FX-55 vs FX-53

[dsorrent]

I'm looking for a comparison between the FX-55 and the FX-53. It seems all of the CPU tests done here at Anand recently have excluded the FX-53 in the round up. Does anyone know why?

Any links to benchmark comparisons of these 2 CPU's would be greatly appreciated.

 

[clarkey01]

Theres about a 5-7 % percent difference in performance ( dont flame me, im just going off from what I can remember)

 

[miketheidiot]

fx-53 = 4000+

they've simply been locked and rebadged.

 

[Waylay00]

Yes the 4000+ is a rebadged FX-53.

 

[SrGuapo]

IIRC, the FX-53 is no longer being produced. The same will happen to the FX-55 when the FX-57 comes out.

 

[SunSamurai]

why do people buy these? They are horrably overpriced. If you want to spend great sums of money, buy a 3500+ and overclock it. Youll never notice a differance, but your wallet sure will. If youre scared of the OC messing your chip up, but FOUR 3000+ and use three as backup.

 

[dsorrent]

Ahh.. thanks all for your replies..

 

[imported_NoGodForMe]

The cpu chart is here.
http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/
They recently updated it, predicting the FX57 will appear in Q3 2005.

Darn, here I just missed the FX55 by a couple months, and now the FX57 won't come out for a while.

 

[clarkey01]

we'll see the FX57 in june

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
we'll see the FX57 in june

Why so late...57 now....59 should be june...(but we've had this discussion of AMD holding back before)

Another thing will either be dual core?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: aeternitas
why do people buy these? They are horrably overpriced. If you want to spend great sums of money, buy a 3500+ and overclock it. Youll never notice a differance, but your wallet sure will. If youre scared of the OC messing your chip up, but FOUR 3000+ and use three as backup.

1. overclcoking voids your warranty.
2. Some people want the best and pay a heavy premium for the best.
3. You can OC FX much more than 3500 if you decide to OC
4. FX is unlocked and has 1mb lvl 2 for faster and better OCing.

That said even your 3500 sugesstion is a rip off

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: clarkey01
we'll see the FX57 in june

Why so late...57 now....59 should be june...(but we've had this discussion of AMD holding back before)

Another thing will either be dual core?

6 months between every FX. FX 55 came Nov/Dec, so I would say May/June for sure. Intel has nothing to compete with the FX 55, so they can take thier time, fine tune FSOI/SS and 90 nm process.

Zebo, if you were Hector, would you send out even faster parts now and thrash Intel even harder which would leave not much left in the tank till dual core, or everytime Intel come close, kick the stone that bit more further away from them ?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: clarkey01

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: clarkey01
we'll see the FX57 in june

Why so late...57 now....59 should be june...(but we've had this discussion of AMD holding back before)

Another thing will either be dual core?

6 months between every FX. FX 55 came Nov/Dec, so I would say May/June for sure. Intel has nothing to compete with the FX 55, so they can take thier time, fine tune FSOI/SS and 90 nm process.

Zebo, if you were Hector, would you send out even faster parts now and thrash Intel even harder which would leave not much left in the tank till dual core, or everytime Intel come close, kick the stone that bit more further away from them ?

Mans genious so I would do just what he's doing... but it would be a sweet site to see total domination in every benchmark

 

[clarkey01]

Think I just asnwered my own thread about the 4200+


http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=28&threadid=1507850

 

[clarkey01]

[/quote]

Mans genious so I would do just what he's doing... but it would be a sweet site to see total domination in every benchmark
[/quote]


mmmmmm a 3 gzh FX Does sounds nice

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: aeternitas
why do people buy these? They are horrably overpriced. If you want to spend great sums of money, buy a 3500+ and overclock it. Youll never notice a differance, but your wallet sure will. If youre scared of the OC messing your chip up, but FOUR 3000+ and use three as backup.

1. overclcoking voids your warranty.
2. Some people want the best and pay a heavy premium for the best.
3. You can OC FX much more than 3500 if you decide to OC
4. FX is unlocked and has 1mb lvl 2 for faster and better OCing.

That said even your 3500 sugesstion is a rip off

1. Thats why I suggested 4 3000+ lol
2. There is a line where paying for a premium and just getting ripped off is drawn.
3. Overclocking void your warranty
4. 1MB lv2 cache.. come on now. Does that really improve anything outside of server use?

My 3500 suggestion is only a ripoff when not talking about buying a FX, which we are.

 

[miketheidiot]

an extra 512 of cache does help qute a bit.

 

[Shimmishim]

eh, the 512 is minimal...

but the FX-55 can do 3000 mhz on air easy... you don't see a lot of 3500+'s doing that now....

i say you get what you pay for.... mostly

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
an extra 512 of cache does help qute a bit.

In what?

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
eh, the 512 is minimal...

but the FX-55 can do 3000 mhz on air easy... you don't see a lot of 3500+'s doing that now....

i say you get what you pay for.... mostly

Minimal for...?

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
an extra 512 of cache does help qute a bit.

In what?

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
eh, the 512 is minimal...

but the FX-55 can do 3000 mhz on air easy... you don't see a lot of 3500+'s doing that now....

i say you get what you pay for.... mostly

Minimal for...?

No the 512k of Cache does help out. Not immesly but it is tangible. You give any computer more cache and it will use it (ie HDD's)

2. There is a line where paying for a premium and just getting ripped off is drawn.

Yes, not to be biased or anything but the EE is a prime example. At over $1000 the EE offers no improvement over the 570J (3.8GHz) Prescott. However these chips although pricey are not a waste of money. Not everyone buys chips based on money, just because they are HORRIBLE price/performance wise doesn't make them a bad chip.

-Kevin

 

[spaceghost21]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
an extra 512 of cache does help qute a bit.

In what?

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
eh, the 512 is minimal...

but the FX-55 can do 3000 mhz on air easy... you don't see a lot of 3500+'s doing that now....

i say you get what you pay for.... mostly

Minimal for...?

No the 512k of Cache does help out. Not immesly but it is tangible. You give any computer more cache and it will use it (ie HDD's)

2. There is a line where paying for a premium and just getting ripped off is drawn.

Yes, not to be biased or anything but the EE is a prime example. At over $1000 the EE offers no improvement over the 570J (3.8GHz) Prescott. However these chips although pricey are not a waste of money. Not everyone buys chips based on money, just because they are HORRIBLE price/performance wise doesn't make them a bad chip.

-Kevin

This has been argued time and again, what it really comes down to is personal opinion. Some people would rather just pay more and know what they're getting, sure you can OC a cheaper chip but that's not everyone's can of worms

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Yes, not to be biased or anything but the EE is a prime example. At over $1000 the EE offers no improvement over the 570J (3.8GHz) Prescott. However these chips although pricey are not a waste of money. Not everyone buys chips based on money, just because they are HORRIBLE price/performance wise doesn't make them a bad chip.

-Kevin[/quote]

The chip itself was never argued to be bad by me. Its a bad investment no matter how much money you have.

 

[clarkey01]

difference is..
the FX-53 is discontinued as its replaced by the FX-55

AMD only produces 1 type of FX processors at a time.
but u can still purcahse FX-53

anyway.
FX-53 operates @ 2.4GHz (12 x 200)
FX-55 Operates @ 2.6Ghz (13 x 200)
FX-55 uses Strained Sillicon in conjuction with SOI therefore it can yield a higher clock speed as well as generates a bit more heat. around 115watts of heat (i think)

which is why the FX-55's stock heatsink is different.. it includes (either 2 or 4) heatpipes to help deal with the heat

 

[imported_NoGodForMe]

Agree with above, that some of us will pay more for a cutting edge chip looking for the most performance.

There are no guarantees with OCing. Take me for example, I bought an Asus A8V, and the most I can OC my FX53 is 230mz. It's the VIA chipset that is holding me back, no one knew this a few months ago. Both the Asus A8V and Abit AV8 don't OC very well and have the same chipset. To buy an MSI Nforce3 MB means starting over from scratch, something I don't want to do.

So when the FX57 comes out, I'll buy it, sell my FX53, and be happy with a slight OC.