AMD Athlon 64 FX-57: The Fastest Single Core
by Derek Wilson on June 27, 2005 11:47 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
Clearly the FX-57 is the fastest single core processor money can buy right now. But is it worth it?The price is exorbitant, the speed increase over previous FX processors is not extreme, and the industry is focused firmly on multiple core architectures. We are no longer at point in time where this launch is extremely important. The battles have been fought and AMD already won the fight for single threaded performance.
For end users who need a high performing single core, the 4000+ is quite capable and affords a savings of more than $550. For those who have the money to burn, the X2 4800+ costs just over $1000 as well and will provide smoother multitasking and higher performance in applications that only modestly benefit from multithreading.
The FX-57 isn't as overclockable as previous parts (based on our experience with one sample). Our FX-53 would easily run at 2.6GHz, and the FX-55 could run stable at 2.8GHz if we took extra care to keep it cool. Our FX-57 didn't even pretend to make it through our stability test at 3GHz.
There may be some corporation or individual who absolutely must have single core performance at all costs. In that situation, the FX-57 is the fastest option and the best fit. Of course, that demographic doesn't even show up on the radar. The real answer to our question is that the FX-57 is not worth the price. With options almost as fast at just about half the price or hardware that has the potential for more speed and a smoother experience priced the same, the choice for the desktop end user is clearly not the FX-57.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
56 Comments
View All Comments
yacoub - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
Er, instead of "in the time a 2.8Ghz chip can", let's clarify and say "in a single clock cycle than a 2.8Ghz chip can".manno - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
I heard it has support for DDR I 533, any chance we can see some benches with that stuff slapped in it?yacoub - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
So is this graph an example of where pure clock speed determines performance?http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%20athlon%20...
And why is that? What about that test seems to be extremely tied to the pure "speed" of the chip? Is it a matter of a 3.8GHz chip being able to process 1,000,000,000 more instructions through it in the time a 2.8GHz chip can?
ultimatebob - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
Why are you still doing Mozilla 1.4 testing? Almost no one uses Mozilla anymore, they use Firefox.Besides... the explanation of why you're still using it (posted below) doesn't make much sense. You might want to reword it.
"Quite possibly the most frequently used application on any desktop is the one we pay the least amount of attention to when it comes to performance. While a bit older than the core that is now used in Firefox, performance in Mozilla is worth looking at as many users are switching from IE to a much more capable browser on the PC - Firefox."
The DvD - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
1) What's up with the Communication Sysmark Business Application Performance bench?2) Why list the Gallating 3.46EE? It's not for sale..
3) Good work on the review.
dougSF30 - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
Why didn't you guys test the DDR-533 memory divider support that comes with the FX-57? That would provide a nice boost in many scores.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/27/amd_fx-57/
"AMD has upgraded the chip's integrated memory controller to work with 533MHz DDR SDRAM. Its predecessor, the FX-55, was limited to 400MHz memory."
phaxmohdem - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
Yes way too pricey. AMD's latest round of pricings has me questioning their business direction. WTF? What happened to undercutting intel and giving teh end user a sweet deal?Starglider - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
It is surprising that the processor wasn't stable at 3GHz, as every other FX-57 review I've read where overclocking was attempted achieved 3GHz stable on air (and in one case 3.5 GHz stable on phase-change). As Kocur suggests, perhaps this was a motherboard issue?Agree with the conclusion though.
AndreasM - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
Loose, as in not tight.Lose, as in not win.
Page 1
finbarqs - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
hrm.. is it based on the .09 micron process? Why is it clocked so poorly? is the San Diego core FX-55 better?