1. Welcome to the new MacRumors forums. See our announcement and read our FAQ

G5 is behind yet again. AMD FX-53 announced

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Dont Hurt Me, Mar 18, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    #1
    Well it looks like AMD has taken their Fx series to another high without increasing the core voltage. now running at 2.4 ghz. this is one mean chip but you can read more herehttp://www.legitreviews.com/reviews/fx53 turns out this chip can run at 2.6 with little problem. I think it time for Apple to at least start putting those older G5s in every product and release those 90nm G5s in powermacs. If not it will be the G4 game allover again. By the way this is a 64 bit CPU from AMD.
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    #2
    Ahhh dude, I ain't worried. I'm sure Steve has something up his sleeve. He got outpaced before and I don't think he'll let it get as bad as before.
     
  3. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    #3
    AMD has a very nice processor there if you ask me, I would say that since they have released a 2.4 vesion of this 64 bit Cpu then we should see Apples next bump in the coming month. One thing I noticed was that this was still on the 130 nm process. Intel is falling a little behind. This is the ultimate gamers chip from the benches they posted at Toms Hardware.
     
  4. macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    #4
    I don't think he'd waste the 970 FX on the PowerMac, probably need all they can for the PowerBook. I still think we could use a PM update soon, like, next week. Been a while, and I'm wondering if we'll actually see 3GHz by summer...
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    #5
    We don't need powermac updates at 2.4 GHz. We need them at higher clock speeds. That way the powermac will be the temporary numer one again, and maybe even a longer number one.

    I still am going to buy a rev B however, no matter what the speed.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    #6
    AMD 53FX not that good

    If you take a look at the specs and the price it's not worth it. It shows speed increases of only 6% over the 3400+! Overall, it is a mere 8% difference. Hardly noticeable... :rolleyes:
     
  7. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    #7
    what you are missing is that it is a increase.
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    #8
    Not sure why some people are so hung up on the beating the clock speed of an Athlon64. By the time they start actually shipping in quantities faster G5s will probably be available.

    Personally I think the biggest point of differentiation is PowerMacs are rumored to be going all dual processors. Athlon64s cannot be used as dual processors, for that you need Opteron 2xx's with their extra HT links. I don't believe Opteron 250 (2.4Ghz) are available yet (I could be wrong), and besides, Opterons tend to be pricey.
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    #9

    You are missing the fact that the FX-53 comes with a dual channel memory subsystem.

    Look at the difference:
    [​IMG]

    Now if only AMD would implement HyperThreading then we would be in business.
    Of course I would guess HT is patented by Intel?
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    #10

    I have to agree, even Intel has realized that clock speed is no longer a good indication of overall speed (Intel to drive home chip-numbering system in May ).

    And the Operaton 250's are not out yet...but the 2.2Ghz Opteron 248 is out and costs about $900 each!
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    #11
    VERY TRUE!

    COME ON APPLE!
     
  12. macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    #12
    Let's hope we see the Rev B G5 PMs soon. I don't mind if we don't see the 3 GHz right away, but if we don't I'll definitely be expecting them in August, like Jobs promised - if they don't show up, I'll be very disappointed!
     
  13. macrumors regular

    #13
    Okay, let's see: Brand new chip that isn't shipping in any real widely marketed systems may be a little better than a 9 month old G5 chip. Wow, that is SO AMAZING! Apple should just fire everyone and close shop tomorrow.

    The PPC 970 FX is ready to go, and is guaranteed to be in Apple's next machines. We don't even know yet what the maximum speeds IBM will ship are yet, and we're claiming that it won't be good enough.

    How about we pit the AMD and G5 machines against each other in real tests when both are ready to go. Pissing all over yourself based on a few specs on a piece of paper isn't exactly a scientific argument proving ANYTHING.

    Apple and IBM have long term plans, and both know exactly what AMD and Intel are up to. If, god forbid, AMD has a faster chip for 3 whole months, who cares? Is the complete system as good as a Dual PPC 970 FX machine will be? Or do you only care about the speedometer?

    Reading the doom and gloom and obsessive speed-aholic threads all the time is sucking the life right out of most of us. Give it a rest. :)
     
  14. macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    #14
    I'll second that - well put. If all you care about is processor speed, then go ahead and buy an AMD and just forget about all the other hardware components that make a system great, as well as the advantages of using a Mac from an app/OS/user-friendly perspective. I agree - let's just wait until both machines are out, do the tests, and then we'll see. And you know what? Even if the new AMD outperforms the new G5 PMs in raw processor power, the AMD will lose in my books due to Windows vs. Panther, among many other points...
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    absolut_mac

    #15
    Who cares???

    AMD = Always Melting Down.

    If you like blue screens and rebooting often, then AMD is the chip for you :D
     
  16. macrumors regular

    #16
    Phew, good thing that new AMD is coming out, my intensive use of IE, Word, email, and WinAmp, as well as my crazy game playing with Counterstrike and The Sims, has been making my 2month old AMD 2.2ghz chip so slooooowwwww. Now i can browse teh web even faster!!!!!!

    Come on people, at what point do faster speeds make any difference to the average user? sheesh. I have said it before and I will say it again, the *average* user hardly needs anythign more than a 1ghz machine, if that, my parents are fine on a 333mhz rev B iMac.

    Of course if you just want a 2.4ghz chip just so you can brag about it and feel special, well, then thats a better reason then thinking you *need* it.

    Altair



    ::disclaimer:: of course you professional types with your maya and photoshop crap dont apply to the above statement.
     
  17. Guest

    caveman_uk

    #17
    Ah clockspeed, clockspeed. It seems odd that after years of going 'MHz don't matter' that mac users (when finally in a position to do so) start believing it as well :rolleyes:

    Strangely, if this article is correct, Intel are about to diss the Megahertz myth themselves. The centrino (Banias) pentium-M technology, though running at slower clock speeds than the Pentium4 (Netburst) processors, is actually a more efficient design - doing more at lower clockspeeds. The pentium4 was designed to run at high clock speed even if it wasn't very efficient at doing it. It'd be quite nice to see Intel get shafted by a myth they created....
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Savage Henry

    #18
    G5 is still in the infancy.

    Mhz numbers or not, there's still plenty o'fuel left in Big Blue's tank to support the Pro-Users needs for a good few years.

    Consumer lines can then enjoy the 18 time lag before they get a taste of the high life.

    No need to panic on the chip front.
     
  19. macrumors regular

    #19
    is intel dying?

    i haven't seen any "upgrades" to the Intel line in a long time, aside from these Extreme pieces of marketing crap. Has Intel finally hit a ceiling with their architechture or am i missing something?
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    #20
    They only just introduced the Prescott 90nm core so I imagine they will be trying to ramp that up now.
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    #21

    I think that's a little unfair. I have used AMD processors for years and I still haven't had any chip related problems. Even the one I have that overclocks to 2.7Ghz doesn't "melt down".

    Of course windows is a different matter...
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    #22

    Well Intel is hoping to puch their new chipset to 4.0Ghz...

    But even Intel has come to realize that clockspeed isn't everything, and so they are going to copy AMD and implement a numbering scheme.

    Intel to drive home chip-numbering system in May
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    #23
    Nice to see some industry competetion...the technology helps us all...but I will stay w/the chip that supports OSX. I have never been interested in bragging rights...I have a pismo and a DA733 and they are plenty fast (on the old-school G4) Later this year/early 2005 I will be updating my desktop to whatever G5 is around, and news like this can only be of positive influence. Yay for technical ingenuity, regardless of platform, I salute AMD.(still buy Apple)
     
  24. macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    #24
    FX-53...the difference is hardly noticeable between it and the 51.
    Since the FX-51 ties or just loses to the (dual 2 ghz) G5 in most benchmarks I've seen, the FX-53 should be about an even match.

    The only good thing about the FX-53 is that it means the 51 is no longer the fastest PC processor, meaning the FX-51 will be cheaper. Muwahaha!
     
  25. macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    #25

    Actually the FX-51 mops the Floor with the G5 and P4 in just about every category except Video Encoding where Altivec and Hypertreading are utilized. Check Mac and PC world Plus add to the Fact that FX-51 systems are like $500-$700 less than a Dual 2Ghz G5. I find this Disturbing that even if the G5 was slightly Faster we are still talking about just 1 chip Vs. 2 , and their is no excuse like with the P4's because of Higher Clock speed. The FX is only 2.2 Ghz on 1 Processor Vs. Dual 2Ghz G5's . u see why Jobs won't dare try one of his cute little Photoshop tests against an AMD chip. Chip per chip clock per clock the Athlon 64/FX is just the Best Processor in the Market. The Numbers they put up expecially in games are just incredible. Then to add that they whip P4's that are clocked atleast 1-1.4ghz higher than them. This just goes to show you how much time and effort AMD put into this chip it's Arcitecture is Amazing.

    AMD is the New Speed King the Athlon64 3400+ is just as fast as an FX-51 and is only $410, FX-53's are already on sale at Newegg.com for $800 and AMD will soon be rolling the Athlon64 3600+ in late April.

    I'll soon be Building my own Athlon64 System as soon as they Bring out a 4000+ model and PCI-X ,FW800 motherboards are out come summer.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page