Difference between an Athlon 64 FX-53 and Athlon 64 4000+..

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Zman1764

Thread Starter
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
399
They have the same clock speed, same cache, same interface, and virtually the same performance in benchmarks... (the cores are different, thats it [and only on some models])


So whats the difference justifying the 200-250 Dollar price break????


Also, the Process may be different... is 130 nm or 90 nm better? and why?
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
2,113
The FX series has an unlocked multiplier. The regular AMD64 has a multiplier unlocked to go lower but you can not go higher. This is used for overclocking purposes.

130nm and 90nm. The 90nm uses less voltage. Therefore generates less heat. In turn 90nm CPU's will have better overclocking potential compared to their 130nm counterparts.

Memory controller revision updated with 90nm parts as well.

edit. Sorry, i left out that unlocked lower multi's are also for DVS(dynamic voltage scaling). In which the voltage to the cpu is reduced(the 'cool' part of 'cool and quiet technology') to save energy when not needing full processor power. As a result the cpu multiplier is also reduced so the processor is stable at the lower voltage.
 

Zman1764

Thread Starter
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
399
how much better is the overclocking of an FX-53 compared to the 4000+? (in percentages, e.g. fx-53 has a xx% better overclock than the 4000+)

Is it worth the extra 200-250 bucks for an unlocked multiplier?
 

Triple6

Rob
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
52,933
No, the FX-53 is not worth the price cost. It use to be the performance king, competing directly with the Intel Extreme Edition processors, and was made in limited quantities. Its since been eclipsed in performance by many regular Athlon64's, several of the X2's, and then newer FX-55. FX-57, and FX-60. If you want a faster processor and are willing to spend up to $500-600 on a processor then you really should be looking at an Athlon64 X2 processor not the FX-53.

On a similar note the FX-60 is the last new Socket 939 processor and the first dual core FX processor - a final reminder that the days of single core processors are limited.

There is no percentage or measure of how well a processor will overclock; each and every processor will overclock differently and not only does it depend on the processor but on your entire system.
 
Joined
May 29, 2005
Messages
727
FX, i believe thats dual core isnt it?

really, just a straight Athlon 64 @ 4000+ or higher will surfice, i only recommend dual cores and the like for supreme gamers.
 

Zman1764

Thread Starter
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
399
well i am a supreme gamer.... should i go with a dual core X2 4400+ or stick with an athlon 64 4000+ for a gamers machine using an xpress 200 crossfire chipset?
dual core doesnt add extra gamng performance... at least until gaes can take advantage of that... a gamers machine should probably be built on a single core....
 

Triple6

Rob
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
52,933
Quake 4 gets a nice performance boost with the latest patch on multi-processor systems.

When AMD first released the X2's they said single core was still the way to go for gamers and that it would keep the premier FX line single core. Well they changed their mind, the latest FX-60 processor is now dual core. The performance margin has close significantly and the dual cores are looking better each day as more drivers and patches are optimised for symeterical multiprocessoring.

Here's a comprehensive benchmark chart of most current processors: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
 

Zman1764

Thread Starter
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
399
so hould i go with a 2.2 ghz dual core or a 2.4 ghz single core processor?
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
2,113
I would go with the dual core myself just for sake of being ready when games take advantage of it. Get 2 gigs of ram to go with it.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
5
GripS said:
I would go with the dual core myself just for sake of being ready when games take advantage of it. Get 2 gigs of ram to go with it.
I agree totally with the cpu part... much more processing power potential with a dual core... and as mentioned, some games now, and most in the future will take advantage of the dual cores.

as for the 2 gigs of ram... it would be advisable, however, right now 1gb will be plenty for the current generation of games... the reason i would go with 2gb though would be to save the hassle of upgrading it down the road when you need it...it's more up to you whether you want to be ready for the next gen of games with 2gig or get by for a year on 1gig.
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Top