4000 vs fx-53

M

mattjbak

Gawd
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
958
advantages/disadvantages? I know the specs but i'd like some of your perspective.
 
i need this info quickly... it'll affect todays purchase ;) anyone? is the newcastle in the fx53 really much worse than the 4000's san diego core?
 
er, who told you that the fx-53 is newcastle? it's either clawhammer (s939) or sledgehammer (s940), both of which are 130nm

i'd go with the san diego 4000+
 
yea i understand that. In what way is the fx53 worse than the 4000? What makes the core worse? I don't plan to OC fyi.
 
then just get the 4000 san diago (sp? :p), its the newer core (supports 4 ram sticks at 400 mhz) and SSE3 and stuff..
 
mattjbak said:
yea i understand that. In what way is the fx53 worse than the 4000? What makes the core worse? I don't plan to OC fyi.
Click to expand...
i wish i had read this before i replied to your pm. go for the FX then, as if you don't overclock, they're basically identical, but the 4000+ runs cooler. i like the FX name, even if the 53 is kinda lame as far as fx's go
 
i was hasty in saying i wouldn't OC, i thought about it more and my board supports good OC, i'd at least want to mess around with it.
 
yea, the 4000+ OC capabilities with 90nm process and SOI are insane. ive seen ppl hit 3+ GHz with those chips. the FX-53 though, nahhhh. my OC'd 3200 benches the same as an FX-53.

also, the newer 4000+'s have SSE3 ;)
man that San Diego core is awesome.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViN86
yea, the 4000+ OC capabilities with 90nm process and SOI are insane. ive seen ppl hit 3+ GHz with those chips
Quote:

(cf)Eclipse said:
not on air or water ;)
Click to expand...
haha
Really? how is that.
 
HDBox2d1 said:
haha
Really? how is that.
Click to expand...
it just is.. excluding the rare exceptions, most revE cpu's top out around 2.6-2.9ghz without using sub-zero cooling
 
I'd go with the 4000+. The FX53 and 4000+ are pretty much identicle chips. The 4000+ is .90 mm though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top