Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    110

    Default 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

    A lot of people are recommending the 3500+ 90nm for the new nforce4 boards, but I don't understand why. It would seem the 3800+, 4000+ and FX-53 would be better choices, but they don't seem to get much attention. Is it because of the price or does the 3500+ have better overclocking abilities?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

    FX processors suck when it comes to overclocking; and yes, I'm speaking from personal experience. But as far as overall horsepower is concerned, I'll still knock more than a few heads right off in terms of sheer performance. But yes, the price seems to be prohibitive for a lot of users... well, maybe MOST users.
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    _
    Posts
    349

    Default Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

    The 4000+ and FX-53 have 1mb of cache, but other than that, an overclocked 3500 90nm (and 3000\3200) will likely be just as fast when overclocked to 2.4ghz (which is fairly easy), and more efficient in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation, as well as being better value for money.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobby74213
    A lot of people are recommending the 3500+ 90nm for the new nforce4 boards, but I don't understand why. It would seem the 3800+, 4000+ and FX-53 would be better choices, but they don't seem to get much attention. Is it because of the price or does the 3500+ have better overclocking abilities?
    Both. The 3500 can out-OC the 4000/FX-53 on most setups, but if you can afford a 4000 without cutting heavily in other areas, it's worth it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Placitas, New Mexico
    Posts
    193

    Default Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

    Isn't the 4000+ a rebadged, cheaper FX-53?
    Intel Pentium 4 2.53GHZ 533FSB
    1024MB PC-3200 DDR-SDRAM
    Sapphire Radeon 9800PRO 128MB
    Foxconn 865-PE6LS Motherboard
    Western Digital WD400BB 40GB, Western Digital WD600BB 60GB Hard Drives
    POWTEC Demon 480W PSU
    Dell UltraSharp 18001FP 18" LCD Monitor
    Windows XP Professional SP2

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    870

    Default Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

    Yes but with a locked multi, the FX chips have no multiplier locks what-so-ever.
    My Current Rigs:
    Antec P180, OCZ Powerstream 520W, DFI nF4 SLI-DR Expert, AMD X2 4400 w/XP120(2.6GHz@1.45v), 2x1GB OCZ Platnium PC3200, BFG 7900GT@592/800(1.6), WD 250GB SATA, Maxtor 120GB IDE, LG DVD/CD Combo(black), Sony DRU-810 DL DVD Burner(black)
    3DMark01:25379, 3DMark03:19746
    3DMark05:9294, 3DMark06:5340

    Raidmax Cobra, Fortron PN-400W, ASUS A8N-E(nF4 Ultra), X2 3800 w/AMD heatpipe cooler, 2x 512MB Crucial Balistix, ATI X300, WD 250GB IDE, Samsung 16x DVD/RW

  7. #7

    Default Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

    Quote Originally Posted by Darthtanion
    FX processors suck when it comes to overclocking; and yes, I'm speaking from personal experience. But as far as overall horsepower is concerned, I'll still knock more than a few heads right off in terms of sheer performance. But yes, the price seems to be prohibitive for a lot of users... well, maybe MOST users.
    there were plenty of people willing to pay $1000+ for Intel's now antiquated "EE" chips not so long ago...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    _
    Posts
    349

    Default Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

    there were plenty of people willing to pay $1000+ for Intel's now antiquated "EE" chips not so long ago...
    Thats because you can squeeze alot of mhz out of them, along with most P4s (assuming you have some extreme kind of cooling, and a good motherboard)

  9. #9

    Default Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

    I think you missed my point there, but it wasn't relevant anyway :)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    _
    Posts
    349

    Default Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

    Well theres always some people who will pay that much. The business term for the EE's marketing would be "skimming and creaming", in other words taking large profits per unit from the top 1% of buyers who are willing to purchase the EE.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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