AMD - FX-55 vs FX-53 vs 4000+ - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-12-2005, 04:33 PM   #1 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
HAVOC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Milford, Connecticut
Posts: 4,218
Send a message via AIM to HAVOC Send a message via Yahoo to HAVOC
Default AMD - FX-55 vs FX-53 vs 4000+

I was just reading an articles that outlined all of the features of all 3 of these CPU's. It was really interesting to find out that the only major difference between these 3 processors is basically the name and price tag. I kinda wish now that I would have gone with the 4000+ because it would have saved me at least 300+ which I could have used towards something else. Anyway... I don't understand why the price range of the FX-55 & the 4000+ is almost a 300 dollar difference. Other then the name, frequency and max thermal power, they are virtually the same.

Check this out:

FX-55 2.6GHz L1 Cache for all is 128k total
FX-53 2.4GHz L2 Cache for all is 1MB
4000+ 2.4GHz HT is 2000MHz for all

Process for all is 130nm/90nm
Transistor Count is ~105.9 million for all
Die Size is the same 193mm2
Voltage 1.50v for all
FX-55 max thermal power is 104w, FX-53 & 4000+ is 89w

Cost
FX-55 ($815 - $840)
FX-53 ($725 - $740)
4000+ ($545 - $580)

What are everyones thoughts?
__________________

HAVOC is offline  
Old 04-12-2005, 04:35 PM   #2 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

Hmmmmm don't know besides the fact that the FX's were original server chips. You'd have to run actual benches comparing them all not whether they all have the same components.

All WR's are held with FX chips though so appearantly they are better for somethin
__________________

Nubius is offline  
Old 04-12-2005, 05:06 PM   #3 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,790
Default

To begin with, they are still all 130nm cores, they use the Sledgehammer and Clawhammer cores, the Clawhammer is slightly faster I believe.

Nubius, you had the right idea with their previous server use.

The big difference between the two is the architechture, since the FX series was originally from the socket 940 family and the Athlon 64 series from the socket 754 series, the FX series inherited some of the architechtural differences which are very similiar to the Opeteron Cores, and also obtained a lot of the characteristics found on the Athlon 64.

This basically means the FX processors use a superior architechture which gives them that little edge which AMD justifies the price jack (which I don't feel is worth it).

The only other big difference is the unlocked multiplier on the FX processors.
__________________
Intel C2D E6320 / AMD Athlon X2 3800+
Gigabyte 965P DS3 / DFI nF4 Ultra-D
2GB OCZ Gold PC2-6400 / 2GB OCZ Gold PC4000
eVGA 8800GTS 320MB / eVGA 6800GS 256MB
150GB Raptor / 74GB Raptor
2x500GB / 320GB
OCZ GameXStreme 850w / OCZ StealthXStream 600w
gaara is offline  
Old 04-12-2005, 05:11 PM   #4 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,433
Default

I would opt for the 4000+. It is basiclly an FX-53 with a different name. the fx 55 is slightly faster than the fx 53. keep in mind that when AMD unveils their new FX chips, they just move the current FX-53 down to 4000+ (or whatever they rename it). at least thats what they did last time.
__________________





-AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Winchestor
-MSI K8N Neo4-F
-Sapphire Radeon X850 XT
-2x 1024 Corsair XMS Pro

<form action=\"http://www.srsyo.org/tfsearch.php\" method=\"get\">
<input type=\"text\" name=\"search\"><input type=\"submit\" name=\"submit\" value="Search!"></form> Search TF before you post!
dhw200 is offline  
Old 04-12-2005, 09:13 PM   #5 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 193
Default

i belive i read somewhere that when thay released the 4000+, it was found to be basically just a Fx-53

jump from fx53-55 would be nice if u had the money to blow, but in the real world, its just stupid to pay that much for such little gain
Chrono is offline  
Old 04-12-2005, 09:41 PM   #6 (permalink)
Memberbot
 
Elbatrop1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,057
Default

The FX-53 is the 4000+ with some more cache. The FX-55 is the same as the FX-53 but with a faster clock speed.

Here's a complete list of benches:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...charts-13.html
__________________

Intel E6750...........PSN: ELBATROP
XFX nForce 650i Ultra
Patriot PC2-6400 8GB (4x2GB)
eVGA 9800GT
36GB WD Raptor
120GB SG
1TB SG
Logitech X-530
Samsung SyncMaster 931c
Samsung SyncMaster 750s
Windows 7 Home Premium 64
Elbatrop1 is offline  
Old 04-12-2005, 09:49 PM   #7 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,013
Send a message via AIM to DJ-CHRIS
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Elbatrop1
The FX-53 is the 4000+ with some more cache. The FX-55 is the same as the FX-53 but with a faster clock speed.

Here's a complete list of benches:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...charts-13.html
I didnt think their was extra cache? I thought FX-53 = 4000+
DJ-CHRIS is offline  
Old 04-12-2005, 10:01 PM   #8 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
HAVOC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Milford, Connecticut
Posts: 4,218
Send a message via AIM to HAVOC Send a message via Yahoo to HAVOC
Default

wow DJ-CHRIS nice post. That list is amazing. Lot's of great info. Good Job. That list of benches basically proves that the 4000+ is equal if not better than the FX-53.

Question? Can the 4000+ be overclocked? I've read that the multiplier is locked on the 4000+, may-be this is why they are selling it for almost 300+ less then the FX-55. God-I would just buy a 4000+ and OC it to or past 2.6Ghz and call it a day. Anyone know?

OH WAIT: Nevermind I just found this:
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=1666&page=3
HAVOC is offline  
Old 04-12-2005, 10:05 PM   #9 (permalink)
Memberbot
 
Elbatrop1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,057
Default

Quote:
I didnt think their was extra cache? I thought FX-53 = 4000+
Ya youre right, I just checked the AMD site. Is it the FX series that has the unlocked multiplier?
__________________

Intel E6750...........PSN: ELBATROP
XFX nForce 650i Ultra
Patriot PC2-6400 8GB (4x2GB)
eVGA 9800GT
36GB WD Raptor
120GB SG
1TB SG
Logitech X-530
Samsung SyncMaster 931c
Samsung SyncMaster 750s
Windows 7 Home Premium 64
Elbatrop1 is offline  
Old 04-12-2005, 10:05 PM   #10 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,790
Default

Just because a multiplier is locked doesn't mean a core can't be overclocked. An unlocked multiplier just means it can be both increased and decreased, rather than just decreased.

The 4000+ can still be overclocked by increasing the HTT speed, and the new San Diego 4000+ should prove to have exceptional overclocking potential.

As I've said, I believe the FX-53 still inherited a bit of Opteron Architechture which is the reason for the excessive price tag.

I seem to recall reading that the FX-53 uses a different memory controller than the 4000+, and the FX-55 uses the same one as the 4000+, but I can't remember.

edit - I remember! The FX-53 uses registered 128 bit memory, and the 4000+ uses 128 bit unbuffered memory.
__________________

__________________
Intel C2D E6320 / AMD Athlon X2 3800+
Gigabyte 965P DS3 / DFI nF4 Ultra-D
2GB OCZ Gold PC2-6400 / 2GB OCZ Gold PC4000
eVGA 8800GTS 320MB / eVGA 6800GS 256MB
150GB Raptor / 74GB Raptor
2x500GB / 320GB
OCZ GameXStreme 850w / OCZ StealthXStream 600w
gaara is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.