Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+




  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    110

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    lol, I feel like I say this every time I post, but money doesn't matter. I already got my water system and have spent a lot on it.

    This is my spreadsheet I use to keep track of the new rig I'm building. It might give you a better idea of what I'm trying to do here.

    http://members.cox.net/bobby74213/rig.jpg

    I'm probably gonna end up doubling up on the HDD's too. RAID 0 with two raptors and RAID 1 with another 400gb Hitachi. I'd like to water cool them but that seems like just too many tubes.

    I think I'm gonna go with the 4000+, I don't know... It just seems to be more popular overall. It's so hard to decide, though.
    Last edited by Bobby74213; 05-18-2005 at 12:36 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,525

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    The 4000+ is what use to be the FX53 but with the multiplier upwards locked though it is still based on the original 130nm Sledgehammer core where as the FX55 is still of the same breed but the build process has the added SOI process added for a little better performance so out of the two I'd go the FX55 if money is no option (but with my money I'd go a lower clocked Venice core and overclock the *******).

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobby74213
    I think I'm gonna go with the 4000+, I don't know... It just seems to be more popular overall. It's so hard to decide, though.
    Than the X2s that are already out, or the lower-clocked Venices (and formerly Winchesters)? The venices are much more popular, and a better choice for OCing. In any case, you ought to get the FX55. I'm not quite sure why you're even considering the 4000. I'd never consider it except for a non-OCed system with limited budget. If you OC, the FX55 and Venices are better. If you have unlimited money, the FX55 is better anyway.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    110

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    FX-55 it is. I just checked for it on Newegg and now it looks like there's another FX-55 that's about $75 more, called the FX-55 San Diego (Hey that's where I live). Well after comparing the two, the only differences I notice are the San Diego core is 90 nm and the Clawhammer/Sledgehammer is 130 nm (Is lower better?) and the FSB is listed as 1 Ghz for the SD, while the latter just says integrated into chip.

    I plan on doing a little more research on this San Diego core, but have you guys heard anything about it?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,525

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    If you can grap a San Diego then do so.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    110

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    From the articles I've read it seems that 90nm is better than .13 microns. Could someone please explain the difference?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    It is made on a smaller core process so it puts out less heat and often gives better overclocking. Even that as an aside, the San Diego core is a newer technology and even if it weren't smaller, it still incorporates advances in the microprocessor arena that will aid in performance.
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    VIC, Australia
    Posts
    16

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    1000 BUCk for the case?? what kinda case is that?? too bad you brought it already, you could of just brought the material and enjoy making it and mod it even if u made it badly with that money u can just buy another one and try it again

    It is made on a smaller core process so it puts out less heat and often gives better overclocking. Even that as an aside, the San Diego core is a newer technology and even if it weren't smaller, it still incorporates advances in the microprocessor arena that will aid in performance.
    As Darthtanion says fx -55 Saniego Core 90nm is better than 130nm in either way (heat, technology) and it seems you are loaded go for fx-55 for gaming or the x2(dual processor) if u planing to do muti task things.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    110

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    Yeah, the case was really expensive. $500 alone for the paint job. You should check out their website: www.wahoocomputers.com

    Well, I bought the FX-55 San Diego core. Once the case gets in I should be ready to build.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •