for the last 3 weeks or so (that I've known that is). Very nice processor ... for what Ive been doing lately with my comp, i dont notice much as Ive not been pushing the box too hard but I did a few benchmark rounds and it definitively trounces my 3500+ (the 3500+ starts to even out when it approaches 2.9Ghz but then again the FX57 can OC higher too)
:)
 
Well it's simply the best, nothing else on the market can compete whith an FX-57 In games and other singel-threaded aplications:), imagin two 7800GTX in SLI and an FX-57:cool:...
 
Well it's simply the best, nothing else on the market can compete whith an FX-57 In games and other singel-threaded aplications
Click to expand...
Yes but we live in a multithreaded computing world :) And for gaming, nobody is gonna notice a difference between 150fps and 135fps..... and what about multithreaded games? ;)
 
Adam Warren said:
Holy shit! just came across it on tigerdirect.ca looks insane!!!!!! Whats the verdict on this cpu? Anyone have it yet?
Click to expand...


actually, the AMD64 X2 4800+ did better on almost all of the tests over the FX-57, in system scores, gaming scores, and overall scores. And its much cheaper, if i were to chose between them, i'd choose the X2.
 
Praetor said:
Yes but we live in a multithreaded computing world :) And for gaming, nobody is gonna notice a difference between 150fps and 135fps..... and what about multithreaded games? ;)
Click to expand...


I remember hearing someplace that a person can only see so many frames per second, and beyond a certain number we cant even tell the difference.
 
geoff5093 said:
actually, the AMD64 X2 4800+ did better on almost all of the tests over the FX-57, in system scores, gaming scores, and overall scores. And its much cheaper, if i were to chose between them, i'd choose the X2.
Click to expand...


Where are these test results? I heard most games don't even support dual core proccessors so how could they have any kind of better score? That info is comming from the www.hothardware.com review of the FX-57.
 
geoff5093 said:
I remember hearing someplace that a person can only see so many frames per second, and beyond a certain number we cant even tell the difference.
Click to expand...

That would e 30. 28.7 actually (if i'm not mistaken).That's why I've never seen the point in someone trying to OC a vid card that does what they want at 90FPS, just because someone else is getting 130. It's pointless to potentially damage your hardware for a performance difference that is literally impossible to notice.
 
I have an XFX GeForce5200 128Mb, not a good card and it only cos me £45 (about $80). I've overclocked it and it can reach about 35-40fps. This is absolutely fine and a i cant see the difference between that and a 6600GT that a mate has. And i bet the 6600GT cost a hell of a lot more than my 5200 did.

I play UT2003 and UT2004 on it nearly all day and it copes fine with everything i throuw at it. Thats why i really dont see the need for a £300 graphics card, in my eyes its pretty useless if a £40 one does exactly the same.

P.S. And all you people who keep saying its an awful card and shouldnt be bought, SHUT UP. Its a brilliant card..... for £40 and if i went further with overclocking (which i will be when the GeForce i water cooled) it could easily reach fps of about 40-45.
 
dragon2309 said:
Thats why i really dont see the need for a £300 graphics card, in my eyes its pretty useless if a £40 one does exactly the same.
Click to expand...

but It does not do the exact same thing. try playing doom 3 on 1600X1200 high with 4AA and 8AF with a geforce 5200fx. It not going to happen.

it could easily reach fps of about 40-45.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? On what game? on what setting? just saying it could reach 40-45fps mean nothing unless you say exactly what you playing and on what settings.
 
Last edited:
I remember hearing someplace that a person can only see so many frames per second, and beyond a certain number we cant even tell the difference.
Click to expand...
Yes and its a crapload lower than 100+ fps ;)

That would e 30. 28.7 actually (if i'm not mistaken).That's why I've never seen the point in someone trying to OC a vid card that does what they want at 90FPS, just because someone else is getting 130. It's pointless to potentially damage your hardware for a performance difference that is literally impossible to notice.
Click to expand...
1. Stay on topic
2. Well theres seeing and there's percieving. The lowend of the threshold is 23.976 (which is what some movies are encoded at) but the human eye can be buggered by anything short of 60Hz

I have an XFX GeForce5200 128Mb, not a good card and it only cos me £45 (about $80). I've overclocked it and it can reach about 35-40fps. This is absolutely fine and a i cant see the difference between that and a 6600GT that a mate has. And i bet the 6600GT cost a hell of a lot more than my 5200 did.

I play UT2003 and UT2004 on it nearly all day and it copes fine with everything i throuw at it. Thats why i really dont see the need for a £300 graphics card, in my eyes its pretty useless if a £40 one does exactly the same.

P.S. And all you people who keep saying its an awful card and shouldnt be bought, SHUT UP. Its a brilliant card..... for £40 and if i went further with overclocking (which i will be when the GeForce i water cooled) it could easily reach fps of about 40-45.
Click to expand...
1. Stay on topic -- you've been around long enough to know better. Last warning :)
2. You obviously dont know what you're talking about and incompetence coupled with hostility is not a way of sticking around long but just as a lesson for those not in the know
  • UT2003 and UT2004 are DX8 games -- try a DX9 game before you open your mouth and compare the 5200 to the 6600GT. As a preemptive primer have a look at the piddly 9fps the 5200Ultra pulled off and before you open yer mouth about HL2 not being an nVidia game, lets have a look at an nVidia game ... Doom3 where the 5500 (featuring memory that's 66MHz faster) got a piss-all 18fps
  • Even if you overclock and get a "staggering" 35-40fps out of yer 5200, running it at 640x480 doesnt count as a passable resolution. If you want to talk about "throwing somthing" (and insist on using UT2004 as a benchmark), just consider the flagship card of the GeForceFX family, the 5950Ultra can barely push 27fps at max
Lesson of the day? If yer gonna open yer mouth and make very wrong statements, make sure you cover yourself with some facts. Now lets stay on topic -- if you insist on arguing this point -- make a new thread
 
LOL i dont mean to be mean ... it's just that yes I understand you like your card (ive got a 5200 myself) but the simple fact of the matter is ... it's not a hardcore gaming card and never will be and even nVidia recognizes this and markets it -- not as a gaming card but as a more business oriented card ... so to see something so obviously wrong (and the comaprison to the 6600GT was disproportionately wrong) just requires a shock response :)


But more on topic, the FX57, kicking in at 2.8GHz puts it easily in spitting distance (with some exotic cooling mind you) of Intel's higher end product lineup with some overclocking :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top