PDA

View Full Version : FX cpus what's the difference?


Saintster
05-05-05, 09:57 AM
Than say what i run a 3700 Claw oc to 2.6. Obviously unlocked multis for oc is great but for someone like my self that games and surfs the net and burns cd's is the realtime performance woth the extra dough other than to say I have an fx. Just wondering I was thinking of gettijng the fx 57 if it's woth the upgrade! :D

MUYA
05-05-05, 10:01 AM
FX cpus have their multiplier unlocked and usually they have an extra 512KB of L2 cache. Thats it.

Riptide
05-05-05, 10:20 AM
I absolutely would not get rid of your 3700+. No way is it worth the extra $ for that FX.

One of my big regrets is paying $800 for this FX53 when I could've waited just a month longer and got a 3500+ for much less money. The performance differential is pretty meager.

Some of the newer non-FX chips are coming with 1MB of L2 cache. The 4000+ is a good example, and is a better value by far than the FX55.

Unlocked multipliers are worthless unless you plan on using water cooling or perhaps even more extreme cooling than that.

As a sidenote, am I the only one that thinks AMD is getting pretty damned confusing with how many different flavors of chips they have out at the moment? Seriously this is ridiculous. You can by a winchester, venice, san diego, or newcastle. And sometimes there are more than one core available per model. You can get at least two different 3500+ models right now. Talk about confusing.

saturnotaku
05-05-05, 10:28 AM
The only reason to get rid of that 3700+ would simply be to move to Socket 939 and dual channel memory. Even then, the real-world performance difference isn't great, maybe 5% at the most. That Clawhammer still has plenty of life left, especially at the speeds you have it. The FX is a big waste when a 4000+ will get you 95% of the performance at slightly more than 50% of the price. But again, considering your current setup, that would still be a waste of money.

zoomy942
05-05-05, 10:35 AM
I agree with Sat. goign 939 for the dual channel memory is about the only reason to switch. but thats mainly a future-proofing move. your 3700 is a nice chip.

and ther are a ton of different chips. i currently have a Winchester 3500, and like Riptide said, it performs very very close to the FX. and Sat has a Newcastle 3500, and it performs just like my winchester.

so, all in all, either keep what you have, or get a 939 board and a winchester 3200 or 3500. some 939 newcastles are a little cheaper than the winchester, so maybe look at those too. by the way, the venice is EXACTLY like a winchester, only big difference is that you can populate all 4 memory slots and not have an unstable system.

Riptide
05-05-05, 10:43 AM
Technically there is a 3700+ out for 939 already I believe. I don't think it says in his sig what motherboard he has so I wasn't sure if he had a 754 or not. ;)

http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=120273&Category_Code=AMD64

BTW, more confusion courtesy of AMD.

saturnotaku
05-05-05, 10:45 AM
He has a Clawhammer core, though, which would imply a 754 chip. The 939 proc you linked to has a 90 nm core, which would imply a Winchester or Venice.

Riptide
05-05-05, 10:46 AM
Aye, you're right about that. Didn't notice the "Claw" comment in his message.

There are at least two models of 3800+ out and THREE models of 3500+. Woe to the consumer. :)

saturnotaku
05-05-05, 10:49 AM
Yes, woe indeed. Just have to have people read the proc specs especially carefully and buy from a vendor that is good enough to list them (ZipZoomFly, Newegg). Caveat empetor.

MUYA
05-05-05, 11:03 AM
holy poop...that's how tired I am.....from work. Sorry dude, ignore my first post but I would go with the consesus here by not reccomending to go to a FX57 from your 3700+. A dual core albeit with huge core speed bump might be what you need and that will happen next year and hopefully apps will be able to take advantage of duel core by then. The benchmarks somewhat proves that the difference between a 3700+ to a FX53 may perhaps not justify such a huge price.

I got my FX53 on a special deal even $700 orso with a mobo oand have no regrets but then I sometimes wonder and regret not getting a 3500+ 90nm K8 and then overclocking the bejesus out of it but they haven't invented a time machine yet so I love my FX53 :p

Riptide
05-05-05, 11:05 AM
Monarch isn't bad either. They have descriptions/specs for most everything. Clock speed, cache size, voltage, die size, and HT speed.

Vishruth
05-05-05, 11:24 AM
AMD has put out a new San Diego 3700+ that has 1MB L2 cache. Available for a price under $400, it's definitely worth switching to.

Riptide
05-05-05, 11:32 AM
I linked to it further back in the thread. Doesn't have the 2GHz hypertransport though, which is the only drawback.

Saintster
05-05-05, 11:35 AM
Cool Thanks guys I'm taking the advice and i appreciate all the imput from everyone. I just anal and impatient. I'll keep this another year and just get another rig which would get me 2 years outta this one when it's all said and done. Besides in a years time there's going to be alot of cool hardware out there. In reality this chip has been good to me. Thanks again for the imput!

Riptide
05-05-05, 11:46 AM
LOL, I'll say it's been good. My FX53 won't overclock past 2.5GHz. With your overclock you are probably at or near my level of CPU performance and you spent a LOT less money. Granted I have dual channel memory but that really isn't a big deal since A64 doesn't seem bandwidth starved like the P4.

Absolution
05-05-05, 02:12 PM
fx chips pretty much run 200mhz faster and just make your e-penis bigger :\
you would need watercooling to overclock worthwhile

Vishruth
05-05-05, 10:40 PM
I linked to it further back in the thread. Doesn't have the 2GHz hypertransport though, which is the only drawback.
Oh. I didn't see that. BTW, is 1.6GHz HyperTransport too much inferior to a 2GHz HyperTransport when it comes to performance in games and compiling C/C++ apps and such?

Riptide
05-05-05, 10:55 PM
Inferior would be to strong of a word. Marginal performance differential would be more like it. ;)

Only pointing out that difference, which is a drawback, no matter how small.

newls1
05-08-05, 04:57 PM
So let me ask this: Would the switch to an FX57 be worth it? I currently am using an FX55 OCed to 2.87 GHz....

superklye
05-08-05, 05:41 PM
So let me ask this: Would the switch to an FX57 be worth it? I currently am using an FX55 OCed to 2.87 GHz....
Your OC is faster than the FX57 is going to be, so I highly doubt "upgrading" to a slower CPU would benefit you in any way, shape or form.

Riptide
05-08-05, 06:16 PM
There's a chance that he might be able to OC the FX57 higher than he has his 55. Is it worth $800? Hell no.