AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 Reviews...

[jamesclarke555]

AMD has lifted the wraps on the AMD Athlon 64 FX-57. At 2.8GHz it's their fastest clocked CPU to date which is reflected in the price.

Here's a quick list of the reviews that just recently hit the web.

• BitTech
• DriverHeaven
• ExtremeTech
• HardOCP
• Hexus
• HotHardware
• Tech Report
• Tom's Hardware

We evaluate AMD's newest gaming CPU, the Athlon 64 FX-57. At a 2.8GHz clock speed, and with a few more bells and whistles added, AMD is certainly turning up the heat on Intel.

[Ramrod]

Nice roundup JC

[jtwn]

If you're a victim of the "mine is bigger than yours" syndrome, then you might find it worth your while to drop in excess of a kilobuck on a new processor. Most of us can't or won't spend that kind of money on a CPU, even one as speedy as the FX-57.

Think that sums it up quite well. Great links btw

[Richard M]

Ridiculous price on this, people are better off going for the Athlon 4000 imo, or the FX55 if you want to overclock.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Richard M

Ridiculous price on this, people are better off going for the Athlon 4000 imo

[jamesclarke555]

Originally Posted by Richard M

Ridiculous price on this, people are better off going for the Athlon 4000 imo, or the FX55 if you want to overclock.

Yeah, especially when you can get a 'San Diego' core FX-55 for a lot less money and it's basically the same CPU.

[Monster Jedi]

Rammys gonna buy me one for xmas

[jamesclarke555]

Originally Posted by Monster Jedi

Rammys gonna buy me one for xmas

But he's making a list and checking it twice

[Monster Jedi]

Originally Posted by jamesclarke555

But he's making a list and checking it twice

I personally do not understand Amds market stategy,They release dual core and a top end cpu in 5 minutes of each other, yes the top end has speed improvement but what does dual core have yes 2 cores, there competing against themselves for top end chips,they have the dual core to beat the a** off intel,I personally think they should have held off on this got the 3 gig beat then release a 3 gig 1 meg san diego

[Richard M]

But both chips are not for the same market.
If you're a gamer then you buy an FX or regular Athlon64, if you do stuff like 3DSMax/video editing/mathematical applications then you buy a dual core.
Simple really.

But reviews ive seen (pc pro, micromart and others)have all proven that the dual core cpu has benifits to the gamer also,its never simple,most gamers I know use there pc for other things than games so as an allrounder imo the dual core wins hands down.My point is why a 2.8 Amd have been flirting with 3 meg for absolutely ages a 200mhz increase is imo inadequate improvement for a major new release

My opinion for dual core over single is this,If you play single player on a virgin system with nothing running in the background then fine,I play online, always with a virus scan and firewall amongst others in the background,gimmi a second core to do all this leaving 1 core to run the game unhindered(this is just my opinion between the 2)

[AndrewJ]

I am very warey about dual core its new technology and since when does new stuff work right?

I will stick to single core processors and buying them once they have run out there buggy infancy.

Dual processer motherboards have been available for years, all they have done is put the 2 cores on one chip and built pathways to do the job(oversimplified I know) memory controllers on Amd 64 work fine so I do not see a problem