• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

FX-57 Why Not Faster?

T

tsuehpsyde

Supreme [H]ardness
2FA
Joined
Oct 22, 2004
Messages
6,604
Okay, I'm not saying the FX-57 is going to be slow by ANY means...so let's clear that out first. Also, I'm not aware of any hard stats being set down as the speed....but everyone agrees it's probably going to be a 2.8GHz monster, with a San Diego core. Well, the FX-55 was the first core with SSoI (as a test bed I'm assuming?) on the Clawhammer core. Now, that CPU alone would hit 3 GHz without thinking much about it and it ran stock 2.6GHz. The thing I personally don't understand is why they would engineer a CPU with such great flexability (upwards multiplier as well), but yet don't put it to use? I mean, why not release the FX-57 as an even 3GHz processor, which I'm sure wouldn't be hard to do with the new 90nm core, improved SSoI implementation after getting to know it well on the FX-55, and other factors....just kinda seems stupid to sit on their hands when Intel is kinda running outta tricks atm, and a 3 GHz or even 3.2GHz if their technology warrented those speeds would be a SWIFT kick in the groin to their immediate competition (on the high end market anyway).

Idunno, just something that's been bothering me....oh, and anyone have an expected date on these bad boys? :p
 
if the things i hear are right, there should be a 90nm fx-55 pretty soon, then the fx-57 will come out sometime in Q3. why they're waiting so long? i don't know. my only guess would be that they feel that they just don't need to. remember that intel isn't going any higher with single core for a while, so all said and done, amd should have quite a lead by the time they get to 3-3.2ghz.

as for oc'ing... :D
 
I'd gander they leave them at a lower clock because they *ARE* the Enthusiast's chip. They expect they will be Overclocked etc, so leave them at a fraction of what they can do, and let the enthusiasts find what they are capable of. That's just my opinion though, I could be way off. :)


Get your [H]s here!
 
mr_ouija said:
I'd gander they leave them at a lower clock because they *ARE* the Enthusiast's chip. They expect they will be Overclocked etc, so leave them at a fraction of what they can do, and let the enthusiasts find what they are capable of. That's just my opinion though, I could be way off. :)
Click to expand...

Interesting marketing spin. Post title: "OMG! FX-xx @ 3.6 ghz!" would be quite a marketing coup for AMD in the enthusiast market. Remember the Athlon XP-M OCing (I'm still doing it) when people found out about that? I bet there are more XP-Ms in Desktops than there are in laptops!
 
i expect it to be that way with newark. they will be a mobile surprise, and when they come out, a few chosen people will discover how great they are for 754, and youll get hords coming back here for 3ghz chips with minimal effort, i hope :D
 
I'm quite sure that there are technical problems with selling CPUs at higher clockspeed. Perhaps the yields would be too low to differentiate between 2.6 and 2.8, so they sell 2.6 only...
Whatever it is, AMD is still making losses, so if they had a good opportunity to make money, they surely would take it up. AMD hasn't made a profit in years, and if this keeps up, they're going to be in trouble.
 
Scali said:
I'm quite sure that there are technical problems with selling CPUs at higher clockspeed. Perhaps the yields would be too low to differentiate between 2.6 and 2.8, so they sell 2.6 only...
Whatever it is, AMD is still making losses, so if they had a good opportunity to make money, they surely would take it up. AMD hasn't made a profit in years, and if this keeps up, they're going to be in trouble.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure what those technical problems would be, seeing as how an FX-55 which is on a 130nm process on an old clawhammer core can reach 3GHz on air and 3.4GHz+ on water/phase/etc. Now, they're going down to 90nm, an improved SSoI I'm almost sure of, along with SSE3 and more optimizations.....it seems completely viable that they'd be able to hammer out a 3GHz FX series CPU.

And not making profit in years? Get your facts straight. Exactly a year ago they were making money. And I'm sure with having the first 64-bit chip, costing less money, and spanking intel in Gaming performance it's only gotten better.

Linkage:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/04/15/HNamdprofits_1.html

Intel fan-boys :rolleyes:
 
Scali said:
I'm quite sure that there are technical problems with selling CPUs at higher clockspeed. Perhaps the yields would be too low to differentiate between 2.6 and 2.8, so they sell 2.6 only...
Whatever it is, AMD is still making losses, so if they had a good opportunity to make money, they surely would take it up. AMD hasn't made a profit in years, and if this keeps up, they're going to be in trouble.
Click to expand...


BZZZT. Incorrect.

They made money 3rd Quarter of 2004... 44 million on 1.23 billion in sales. Not a great profit, but certainly not a loss. This was the first link I found... I think you will find AMD is doing much better than in previous years. Years ago, they were bleeding money badly.

edit: damn... got beat again!

-Skystalker
 
tsuehpsyde said:
I'm not entirely sure what those technical problems would be, seeing as how an FX-55 which is on a 130nm process on an old clawhammer core can reach 3GHz on air and 3.4GHz+ on water/phase/etc. Now, they're going down to 90nm, an improved SSoI I'm almost sure of, along with SSE3 and more optimizations.....it seems completely viable that they'd be able to hammer out a 3GHz FX series CPU.
Click to expand...

Yes, 90 nm did wonders for Intel aswell, didn't it?
In case you didn't realize yet, 90 nm and beyond have plenty of new problems in store, and no longer is a dieshrink a guarantee for higher performance and lower power consumption.

And not making profit in years? Get your facts straight. Exactly a year ago they were making money. And I'm sure with having the first 64-bit chip, costing less money, and spanking intel in Gaming performance it's only gotten better.
Click to expand...

Okay, so they did make the odd change here and there...
Mind you, AMD does more than just CPUs, these days it's their flash memory that is bringing them down.

And I'm not an Intel-fan-boy, I'm an Athlon XP user.
Get your facts straight, I'd say :)
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
as of last quarter they had losses, but you said:

which isn't true, as has been shown ;)
Click to expand...

Depends on what period you're considering. That was just one quarter, they still made a loss over the entire fiscal year.
Now stop harassing me over pointing out that your favourite company hasn't got its act together business-wise.
 
AMD Financials: Most of those recent losses were from the flash memory (Spansion) division. The CPU end continues to do rather well.

As for the FX-57, only going to 2.8 A) preserves the model number scheme of 200MHz advances for each 2 digits of the model number and B) The price point on the current model FX has remained fairly static, and even a 2.8GHz FX will still be the finest gaming chip that money will be able to buy. Why, if you are AMD, do you unnecessarily raise the clock speed, when the higher clocked version will not have a higher retail price and will reduce yields at least a little bit? That would be stupid.


It's like in my usual home of disk storage systems, many people want to know when WD will improve the Raptor. They won't until someone else comes out to get them - why improve a product, at more expense to manufacturer, that makes money hand over fist as it is and has no competition? You would be a fool to do such a thing.
 
nope, i'm still pointing out technicalities. though i don't see how i'm harrassing you in the least. just merely correcting a simple mistake.

For the full year ended December 26, 2004, AMD achieved record sales of $5 billion, a 42 percent increase from 2003. Fiscal year 2004 net income was $91 million, or $0.25 per share, including charges of $51.6 million, or $0.14 per share.
Click to expand...
taken from the pr report
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~93398,00.html

they had a net profit for the year last year. i have no idea where you're coming from.
 
Scali said:
Yes, 90 nm did wonders for Intel aswell, didn't it?
In case you didn't realize yet, 90 nm and beyond have plenty of new problems in store, and no longer is a dieshrink a guarantee for higher performance and lower power consumption.
Click to expand...

Well, in case you diddn't realize yet, the 90nm Winchester cores and 90nm soon-to-release Venice cores have actually given higher performance and lower power consumption....Intel just fucked up when they did theirs apparently. AMD has taken their time has ran the test bed....the FX-55's transition (which will be the last in their line to get it) will get the best of what's been learned...so yeah, there's no real way the 90nm shrink is going to be a bad thing, AMD has it figured out.

And at least you have an XP-M :p Doesn't mean you diddn't sound like a thread-crapping Intel fan-boy.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
nope, i'm still pointing out technicalities. though i don't see how i'm harrassing you in the least. just merely correcting a simple mistake.
Click to expand...

I was speaking in general... half the posts in this thread are about pointing out that in some point in time AMD actually made a small profit.
Who cares?
In the bigger picture they still have huge debts, and they're currently making losses AGAIN.
So I was making a valid point, and I'd appreciate it if everyone would just get over it.
 
The FX-55 is already plenty fast.

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1787/

As you can see there, the FX-55 @ stock still keeps the evap P4 @ 5.2 in check in the areas where the K8 typically does better. The Pentium owns it in typical areas as well.

K8 is fast enough. But I am sure they could go faster if they wanted to and make a great profit, since there are those rich OCD people that always need the fastest. Once K8 gets up in the 3.2+ range it is going to be so much better than pentium that it's not even going to be funny. Too bad AMD prob won't be able to get products this fast out in time before the Intel marketing juggernaut pulls a "hey look over here!" for dual core and uses that as its scapegoat.... Making people think they need dual core CPUs.
 
tsuehpsyde said:
Well, in case you diddn't realize yet, the 90nm Winchester cores and 90nm soon-to-release Venice cores have actually given higher performance and lower power consumption....Intel just fucked up when they did theirs apparently.
Click to expand...
intel's problem was that they tried to make too many changes with an unknown process. a 90nm northwood probably would have kicked ass.
also, dothan gets quite high performance for the heat output. it's not as much a problem with the process, just the core itself.. prescott was too early.


Scali said:
I'd appreciate it if everyone would just get over it.
Click to expand...
agreed. though there are times when it's better to let some things slide, because it's undoubtably flame-bait for some of us, whether you intended it to be or not :p


zeebs: the problem with that is that it doesn't take into consideration all the things that the p4 is better at to begin with, like video encoding, and rendering programs that are multithreaded. :cool:
(though a64 is undeniably the way to go for gaming)
 
tsuehpsyde said:
Well, in case you diddn't realize yet, the 90nm Winchester cores and 90nm soon-to-release Venice cores have actually given higher performance and lower power consumption....
Click to expand...

In case you didn't realize yet, the Winchester was unable to scale up to even the current 130 nm clockspeeds... Which Venice hasn't managed to do yet either, although the Venice should at least be capable of this, since it will be replacing the Winchester, probably mainly for that reason (you can't make 130 nm chips forever, they're expensive to make, and they won't be high-end forever, the competition is not sleeping either).
However, Venice has higher power consumption than Winchester, and also slightly lower performance in some cases... So apparently AMD is 'fucking up' just like Intel with 90 nm... they just hide it better (most people apparently seem to be fine with a new 90 nm core running at considerably slower speeds than the old 130 nm core, and being replaced by another 90 nm core only a few months later... must not be as sensational when it's AMD making those cores instead of Intel).

And at least you have an XP-M :p Doesn't mean you diddn't sound like a thread-crapping Intel fan-boy.
Click to expand...

I don't have an XP-M, I have a regular XP. I've had it for over 3 years now.
I don't see how I can sound like an Intel fan-boy... I'm merely pointing out some facts... namely that AMD is making losses, and that both AMD and Intel have had some problems with 90 nm. I'm neutral really. I don't see why I have to lie and pretend that AMD is running a profitable business and their 90 nm cores are better than their 130 nm cores, just because I happened to buy an AMD CPU some years ago. Frankly, I find that rather pathetic.
 
Big deal about video encoding and all that crap. There is really nothing that can be done without an overhaul to K8 that is going to bring it up to speed in video encoding and all that other multimedia stuff. If thas what you do you just go intel. But for games and science mark style programs and for servers with the opteron line, the K8 is superior and is just extending the lead further in the areas that AMD does best in.
 
Scali said:
Venice has higher power consumption than Winchester, and also slightly lower performance in some cases... So apparently AMD is 'fucking up' just like Intel with 90 nm...
Click to expand...
really now? give me proof.
 
Scali said:
I don't have an XP-M, I have a regular XP. I've had it for over 3 years now.
I don't see how I can sound like an Intel fan-boy... I'm merely pointing out some facts... namely that AMD is making losses, and that both AMD and Intel have had some problems with 90 nm. I'm neutral really. I don't see why I have to lie and pretend that AMD is running a profitable business and their 90 nm cores are better than their 130 nm cores, just because I happened to buy an AMD CPU some years ago. Frankly, I find that rather pathetic.
Click to expand...


Dude... if you mean to or not... this is flame-bate.

So-- no big surprise if people don't see your point. The use of terms like "pathetic", "lie" and "pretend" tend to make your statement about being "neutral" somewhat hard to swallow.

It does tend to help your position if you can also back up your points with verifiable facts.

-Skystalker
 
I think he is talking about some speculation that AMD lengthened the core pipeline with venice so it actually does a little slower in certain things.

EDIT: Still, like you said, its not verifiable because this shit isnt even out yet.
 
i haven't heard any speculation of that. while it's quite possible, how come venice is a smidge faster than the winchester (to directly go against scali said ;))
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-venice_8.html
that clearly shows venice being faster than both winchester and newcastle.
hell, the venice 3800+ beat the 4000+ a total of eight times in that review. not by a large margin, but it's there.. if they did anything to the core, it's definitly not a bad thing as it's being made out to be

another edit:
just so that i don't appear biased by only giving one review (too late for that anyhow! haha)
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=127&type=expert&pid=4
shows the venice always being a smidge faster, or about dead on with newcastle.

again scali, i fail to see where you see amd messing up with 90nm. power consumption is down over 130nm, as it should be. performance is up a weeeee bit, even though the core is technically the same (i'm guessing memory controller tweaks)
i would appreciate it if you could back up your claims like you did in the thread regarding the cache ;)

(also, i recall us having this argument sometime before, with it turning into a stalemate because i refused to discuss it any further due to you using my bias towards amd as an excuse, thus preventing me from looking at things clearly)
 
It doesn't matter even if venice is slower clock for clock right now because by the end of the year venice will be scaling beyond winchester and it won't even matter.
 
I would rather have a chip released at its highest speed it could get... than a lower clock so we can "overclock it", If they just release it at its highest speed already, then we dont have to OC.
 
Geez, didn't we cover this in another thread already?
Point remains, Venice takes more power than Winchester to reach the same performance.
That very XBitlabs article points it out: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-venice_5.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-venice_6.html

The other point should also be obvious... Winchester was not available for high-end models, so obviously AMD screwed up there with the 90 nm process (if they could replace the high-end, they would, because you can get a lot more CPUs out of one wafer with 90 nm than with 130 nm, which means higher production and/or more profit and/or lower prices). This Venice is basically a patch for the problems of the Winchester core, that's why they are only a few months apart.

Conclusion: AMD screwed up with 90 nm.
 
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=866281

yup, we did go over it already. we're using the same exact arguments. :rolleyes:
i stated my opinion in there, and you know exactly what i think. if someone else wants to pick up this argument for me.. please, do so, i'm getting sick of this.

as for the venice being hotter, i think you're smart enough that you can't possibly think that a comparison between two chips is enough for a general assumption that all venice chips are hotter than winchester. :eek:
 
Scale worse? Strange since the Clawhammers hit 2.6GHz max in most cases as well as NewCastle, with a few exceptions. Winchesters have no problem hitting 2.6GHz and above (they cap around 2.8GHz)....just as of late it seems that Winnies have been duds for overclocking. So I don't see how your logic holds at all. :rolleyes:

And this doesn't hold at ALL as to why the FX series isn't being sent out from the factory at higher clockspeeds seeing as how I doubt any FX coming out NOW couldn't hit 2.8GHz on air on the 130nm core, now we incorporate 90nm, newer SSOI, etc....just seems stupid to not make a 3.0GHz clockspeed. But, the idea of keeping with 200MHz increases makes sense as much as I may not like it. :p
 
For FX55 130nm from 0435 to 05XX batches production, the realistic oc with stock hsf only scaled to 2.8Ghz stable. With phase change...thats a different story...all prod. batches have different max. oc. The point is with 2.8Ghz stock, most fx57 core can passed speed binning process. FYI.... failed fx55 batches transformed to amd64 3500 clawhammer with 130nm.
 
tsuehpsyde said:
Scale worse? Strange since the Clawhammers hit 2.6GHz max in most cases as well as NewCastle, with a few exceptions. Winchesters have no problem hitting 2.6GHz and above (they cap around 2.8GHz)....just as of late it seems that Winnies have been duds for overclocking. So I don't see how your logic holds at all. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

My logic is related to factory specs, not some random overclocking results under controlled circumstances outside of factory specs.
What is the logic in having all these cores at all, if Winchester would run 2.8 GHz fine? It's cheaper to make than the 130 nm CPUs... If it's also faster, heck, why did AMD keep the 130 nms around, and is already replacing Winchester with Venice now?
 
centvalny said:
For FX55 130nm from 0435 to 05XX batches production, the realistic oc with stock hsf only scaled to 2.8Ghz stable. With phase change...thats a different story...all prod. batches have different max. oc. The point is with 2.8Ghz stock, most fx57 core can passed speed binning process. FYI.... failed fx55 batches transformed to amd64 3500 clawhammer with 130nm.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying tho, is that with a 90nm core 3.0GHz stable shouldn't really be a problem on a stock heatsink. And I was aware of the 3500+ claws, I half debated getting one of those with a Neo2 :p
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
as for the venice being hotter, i think you're smart enough that you can't possibly think that a comparison between two chips is enough for a general assumption that all venice chips are hotter than winchester. :eek:
Click to expand...

I think AMD is smart enough to send hand-picked engineering samples to all review sites, because they know that most sites will explore the overclocking potential and cover it extensively in the review.
Besides, the difference was quite large (at 2.2 GHz, under full load, we had 55.9W vs 47.6W, that is ~17% more power, even the difference between 1.8 GHz and 2.2 GHz is not that large!), large enough to assume the difference was not merely caused by variations in production quality... Heck, what would the odds be anyway... one review... a REALLY good Winchester core, and a REALLY bad Venice one?I think you're smart enough to realize that too.
 
indeed i do realize that. however, i cannot base such a large umbrella statement over everything with just one comparison, no matter what i may or may not be smart enough to assume ;)
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
indeed i do realize that. however, i cannot base such a large umbrella statement over everything with just one comparison, no matter what i may or may not be smart enough to assume ;)
Click to expand...

Okay, well then you wouldn't mind a little bet... 100e says I'm right :)
 
no money, though i'll definitly keep it in mind. :D
should we have some sort of prize for the winner? :cool:
 
To draw any conclusion from the current lack of data would be a huge mistake.

The idea that AMD screwed up on the Winchester I find amusing. If they did it was a damn successful screw up for sure.

If there is a screw up at all it’s that there are way too many old chips in the pipeline at the moment, which of course will cause the truly silly to accuse the resellers of “price gouging” as they try to move through old stock.

After all, AMD doesn’t have a “Dell” to dump chips on ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top