Thermalrock
Senior member
- Oct 30, 2004
- 553
- 0
- 0
so an fx at 2.4 ghz already beats your barton at 2.5 even tho it runs with 100 mhz less unlike the 55 that runs with 100mhz more.
Originally posted by: Thermalrock
so an fx at 2.4 ghz already beats your barton at 2.5 even tho it runs with 100 mhz less unlike the 55 that runs with 100mhz more.
Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
I made it very clear and said:
"a barton at 2.5ghz can give a FX55 a run for its money and beat it in some instances"
here are some benchmarks
edit: oops, its a FX53, not 55
Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
Originally posted by: Thermalrock
so an fx at 2.4 ghz already beats your barton at 2.5 even tho it runs with 100 mhz less unlike the 55 that runs with 100mhz more.
there is still a $700 price difference. eitherway this is derailing the original thread topic.
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Those are synthetic benches genius.
A barton a 2500mhz can not come close to an FX-53 or 55. A 2700mhz or at max clock (IIRC3ghz) it can match it SOMETIMES.
-Kevin
Originally posted by: Zebo
If a 2.2GHz AXP (3200+) compares to a P4/3.2, what would a 3.2GHz AXP do?
The first part of your stament is false. 2.2 A-XP 3200 is equal to 2800Mhz P4 dispite the lies AMD is telling.
AXP * 1.25 = P4
so a 3.2 AXP is equal to a 4Ghz p4
and what you don't know is what you're talking about. the pr rating used to be based off the p4, but now it's based off benchmarks. if what you said were true, then equivalently rated cpus of a64 and xp would have the same performance.Originally posted by: cheap
What most people don't know is the rating is not vs a P4, but against AMD's original Athlon.
Originally posted by: itachi
and what you don't know is what you're talking about. the pr rating used to be based off the p4, but now it's based off benchmarks. if what you said were true, then equivalently rated cpus of a64 and xp would have the same performance.
Originally posted by: itachi
and what you don't know is what you're talking about. the pr rating used to be based off the p4, but now it's based off benchmarks. if what you said were true, then equivalently rated cpus of a64 and xp would have the same performance.Originally posted by: cheap
What most people don't know is the rating is not vs a P4, but against AMD's original Athlon.
Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
well a barton at 2.5ghz can give a FX55 a run for its money and beat it in some instances, so a 3.2ghz barton would certainly romp. you simply can't ramp the clock frequency of the AMDs because they just aren't made to do that.
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
well a barton at 2.5ghz can give a FX55 a run for its money and beat it in some instances, so a 3.2ghz barton would certainly romp. you simply can't ramp the clock frequency of the AMDs because they just aren't made to do that.
You must be mistaken. An Xp barton at 2.5ghz can once in a blue moon match an fx51(2.5ghz barton is normally slower then an athlon 64 2800 in most things), it couldnt dream in a million years of touching an fx55(these run at 2.6Ghz with 1MB l2 cache)
ahh the price of arrogance: looking like an ass. oh well, good to know.Originally posted by: justly
Actually cheap does know what he is talking about, you are just talking BS.
All AXP performance ratings where based on benchmarks compared to a non-SSE Athlon (I believe they used a Athlon 1.4 GHz for this). Thye reason that the A64 and AXP preformance ratings dont match also has a simple answer (if you bothered to think about it). As time goes by benchmarks become outdated and need to be changed to take advantage of new technology and features. Because of this need to update benchmarks the A64 performance rating is based of a different set of benchmarks and now uses a AXP as a referance point (a 1800+ if I remember correctly). the reason the change did not take place in the AXP line is because it would have caused a slower CPU based on the old benchmarks to have a higher performance rating.
The AMD performance rating has always used benchmarks, and has always (at least officially) used an AMD processor as a baseline for comparasion.
Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
I made it very clear and said:
"a barton at 2.5ghz can give a FX55 a run for its money and beat it in some instances"
here are some benchmarks
edit: oops, its a FX53, not 55
Originally posted by: cheap
Originally posted by: Zebo
If a 2.2GHz AXP (3200+) compares to a P4/3.2, what would a 3.2GHz AXP do?
The first part of your stament is false. 2.2 A-XP 3200 is equal to 2800Mhz P4 dispite the lies AMD is telling.
AXP * 1.25 = P4
so a 3.2 AXP is equal to a 4Ghz p4
What most people don't know is the rating is not vs a P4, but against AMD's original Athlon.
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
well a barton at 2.5ghz can give a FX55 a run for its money and beat it in some instances, so a 3.2ghz barton would certainly romp. you simply can't ramp the clock frequency of the AMDs because they just aren't made to do that.
You must be mistaken. An Xp barton at 2.5ghz can once in a blue moon match an fx51(2.5ghz barton is normally slower then an athlon 64 2800 in most things), it couldnt dream in a million years of touching an fx55(these run at 2.6Ghz with 1MB l2 cache)