Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: FX 53 or 4000+?

  1. #1
    Registered
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    76

    FX 53 or 4000+?

    I'm in a nice situation where I can get either of these fine chips for about the same price, I have a Watercooling setup and some nice ram, which chip would most likely yield a better maximum overclock? The 4000+ is a san diego core, I'm not sure about the FX's core.

    A speedy response would be nice, this is a little time sensitive.

  2. #2

    TheNewbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    548
    I would go w/ the 4000 San Diego. It seems pretty doable to hit the 2.7-3.0+ range stable from the setups I have seen around so far. The unlocked Fx's multi. vrs.the process shrink and SSE3 on the 4000 prolly helps the performance as well the E stepping supposedly supports faster ram modules. But as far as bang for the buck IMO right now I would go for the X2 3800 its only about $30 more than the 4000 if that helps any.

    Msi H55m-E33 w/ i7 810 @ 3.66Ghz 1.255 vcore
    Modded TT Bigwater w/ OCZ Cpu WB
    PNY DDR3 Cl 8 (2x2GB) 10-9-10-29@2140mhz 1t
    Booting 2x WD 1tb Black Raid-0
    HIS HD6870 1050 Core 1050 Memory mining
    Windows 7 Pro 64bit

    Folding Team 32

    Heat
    Folding User Stats

  3. #3
    Member Who's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    A yellow submarine...
    Posts
    327
    Of the two I would get the SD. The FX53 is a SledgeHammer core, is for socket 940 and doesn't have SSE3. But, if it's possible, I would get the 3800+ Manchester like the guy above me suggested.

  4. #4
    Member Yuriman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    The OCFORUMS
    Posts
    8,071
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNewbie
    IMO right now I would go for the X2 3800 its only about $30 more than the 4000 if that helps any.
    Quote Originally Posted by Who
    But, if it's possible, I would get the 3800+ Manchester like the guy above me suggested.
    What they said. ^ ^ ^ ^

    If you have your heart set on having a slightly faster single core, I'd go for the 4000+, but a 3700+ would probably hit the same clocks, and as would a 3000+ and the cache difference would probably be unnoticable except when you look at benchmark numbers.

  5. #5
    Registered
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    76
    The FX is definitely 939, someone I know is selling it really cheap, but I hadn't even considered going the dual core route, I'll have to look into it.

  6. #6
    Member Vulcan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pa
    Posts
    2,146
    Quote Originally Posted by pyromuffin
    The FX is definitely 939, someone I know is selling it really cheap, but I hadn't even considered going the dual core route, I'll have to look into it.
    I'd go dual core. For me I was down to deciding between a 3700 San Diego, a 3000 Venice and a x2 3800 Manchester. Decided on the 3000 Venice because they oc nearly as well (sometimes better) than the 3700 san diegos and its really a great value for the moeny. I would have gone with the x2 3800 if I had more money though.
    Currently rocking a BlackBook

  7. #7
    Member fuzzba11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    in the garage
    Posts
    2,431
    Quote Originally Posted by pyromuffin
    The FX is definitely 939, someone I know is selling it really cheap, but I hadn't even considered going the dual core route, I'll have to look into it.
    I would get the FX from the guy you know.

  8. #8
    Member neonblingbling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,885
    Quote Originally Posted by fuzzba11
    I would get the FX from the guy you know.
    ...so your buddy can upgrade to the X2 3800.
    [HEAT] - Sony SZ650 /// T7500 /// 3 GB ram /// 8400M GS /// OCZ Vertex 2 60GB ded :(

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •