Pro/Forums - View Single Post - FX-55 or P4E 3.2/3.4/3.6

Anemone · 03-31-2004, 10:26 PM

Hi everyone

I'd like to hear your thoughts, because I'm having a horrible time on my own getting to a decision.

At the moment I'm trying to determine the heart of a system to be built over the course of June-July.

The possibilities as I view them at the moment (maybe your thoughts will expand on these but they are as I see them atm)
AMD FX-55
Intel Prescott 3.2, 3.4 or 3.6
The EE's are, unless you make an incredible argument, beyond what I consider to be acceptable cost
The AMD XP 32 bit chips aren't really in my consideration nor are Northwood P4's

(am expecting the 3.6 and the 55 as the forefront of the decision)

I "could" go so far as to Phase change cool them, but that is something that I'm weighing out.

I've never used AMD, though once long ago parent owned a K6 laptop - not sure if it was K6 but something like that.

I will however list what I consider to be the truly lingering misgivings I have with AMD.
AMD as a chip in itself is often like owning a fancy English hybrid sportscar,
it runs fast as hell, but it breaks down a lot, or sometimes it just
does quirky things that are impossible to track down and may
or may not keep something from running like it should.
Years down the line, I've known those with AMD systems to have
little weird quirks, some piece of hardware or software that for reasons
that are impossible to fathom, just will not work as it seems it should.
For this reason, a Via based chipset is absolutely out of the question.
I've read that Nvidia chipsets are not a bowl of roses either, but they would
have to be the way I would go if swayed to go AMD.

So I get to thinking on a pure performance level.
The FX-53 really does well, and while I think even with water this thing may not get more than 200 or 300mhz overclock, that amount
is enough to, in my book put it on level with a 4ghz maybe 4.2ghz P4 Prescott. That means to compete, the Prescott would
have to do what it currently can't do with just water. The question is, am I buying the super fast hybrid car, just to have
issues later?
Can I trust it? Will it overclock at all? Given that this is a rather high price point, is it going to be worth the risk?
What connected things, SATA, Raid 0, system issues come up that might be "flaky" on me?
I guess I am asking if there are folks with any experience in this area, even if that is extrapolated experience
over the years vs direct FX experience.

The Prescott is, well looking like its peak is getting close. The days of taking a 3+ ghz chip and making it gain 600-1000 mhz with
some nice cooling could well be at a close. The 775 socket could help tons, but the worry here is that I get a Prescott that
performs well but that Tejas hits the cap solidly and basically the upgrade path dead ends on me. The DDR2 memory that
is likely to be an integral part of the Alderwood will limit to 533.
(not really considering Grantsdale as the cost drop/ and lack of PAT performance drop sort of make it rather uninteresting)
The plan would be to attempt to get a Prescott to 1.33 OC, to 1066 bus, and thus use the 533 memory at 1:1, well that is
in the normal P4 quad memory access methodology. If Tejas comes at 1066 to start then the DDR2 would have to
be replaced to be able to take that chip higher possibly, making the upgrade path complicated, and expensive.
I'll add that Prescott oc'ing is something that I find familiar ground. AMD oc is a different beast and that might be something
worth commenting on from those who've had success or no success in that area.

Anyway use of the machine is probably 75% online gaming and about 25% VERY intensive Excel and data manipulation.
I multitask while gaming, as there are always chat windows open, web pages being referenced, screenshots being
edited, and the like. Oh and being a digital photography buff, you can imagine what photoshop with a 6 megapixel image
can do to even a fast system if there are many other things going on.

Assume that high end air or water cooling is the bottom level I would apply. Phase change would probably be required to get any
headroom from the Prescott, which also weighs on my mind, but it may also be needed to get any from the FX (don't know)
Pelt on the GPU is baseline - as oc from the GPU lends the greatest increase in framerates.
Also assume working at 1600x1200 as that is what the LCD requires and I rarely ever go below that.

I do realize these chips don't exist yet. And it appears that DDR500 compatibility may very well make the FX-55 even faster for this
comparison. Given its quite a bit to spend, your thoughts and years of experience would be very helpful if you would share with me.

Thank you.

03-31-2004, 10:26 PM	#1
Anemone Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Boston MA area Posts: 48	FX-55 or P4E 3.2/3.4/3.6 Hi everyone I'd like to hear your thoughts, because I'm having a horrible time on my own getting to a decision. At the moment I'm trying to determine the heart of a system to be built over the course of June-July. The possibilities as I view them at the moment (maybe your thoughts will expand on these but they are as I see them atm) AMD FX-55 Intel Prescott 3.2, 3.4 or 3.6 The EE's are, unless you make an incredible argument, beyond what I consider to be acceptable cost The AMD XP 32 bit chips aren't really in my consideration nor are Northwood P4's (am expecting the 3.6 and the 55 as the forefront of the decision) I "could" go so far as to Phase change cool them, but that is something that I'm weighing out. I've never used AMD, though once long ago parent owned a K6 laptop - not sure if it was K6 but something like that. I will however list what I consider to be the truly lingering misgivings I have with AMD. AMD as a chip in itself is often like owning a fancy English hybrid sportscar, it runs fast as hell, but it breaks down a lot, or sometimes it just does quirky things that are impossible to track down and may or may not keep something from running like it should. Years down the line, I've known those with AMD systems to have little weird quirks, some piece of hardware or software that for reasons that are impossible to fathom, just will not work as it seems it should. For this reason, a Via based chipset is absolutely out of the question. I've read that Nvidia chipsets are not a bowl of roses either, but they would have to be the way I would go if swayed to go AMD. So I get to thinking on a pure performance level. The FX-53 really does well, and while I think even with water this thing may not get more than 200 or 300mhz overclock, that amount is enough to, in my book put it on level with a 4ghz maybe 4.2ghz P4 Prescott. That means to compete, the Prescott would have to do what it currently can't do with just water. The question is, am I buying the super fast hybrid car, just to have issues later? Can I trust it? Will it overclock at all? Given that this is a rather high price point, is it going to be worth the risk? What connected things, SATA, Raid 0, system issues come up that might be "flaky" on me? I guess I am asking if there are folks with any experience in this area, even if that is extrapolated experience over the years vs direct FX experience. The Prescott is, well looking like its peak is getting close. The days of taking a 3+ ghz chip and making it gain 600-1000 mhz with some nice cooling could well be at a close. The 775 socket could help tons, but the worry here is that I get a Prescott that performs well but that Tejas hits the cap solidly and basically the upgrade path dead ends on me. The DDR2 memory that is likely to be an integral part of the Alderwood will limit to 533. (not really considering Grantsdale as the cost drop/ and lack of PAT performance drop sort of make it rather uninteresting) The plan would be to attempt to get a Prescott to 1.33 OC, to 1066 bus, and thus use the 533 memory at 1:1, well that is in the normal P4 quad memory access methodology. If Tejas comes at 1066 to start then the DDR2 would have to be replaced to be able to take that chip higher possibly, making the upgrade path complicated, and expensive. I'll add that Prescott oc'ing is something that I find familiar ground. AMD oc is a different beast and that might be something worth commenting on from those who've had success or no success in that area. Anyway use of the machine is probably 75% online gaming and about 25% VERY intensive Excel and data manipulation. I multitask while gaming, as there are always chat windows open, web pages being referenced, screenshots being edited, and the like. Oh and being a digital photography buff, you can imagine what photoshop with a 6 megapixel image can do to even a fast system if there are many other things going on. Assume that high end air or water cooling is the bottom level I would apply. Phase change would probably be required to get any headroom from the Prescott, which also weighs on my mind, but it may also be needed to get any from the FX (don't know) Pelt on the GPU is baseline - as oc from the GPU lends the greatest increase in framerates. Also assume working at 1600x1200 as that is what the LCD requires and I rarely ever go below that. I do realize these chips don't exist yet. And it appears that DDR500 compatibility may very well make the FX-55 even faster for this comparison. Given its quite a bit to spend, your thoughts and years of experience would be very helpful if you would share with me. Thank you.