I give up!!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
K

KyleGates

Senior member
Oct 19, 2004
613
3
81
After years of bein an Intel guy, having 12 PCs with Intel chips in em atm, and having a dad that works for em, I am goin AMD. With the EEs getting trounced this bad it would be stupid to buy Intel this time around. SO, while stayin just a tad $$ conscience what do I wanna get? I want as fast as is out there BUT if the next step down is only 5fps or so of a diff but 100$+ cheaper I would go that rout...so...what do I want when it comes to CPU and mobo..........and whatever I get it needs to be compatible with what I already have. Thanks for any info!

My current spces are here: TGUpdate
 
I

imported_Computer MAn

Golden Member
Sep 30, 2004
1,190
0
76
In this link it shows the performance between processors. Linky If you want the absolute fastest the FX-55 is the performance crown. It is a little faster than an FX-53 not sure how much though. Another thing to consider is it is around $850. But for $500 less you can get around the same performance with a 3500+. The question you have to ask is is 10FPS worth $500.
 
M

Mik3y

Banned
Mar 2, 2004
7,089
0
0
Originally posted by: Computer MAn
In this link it shows the performance between processors. Linky If you want the absolute fastest the FX-55 is the performance crown. It is a little faster than an FX-53 not sure how much though. Another thing to consider is it is around $850. But for $500 less you can get around the same performance with a 3500+.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Demo24

Demo24

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
8,356
9
81
Originally posted by: kylegates27
After years of bein an Intel guy, having 12 PCs with Intel chips in em atm, and having a dad that works for em, I am goin AMD. With the EEs getting trounced this bad it would be stupid to buy Intel this time around. SO, while stayin just a tad $$ conscience what do I wanna get? I want as fast as is out there BUT if the next step down is only 5fps or so of a diff but 100$+ cheaper I would go that rout...so...what do I want when it comes to CPU and mobo..........and whatever I get it needs to be compatible with what I already have. Thanks for any info!

My current spces are here: TGUpdate
Click to expand...

why hello there Kyle:D I see your venturing out :p ;)
 
K

KyleGates

Senior member
Oct 19, 2004
613
3
81
Yes I figured I needed to get out more lol :)

As for the FX53 vs 3500+..........I am more speaking of the bleeding edge as in the 38-4000+ vs the FX55. The numbers I have been gandering at are these: Link

The numbers are obviously beyond killer on the pre D3 FarCry stuff. I am looking for great performance in the next-gen stuff that will hopefully be viable a bit longer than a 3500+ :)

At Newegg the OEM FX55 is $857, the OEM 4000+ is $729 and the Retail 3800+ is $630.....I was leanin toward the FX55 but the 4000+ seems to be just a frame or two behind.



BUT I am a huge AMD dummy...what the heck is the diff betweein the FX and regular old 64s??? (other than strained silicon)
 
M

Megamixman

Member
Oct 30, 2004
150
0
0
the entire Fx series has unlocked multipliers both up and down so you could crank up the multipliers if you wanted and had the right cooling
 
I

imported_Computer MAn

Golden Member
Sep 30, 2004
1,190
0
76
The 4000+ is just a locked version of the FX-53. ANd as Megamixman said the FX series has unlocked multipliers up an down compared to just down on a normal A64. The FX-55 is clocked at 2.6 ghz and the 4000+ is at 2.4ghz so it should be faster but I'm not sure if its worth the price difference.
 
G

gotensan01

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,446
0
0
Originally posted by: kylegates27
Well, I am NOT an overclocker so suggest me a nonOCin hella fast CPU :)
Click to expand...
Darn, I was just going to recommend the 90nm s939 cpu's that supposedly overclock to outperform the fx-53
 
K

KyleGates

Senior member
Oct 19, 2004
613
3
81
Originally posted by: Computer MAn
I would get the 4000+ then as the FX series is mostly for OCers because of the unlocked multipliers.
Click to expand...


And mobo? Again...hella fast but not needin to be OCed :)
 
G

Gioron

Member
Jul 22, 2004
73
0
0
Just because the multipliers are unlocked doesn't mean you _have_ to overclock it, but the 4000+ is probably the better price point for you anyways. The difference between the two is only signifigant in Halo and Wolfenstein:ET (well, and the sims 2...), and its over $100 cheaper. Of course, if you're a Halo or Wolfenstein fanatic, you might want to go with the FX-55, but otherwise the 4000+ is probably enough of a step up from the 3800+ to justify the cost.

Personally, I just bought a 90nm 3500+ and if I ever need more speed I can just overclock it down the road. Its signifigantly less cash for not a whole lot of lost performance.
 
K

KyleGates

Senior member
Oct 19, 2004
613
3
81
Originally posted by: Gioron
Just because the multipliers are unlocked doesn't mean you _have_ to overclock it, but the 4000+ is probably the better price point for you anyways. The difference between the two is only signifigant in Halo and Wolfenstein:ET (well, and the sims 2...), and its over $100 cheaper. Of course, if you're a Halo or Wolfenstein fanatic, you might want to go with the FX-55, but otherwise the 4000+ is probably enough of a step up from the 3800+ to justify the cost.

Personally, I just bought a 90nm 3500+ and if I ever need more speed I can just overclock it down the road. Its signifigantly less cash for not a whole lot of lost performance.
Click to expand...


Hmmm................well what makes the FX55 faster in those games?
 
G

Gioron

Member
Jul 22, 2004
73
0
0
Originally posted by: kylegates27
Originally posted by: Gioron
Just because the multipliers are unlocked doesn't mean you _have_ to overclock it, but the 4000+ is probably the better price point for you anyways. The difference between the two is only signifigant in Halo and Wolfenstein:ET (well, and the sims 2...), and its over $100 cheaper. Of course, if you're a Halo or Wolfenstein fanatic, you might want to go with the FX-55, but otherwise the 4000+ is probably enough of a step up from the 3800+ to justify the cost.

Personally, I just bought a 90nm 3500+ and if I ever need more speed I can just overclock it down the road. Its signifigantly less cash for not a whole lot of lost performance.
Click to expand...


Hmmm................well what makes the FX55 faster in those games?
Click to expand...

Since the only difference between the FX-55 and the 4000+ is the core clock speed, I'd assume that both those games are limited more by the CPU clock and less by cache. The main difference between the 3800+ and the 4000+ is that the former has 512KB of cache while the latter has 1MB, their clock rate isn't improved. Also see this page for the differences between other high end Athlon models. (And read the rest of the article for an interesting look at how cache affects performance compared to a dual-DDR memory interface in the benchmarks.)
 
A

Adn4n

Golden Member
Aug 6, 2004
1,043
0
0
You're getting a MAC!!! Just kidding, that would be just wrong.

Since you're not overclocking, your ram will suit you just fine since it's PC 3200. So if you get the FX, more ram might be needed, though maybe not due to the multiplier. I say go with the 90nm and overclock, or get a 3800 or 4000+
 
I

iwantanewcomputer

Diamond Member
Apr 4, 2004
5,045
0
0
there is no good reason not to overclock. if you want a 4000, you could get a 3000 and with inconsequential voltage increases get it to 2.6 which is better than a 4000.

the fact is if you are worried about killing your processor, you won't
if you are worried that overclocking is to complex for you, you are wrong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom