Athlon FX Benchmarked @ 2.8ghz!

Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
edited September 2003 in Science & Tech
Ace's Hardware <a href="" target=_blank>The Athlon 64 FX at 2.8 GHz </a>

When working with this system, a few interesting facts popped up. The system was actually running at 14 x 200 MHz, and could be set at multipliers ranging from 4 (800 MHz) to 14 (2.8 GHz). All AMD Athlon 64 FX are de facto unlocked and it seems that the maximum multiplier for this stepping is 14.

The only thing from stopping you from overclocking with the multiplier seems to be the BIOS. <b>The ASUS SK8N inside the nVENTIV Mach II featured a special ASUS bios that allowed us to change the CPU core voltage and multiplier</b>.

Comments

  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited September 2003
    3DS Max 5.1 Studio
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited September 2003
    OUCH!

    Cinbench 2003
  • kanezfankanezfan sunny south florida Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    the intel apologists are all saying, see we're still better, yet if only amd could make a chip that ran at the same clock speed, 3.2 Ghz, it would be a slaughter.
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited September 2003
    Yeah 15 points less and 600 mhz less on a brand spankin new sytem meaning not very well optimized.
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    But you still need to take the PR ratings into consideration... Intel would call 2.8 AMD GHz as 3.8 Intel GHz or so... so the AMD isn't really 600 MHz less...
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited September 2003
    600 physical mhz. Measurable mhz.
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    But you can't truly measure it accurately anymore with the change to the IPC that Intel made on the P4... Sure they've got 600 more measurable clock cycles per second, but the AMD still performs more instructions in that same second, even with 600 measurable MHz less...
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    << is lost!
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited September 2003
    I dont mean performance. I mean a measureable, physical thing no matter the CPU brand. I just meant that its only 15 points behind and 600 mhz behind. Thats it.
Sign In or Register to comment.