FX-53 (S939) vs. Oc'ed Mobile at 2.7Ghz

T

tigger1612

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 18, 2004
Messages
217
I'm thinkin about going to the FX-53 but i'm kind of wondering if I would notice a huge performance leap over my current Mobile XP 2400+ 35w at 2700Mhz. I haven't had any experience with the 64bit chips yet but for 800 dollars a proc, its gotta fly I would imagine. I haven't been able to find any reviews really comparing such procs against each other so any info or user experiences are appriciated. :D Thanks.
 
An Athlon FX series processor has a average 20% IPC advantage over an Athlon XP. So, in other words, your 2.7Ghz XP would compare to a 2.16Ghz Athlon FX. Please do not compare these numbers to an Athlon 64. The 64 is about the same as the FX for IPC. On the flipside, a 2.6Ghz Athlon FX-53 (Almost all FX-53's should go faster than this...) would be comparable to a 3.12Ghz Athlon XP. Basically, spending almost $1,000.00 on hardware would net you a system that would be about 15% faster than what you have right now. I'm not sure if I would consider that a good deal. I'd save your money and wait for the next generation of hardware to come out, and scrape up your cash for the best overclocking 90nm Athlon 64, which just might crank out 3Ghz. Whether you want to go the 754 or 939 pin route is completely up to you, but I would wait for 90nm 754 and get a chip when the prices are low.

Matt.
 
enraged78 said:
An Athlon FX series processor has a average 20% IPC advantage over an Athlon XP. So, in other words, your 2.7Ghz XP would compare to a 2.16Ghz Athlon FX. Please do not compare these numbers to an Athlon 64. The 64 is about the same as the FX for IPC. On the flipside, a 2.6Ghz Athlon FX-53 (Almost all FX-53's should go faster than this...) would be comparable to a 3.12Ghz Athlon XP. Basically, spending almost $1,000.00 on hardware would net you a system that would be about 15% faster than what you have right now. I'm not sure if I would consider that a good deal. I'd save your money and wait for the next generation of hardware to come out, and scrape up your cash for the best overclocking 90nm Athlon 64, which just might crank out 3Ghz. Whether you want to go the 754 or 939 pin route is completely up to you, but I would wait for 90nm 754 and get a chip when the prices are low.

Matt.
Click to expand...


Amen
 
In pure FP heavy tasks you won't notice much improvement. In some office tasks you may even lose performance. But games and memory limited multimedia apps will run significantly faster. I'd stay with the XP-M, but then again, I'm cheap. It depends on how much money you have to burn.
 
enraged78 said:
. .... but I would wait for 90nm 754 and get a chip when the prices are low.
Click to expand...

Good call Matt... a revision has been made in Scottys Long Term Strategic Upgrade Iniative
 
Yea it would have cost me about 1K to upgrade to which is why I wanted to consult the forum prior. I basically needed some opinions to talk me out of spending the 1K even though I could drop it right now. It's just I see UT2k4 sometimes running slow at 1280 with all details maxed and I just wonder how great it would be to game on the FX-53 but at the cost of 1K. Very bad tradeoff that I just can't help but think about constantly. :) So is the life of a hardware geek. :(
 
I think you should get an x800xt or something like that if you are looking to spend some money on your pc.

EDIT : also if you have a nf2 chipset mobo right now maybe you should get an external reciever and some real 7.1 surround sound for the badass spdif port on the back.
 
Bigjohns97 said:
I think you should get an x800xt or something like that if you are looking to spend some money on your pc.

EDIT : also if you have a nf2 chipset mobo right now maybe you should get an external reciever and some real 7.1 surround sound for the badass spdif port on the back.
Click to expand...


That's my suggestion aswell if you're playing games. It would make the most defference gaming.
 
I really want to get my hands on a x800xt but you simply cannot find them which is just rediculous considering the product was announced months ago. Here I am waving 500 bux at either nvidia or ati, whoever can give me a card, and I simply can't get one without waiting atleast another month through most sites. And I've got 4K worth of home theater on my hdtv across the room, and it's not worth bringing over to the pc. Most pc sound sources are mediocre at best so it's much better for watchin dvd's and playing xbox and things.
 
your sig only show u have 512mb of memory, that could be why ut04 is laggin on u, your video card can still play that game on full settings and also your processor. so i recommend u get a gig in there.
 
I play UT2K4 on my machine just fine, and only have 512MB Ram, and only a 9600Pro.

If it's lagging there is something else causing the problem.
 
NewBlackDak said:
I play UT2K4 on my machine just fine, and only have 512MB Ram, and only a 9600Pro.

If it's lagging there is something else causing the problem.
Click to expand...

I think he said he was wanting to play at 1280 x 800 or something.
 
ohgod said:
I think he said he was wanting to play at 1280 x 800 or something.
Click to expand...

Dude, please reduce your sig. It should be 10 lines max, at 800*600 in IE.
 
even at 1280by800 i wouldnt really expect any lag with a 9800xt and that processor and memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top