Athlon64 FX-53 130nm vs. Athlon 64 FX-53 90nm - 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 12-06-2004, 06:18 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 44
Default Athlon64 FX-53 130nm vs. Athlon 64 FX-53 90nm

All the bench marks are leaning toward the 130 nm one.
__________________

seh264 is offline  
Old 12-06-2004, 06:23 PM   #2 (permalink)
PowerQuest / Opera
 
TheMajor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 10,177
Default

I would only get a 90nm if the mobo supports it without a BIOS upgrade. I heard the 90nm runs cooler.
__________________

__________________
TheMajorMMX - Intel P200 MMX @ 225Mhz - V-Tech (PcPartner) Baby-AT mb w/ Intel Triton TX chipset - Nvidia Riva TNT2 M64 w/ 16MB - 256MB M-Tec SDRAM - Still running.....
TheMajor is offline  
Old 12-06-2004, 06:29 PM   #3 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 44
Default

socket 939 is for the 90nm right?
seh264 is offline  
Old 12-06-2004, 06:34 PM   #4 (permalink)
PowerQuest / Opera
 
TheMajor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 10,177
Default

Its socket 939. All FX-5x CPU's are socket 939 i think (correct me if I am wrong)

There are 90nm Winchester and 130nm (Newcastle?) FX CPU's.

But I am a little confused here. The Athlon64 FX are different from the Athlon64 CPU's right? More cache or something?

Only opterons are socket 940 I think.

I am still a n00b on this
__________________
TheMajorMMX - Intel P200 MMX @ 225Mhz - V-Tech (PcPartner) Baby-AT mb w/ Intel Triton TX chipset - Nvidia Riva TNT2 M64 w/ 16MB - 256MB M-Tec SDRAM - Still running.....
TheMajor is offline  
Old 12-06-2004, 06:36 PM   #5 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 44
Default

Yea there are FX chips and then reg. chips...the FX seem to be the much more powerful ones
seh264 is offline  
Old 12-06-2004, 06:40 PM   #6 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,626
Default

the FX have higher frequencies, and more cache. 130nm and 90nm are both in 939 socket. The 90 nm is more overclockable than 130 nm.
__________________
My current specs:
i7 920
Biostar TPower x58
3x2GB g.skill
XFI GTX260 Black Edition
640 WD Caviar Black
Vista Home Premium x64
U-Toast is offline  
Old 12-06-2004, 07:04 PM   #7 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,909
Default

at first the FX and Athlon 64 came different, as FX had 128-BIT memory controllers on 940-pins versions and Athlon had 64-BIT MCT on 754-pin versions.

now both are same, exactlly same just FX-55 have 200Mhz advantage in their newest model, whilst 4000+ Athlon 64 is running at 2.4GHz.

but still FX series didnt came in 90 Micron wafer technology, but Athlon 64 did. and as well both are now on 939-pins making them 128-BIT memory controller integrated.

Also, at first, Athlon 64 came with L2 with 512, which still are coming with same but it depends on naming conventions, as AMD have named their processors according to the current intel processors (like AMD 3000+ will be as equal to 3.0Ghz intel p-4).
therefore AMD Athlon 3700+ 3800+ and 4000+ are though all on same clock @ 2.4Ghz but have difference in their pins and L2 configurations:

Like Athlon 3700+ = 2.4Ghz L2 = 1MB, and on 754 pins (so on 64-BIT MCT) thus considered equalivent to 3.7Ghz Intel

Athlon 64 3800+ is again 2.4Ghz, but on L2 = 512K and 939 pins makes ir with MCT = 128-BIT, so even @ half L2 cache as compared to 3700+, still has 128-BIT MCT, therefore considered equal to 3.8Ghz P-4

whilst 4000+ is 2.4Ghz, 939-pins and 1MB L-2 (200Mhz lower than FX-55, else every thing same)

and 90nm (didnt still showed up in FX series) is amazingly running coole than 130nm (unlike in Intel, 90nm is hotter)

it is generally said that 15-20W low heat is dissapated by 90nm Athlons.
__________________
Intel Core2Quad 2.66Ghz 12MB L2-Cache
4096MB DDR Kingston Hyper-X
GigaByte GA-P35-DS3R
XFX 9600GT AlphaDog
Seagate 2 X 320GB SATA2
LG L246WH Flatron 24"
Sony DVD-RW
Blind_Arrow is offline  
Old 12-06-2004, 07:34 PM   #8 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 44
Default

Thanks! That cleared everything right up
seh264 is offline  
Old 12-06-2004, 07:45 PM   #9 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 530
Default

Yea they dont make 940 pins anymore, they were on the original FX-51 for a short while but they were the first and last for 940, so dont get anything with 940 unless you get it really cheap and dont plan on ugrading your mobo. like Arrow said the new 4000+ is basically the same as the FX, whereas before the FX's were much more powerful. they are still the l33t versions but closer in performance so likely the FX will be dropped. hmm yea Arrow did a good job, not much else to know. .

ARROW 1111! make a wish!
FoxyLoxy is offline  
Old 12-06-2004, 07:48 PM   #10 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,909
Default

hmm, my wish, everybody become happy in world
__________________

__________________
Intel Core2Quad 2.66Ghz 12MB L2-Cache
4096MB DDR Kingston Hyper-X
GigaByte GA-P35-DS3R
XFX 9600GT AlphaDog
Seagate 2 X 320GB SATA2
LG L246WH Flatron 24"
Sony DVD-RW
Blind_Arrow 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 02:49 PM.


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