• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FX-55 or what 939 90nm CPU?

I

IHYLN

Banned
Trying to satisfy my need for speed.. would FX-55 OC better than the 939 90nm chips? What do you guys recommend for best OC?
 
It really depends on the cooling.
The 90nm 939 chips put out a lot less heat, and for some reason frequently WILL NOT BOOT on phase-change cooling. On high-end air, the 3500+ will frequently hit FX-55 speeds, and will have a higher % OC than the FX-55. However, if you OC the FX-55, you will almost certainly hit higher speeds than with the 3500+. If you are using phase-change cooling, definately go with the FX-55.
Overall, the FX-55 will hit a higher speed but have a smaller OC.
 
well I'm leaning towards the FX-55, too bad not many places have them in stock and the cheapest so far is $845.. anyone else with some input?
 
Yeah, I have seen 2.8ghz on air with FX-55, not sure it was stable, but still pretty good. I wouldnt be suprised if you could get 2.8 stable, it has strained silicon which the 90nm dont have, although I heard that week 45+ 90nm might have strained silicon, but just a rumor as of now.
 
holy price gouging batman! $890 shipped 2nd day from zzf for an FX-55 and these suckers are hard to find. At least shipping was free O_O
 
At $800+ for a processor, I'd get an Opteron system.. Atleast you get dual to quad cpu capablities, 64bit pci-x slots, more memory expansion and better resale value.

I don't know if you could tell the difference between a FX-55 & a 3500+ oc'd system configured the same. I think a greater impact would be SLI. I'd rather have a 3500+ oc'd w/ dual 6800's than a single FX-55 w/ a single video card. The cost is less getting dual SLI's w/ a 3500+ versus a FX-55 w/ one card. Ofcourse you could get the FX-55 w/ SLI or you could
get Dual Opteron 250's w/ SLI.... There's a point of diminished returns.. It's diff. for everyone..

Regards,
Jose
 
Originally posted by: Rudee
Originally posted by: w00t
all i know is a fx-55 owns
Click to expand...

For now it does, a year from now it will be considered Mid-range.
Click to expand...

Isn't that true for everything?

Anyway, I would also get high-end dual-Opterons for 850+ price range for CPU. Actually, I would get a lower CPU and a higher video card, say dual 6800GTs or Ultras SLI'd? I usually get the top-of-the-line video card and a mid-range CPU, and upgrade the CPU to the next 200 dollar CPU when my current one gets old, because video is a much larger factor in gaming than CPU is.
 
" well from what I've been hearing is that the FX-55 spanks winchesters"

By how much ?? $500 more for how many more frames ? What is the percentage increase in speed/performance ?? It's more than double the cost, is it twice as fast ?

Regards,
Jose
 
Originally posted by: jose
" well from what I've been hearing is that the FX-55 spanks winchesters"

By how much ?? $500 more for how many more frames ? What is the percentage increase in speed/performance ?? It's more than double the cost, is it twice as fast ?

Regards,
Jose
Click to expand...

Text shows that the 3500 at 2.6 beats the fx-53 by pretty margins. I'd say a 3500 at 2.6 would perform similar to a stock FX-55
 
You'll be happy with the FX55 at stock speeds.
I also have a Koolance and my FX53 (2400) OCs to 2773, but not much more.
It all depends if you get a "lucky" chip or not.

I get frame rates of 120 in D3, and I'm in the 90s running the Hardopc HL2 benchmarks at 1600x1200 with all detail at high. What more do you want? It's fast enough to run anything you throw at it.

For right now, I'm just leaving mine at stock speeds to keep the heat down.

I mean, yeah, if you wanna OC it just to see how high you can get, then go for it. But then you can back it down and be happy.

Just so you know, OCing my CPU in HL2 only makes a 2 FPS differance. It's the GPU that matters. Get a BFG 6800 Ultra Waterblock. Mine runs at 451/1200. OCing the Memory of my GPU gives me a 5 FPS differance. Check out my system here since you have a Koolance.

http://www.nogodforme.com/MyBabyTera.htm
 
Originally posted by: whatever
It really depends on the cooling.
The 90nm 939 chips put out a lot less heat, and for some reason frequently WILL NOT BOOT on phase-change cooling. On high-end air, the 3500+ will frequently hit FX-55 speeds, and will have a higher % OC than the FX-55. However, if you OC the FX-55, you will almost certainly hit higher speeds than with the 3500+. If you are using phase-change cooling, definately go with the FX-55.
Overall, the FX-55 will hit a higher speed but have a smaller OC.
Click to expand...


i have hit 2.6 on my 130nm 3500+ on air (zalman cnps7000a-alcu) of course it was not entirely stable, but the speed was hit and within range, with better cooling and some decent ram it would be stable I believe. Also, my 3500+ goes 2.5 on air without a problem, completely stable. And this a 130nm part. To put it in perspective an fx-55 is 2.6ghz stock, if I oc my 3500+ to even just 2.5, the difference in performance between the two is hard to see. Truth be told the difference between my 3500 at 2.2 stock speed and an fx-55 is hard to see as well 😱 , but irregardless of that. I know what its like to want the best. Just pointing out that a 90nm 3500 I would assume with decent cooling would hit 2.6 just fine, if my 130nm does. And you'll save $600 for the exact same performace. I know the fx-55 has the 1mb cache though, but that has a minor performance impact.
 
Lets not forget FX55 has unlockable multiplier, comes clocked at 2.6 already, further suggesting higher overclocking room. Even back in the days FX51 hit 2.8ghz and now FX55s do 3.6 on the high end with exotic cooling.

I am the type of guy, who'd get A64 3000+ or 3200+ 90nm and try to reach 2.5-2.6.

If you are willing to spend $800+ on a processor, I dont think you even need to ask this question, why not go for the best and get Nventiv Mach II or Vapochill with that.
 
Hehhehe...I'd rather get $200 cpu and vapochill for $800 than $800CPU + $50 cooler you'll get to overclock the FX55. For $150-200 extra, you are looking at 2.8ghz almost guaranteed from A64 3200+, and future overclocking endevours....once you upgrade socket 939 along the way.
 
best cpu there is but with it more than 3x the price of a 3500+, still .13µ and sse3, .09 (fx57) and dual cores (fx59) so close i would recommend settling with something a lil slower and alot cheaper till the dual cores, i do believe thats gonna do alot for personal computing and be a bigger change than the usual progress cpus go through. but if you have the money wanna get rid of it and want the very best right now theres no way around it i guess.
 
Originally posted by: Thermalrock
best cpu there is but with it more than 3x the price of a 3500+, still .13µ and sse3, .09 (fx57) and dual cores (fx59) so close i would recommend settling with something a lil slower and alot cheaper till the dual cores, i do believe thats gonna do alot for personal computing and be a bigger change than the usual progress cpus go through. but if you have the money wanna get rid of it and want the very best right now theres no way around it i guess.
Click to expand...

there's always something bigger\\better down the road. the question is, are you patient enough?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top