-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Faster single core CPU than Athlon FX57
- Thread starter ACESHIGH
- Start date
Soldato
Personally I think it's unlikely.
They already have socket 939 dual core chips at 2.6GHz, and I think FX62 (AM2) is 2.8GHz, and the 5000+ (AM2) is the 2.6GHz version.
The PC world is beginning to acknowledge that single-core CPUs have had their day, and increasing clock speeds can only take you so far.
Multi-core is the future, and I think we'll see this reflected in the high-end processors that AMD and Intel release over the next 18 months. I'll be surprised if we see another premium single-core CPU.
Supercpmputers have always been about having lots of slower CPUs to distribute the workload - PCs are beginning to follow suit now that the technology to do so has become more cost effective.
Both Intel & AMD are already working on single-socket quad-core solutions, and you've been able to have up to 16 CPUs (8 x dual core Opteron 8xx series) in your home system if you wanted to splash the cash for it for a while too.
The days of the single-core CPU are drawing to a close.
Hav
They already have socket 939 dual core chips at 2.6GHz, and I think FX62 (AM2) is 2.8GHz, and the 5000+ (AM2) is the 2.6GHz version.
The PC world is beginning to acknowledge that single-core CPUs have had their day, and increasing clock speeds can only take you so far.
Multi-core is the future, and I think we'll see this reflected in the high-end processors that AMD and Intel release over the next 18 months. I'll be surprised if we see another premium single-core CPU.
Supercpmputers have always been about having lots of slower CPUs to distribute the workload - PCs are beginning to follow suit now that the technology to do so has become more cost effective.
Both Intel & AMD are already working on single-socket quad-core solutions, and you've been able to have up to 16 CPUs (8 x dual core Opteron 8xx series) in your home system if you wanted to splash the cash for it for a while too.
The days of the single-core CPU are drawing to a close.
Hav
Soldato
I doubt it too but I do agree that it'd be nice to end with a chip breaking the 3GHz barrier
Soldato
an fx57 with a good air cooler could well reach 3.1ghz
Soldato
Yeah - if it didn't I'd be surprised. It'd be nice to have it at stock though 
Soldato
m3csl2004 said:dothan 4tw
The OP asks if AMD are releasing a faster single core processor than the FX 57 and you reply with that?
"Faster single core CPU than Athlon FX57"
dothan is faster - admittedly its intel but its always nice to have a variety of options, if amd aint gonna release a faster single core (which im pretty shure they wont) than intel is a very vaild option
dothan is faster - admittedly its intel but its always nice to have a variety of options, if amd aint gonna release a faster single core (which im pretty shure they wont) than intel is a very vaild option
Associate
Which Dothan at stock is faster than the FX57? Also how much is it?
Soldato
So what intel cpus are gonna be faster than the FX 57?
Soldato
Or the dothan 780 is more than likely to clock higher and costs about £300
Soldato
AWPC said:
Come on, we all know Intel are naturally clocked higher, like an AMD clocked at 2.5 could be as quick as an Intel at 3, so the fastest clock speed is bound to be Intel.
What we need to ask is if an AMD is clocked at 6.5 and is quicker than an Intel that’s clocked higher, then an AMD is the fasted clocked chip. Its a bit like saying a Rangerover is quicker than a Lotus, because its got more horsepower.
Hope I don't come across as a fanboy, as I see Intel as having an overrated clock speed.
Last edited:
Your right when you say that AMD make more effective use of their clock cycles compared to Intel but in answer to the original question for a single core CPU it would have to be an overclocked Intel as nothing else comes even close to it.juno_first said:
No contest AMD are better @ stock than Intel.
No contest that Intel have much better overclocking potential.
You can now get in excess of 1.6Ghz FSB speed on the 955X + 975X chipsets in addition to the high CPU clock speeds. Such a system is untouchable in the single core arena.
Soldato
I agree with AWPC
No one will ever argue that at stock the 2.8Ghz FX57 is slower than the 3.8Ghz P4. In fact, even the 2.4Ghz A64 4000+ will give it a run for it's money
The prescott P4 chips are huge overclockers though, and a 7.53GHz P4 is faster than a 4GHz A64 (fastest I've seen but there might be faster ones). Yes, clock for clock AMD is better but when the P4 is clocked to almost twice what the AMD chip is clocked at there isn't really any doubt as to which is the faster chip
No one will ever argue that at stock the 2.8Ghz FX57 is slower than the 3.8Ghz P4. In fact, even the 2.4Ghz A64 4000+ will give it a run for it's money
The prescott P4 chips are huge overclockers though, and a 7.53GHz P4 is faster than a 4GHz A64 (fastest I've seen but there might be faster ones). Yes, clock for clock AMD is better but when the P4 is clocked to almost twice what the AMD chip is clocked at there isn't really any doubt as to which is the faster chip
Soldato
Points taken, I just got bad experience of Intel boiling water in my reserator, lol.
These new Intels do sound exciting, I always thought fx57 was the dogs.
I think its time for a revolution - a cell with 9 cores, hurrahh.
These new Intels do sound exciting, I always thought fx57 was the dogs.
I think its time for a revolution - a cell with 9 cores, hurrahh.