Top of the line A64

[GhandiInstinct]

Here's my debate: The FX-53 is priced at $925 retail and the 3800+ $650.

In benchmarks, 3800+ is almost identicl with the FX-53 in non-cache intensive apps,

So, why do people think that $300 is worth 512kb cache?

An even better question is, why not get the 3500+ and OC easily to 2.4ghz?

So much you can do with this.... your thoughts?

 

[Mik3y]

y not get the athlon fx and oc it easily to 2.7-2.9ghz? it's multiplier unlocked and is a better bang for the buck if you are considering overclocking. there's no one i know that says or thinks 512kb of extra cache is worth $300. why get the 3500+ and oc it when you can get the fx and oc it even further for a much better performance.

 

[Markfw]

I think Mik3y meant "un-locked" for the FX-53. Thats the real help, in addition to the extra cache. With a water-cooling setup, a FX-53, can hit some extreme speeds.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
I think Mik3y meant "un-locked" for the FX-53. Thats the real help, in addition to the extra cache. With a water-cooling setup, a FX-53, can hit some extreme speeds.

for the correction mark. yes, i meant unlocked.

 

[Dman877]

Why not save another few hundered and oc a 3000+ 754 to 2.4? Why not save another hundred and oc a mobile barton to 2.4? If you want the best, you have to pay. It's always been the case in the computer world that you can spend 25% of the price for the best and get 75% of the performance. It hasn't stopped people from shelling out for the best stuff so far...

 

[n7]

If you have the money & like OCing...grab the FX-53.

Otherwise, just get a regular socket 939 3800+ or maybe just the 3500+.

To me, the FX-53 is a waste of money (but i don't have any).

I believe in buying mid-high end always, as it's the best value.

 

[JBT]

Who really cares if therie FX is unlocked? Most of the A64's can be unlocked on Mobo's anyways. Yes I know that they arn't unlocked above their normal multis but you can use ratio's etc to still get those things cranking...

 

[Avalon]

I'd imagine the 3800+ could overclock just as far as an FX-53 could. So, if you don't care about an extra 512kb cache that makes about 1-3% difference, and if you don't care about your chip being fully unlocked (why would you want to raise the multiplier higher and drop your HTT, anyway?), then get the 3800+.

 

[Shimmishim]

the nice thing about high end processors is that they can be overclocked to a higher speed than say a lower end chip....

in theory, a 3800+ should overclock higher than a 350+ considering the 3800+ is running what.. 200? 400? mhz faster already...

i would go with the cheaper of the two and just overclock it... like you said the extra 512 kb is nice to have but does it really make a huge difference?

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
the nice thing about high end processors is that they can be overclocked to a higher speed than say a lower end chip....

in theory, a 3800+ should overclock higher than a 350+ considering the 3800+ is running what.. 200? 400? mhz faster already...

i would go with the cheaper of the two and just overclock it... like you said the extra 512 kb is nice to have but does it really make a huge difference?

the higher cache mostly benefits at a higher overclock. generally, when amd swtiched from the clawhammer to the newcastle for cheaper cpu production, they increased the mhz by 200 to make up for the lack in L2 cache. technically, the 200mhz is supposed to be proportional to the performance given by the extra 512k cache, so when a a clawhammer at 2.2ghz and a newcastle at 2.4ghz is overclocked to 2.5 and 2.6GHz, the clawhammer supposedly has the edge. same thing goes wtih the fx vs the 3800+ "supposedly". even though shimmishim mentioned that the 3800+ should be able to overclock further hten the 3500+, they both eventually lead to a similar max cpu speed. i'm sure they can both get to 4100+ speeds, but can the 3800+ go further hten that against a 3500+? i doubt it. the overclock will become too unstable at those speeds, temps, and voltage increases.

 

[Tiamat]

Get either the 3500+ or the FX-53. IMHO, 200$ difference is not worth 200mhz between the 3500+ or the 3800+. The FX-53 is mainly for bragging rights unless you have extreme cooling and pump this sucker to 2.8ghz+. I havenot seen anybody clamed significant performance boost with a 200mhz difference in clockspeed ~ esp in the 2200mhz+ range. A 400mhz difference - now that starts to talk.

Personally, Id find it really hard to justify FX-53's 500$ difference from the 3500+. Esp since that 500$ would be upgrading my aging Radeon 8500 to a brand-spankin' new X800XTPE or 6800UltraExtreme.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Tiamat
Get either the 3500+ or the FX-53. IMHO, 200$ difference is not worth 200mhz between the 3500+ or the 3800+. The FX-53 is mainly for bragging rights unless you have extreme cooling and pump this sucker to 2.8ghz+. I havenot seen anybody clamed significant performance boost with a 200mhz difference in clockspeed ~ esp in the 2200mhz+ range. A 400mhz difference - now that starts to talk.

Personally, Id find it really hard to justify FX-53's 500$ difference from the 3500+. Esp since that 500$ would be upgrading my aging Radeon 8500 to a brand-spankin' new X800XTPE or 6800UltraExtreme.

You're saying it's not worth a $200 difference to get 200mhz by buying a 3800+ over a 3500+, but it's ok and worth the difference of $400 to get an FX-53 that adds 200mhz and just 512kb cache over the 3500? :shocked:

 

[GhandiInstinct]

I havenot seen anybody clamed significant performance boost with a 200mhz difference in clockspeed

I'd have to agree. Not only that but you'll have to spend extra cash on higher clocked memory.

Better to get the cheapest. And upgrade to better: dual-core