Synthetic BenchmarksSisoft Sandra CPU tests
At default speed:
At default, the Fx-53 holds up even to an Intel 4ghz prescott!
When overclocked, the FX-53 flies away, check the difference between the 3.8Ghz and 4ghz Intel P4, when extrapolated with identical bus, we’d need close to a 5Ghz to catch this demonic heap of processing power from AMD.
What does good old 3DMark add to the equation?
All tests run on a default and un-tweaked Windows XP Pro installation. Drivers for the video card were ATI's 4.9 Catalyst, the videocard was running at default clock speed (of course).
Not bad for a default and un-tweaked setup.
What happens when we up the ante?
Boom, 31377 3DMarks. That’s nearly a 4000 points increase just by upping some figure in the bios from 12 to 15, who’d have thought that. :-)
I couldn’t take 3DMark for a spin without the 2003 version, could I?
Well, 400 points is only a minimal increase compared to the 4000 points in 3DMark2001. This probably tells us something more on 3dmark03 itself, being more a video card test then a global system benchmark like its previous incarnation.More benchmarks
But what is all this about…
Is the purpose of this setup running 3Dmark and Sisoft Sandra in loops? I quote myself : “As I am an avid gamer”. So, no, this kind of setup is about having a monumental gaming machine… so on to the game benchmarks ->