Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+




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

    Default FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    If money was not a problem, which of these processors would be best being used with a DFI Lanparty SLI-DR, OCZ PC4000 VX and Sapphire X850XT?

    I don't know much about overclocking, but will the ability to overclock the processor affect the ability to overclock the RAM?

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

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    For default setting performance the FX will be the winner, but if you have any thoughts of overclocking in the future, take a look at the new Venice core processors that are out (the 4000+ still uses the Hammer series core). The Venice core processors use the newer 90nm process, put out less heat and overclock very well.
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    110

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    I plan to overclock the RAM, but I don't know if that means I have to overlcok the CPU also. Can you overclock one without doing the other?

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

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    It is best to overclock the entire system if your components are up to the task. This gives you better overall speed in most applications instead of just giving you a higher memory bandwidth. The FX series of processor just downright sucks when it comes to OC'ing the speed. Even with phase change cooling, the speeds are not all that high over default. It is a very strong and solid processor, but it just doesn't play well with tweaking.
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    870

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    Not trying to be an ass here, but why did you get yourself a DFI NF4 SLI-DR if you bought an X850XT, and therefor gave up the possability of actulay using the SLI feature.
    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

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

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    That was the original plan, but I decided not to go that route. I figure this way I'll still have the option open, plus, if I remember correctly, I think the SLI-DR has a better chipset than the Ultra.

    So you would say, to achieve the best speed, I would be better off with a 4000+ or 3500+. I'm just looking for the best speed I can possibly get, whether it be overclocked or out of the box.
    Last edited by Bobby74213; 05-17-2005 at 05:24 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,525

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    If that's the case then why not just get an "Venice" cored Athlon 64 3200+ as these are not only cheap but will usually overclock to between 2.6-2.8GHz and then when the Athlon 64 X2's finally arrive you can toss the cheap 3200+ for a real powerhouse CPU. ;)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    110

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    So you're saying an overclocked venice core processor will run faster than a 4000+? That just doesn't seem right. I've got around $800 to spend on a processor, and, with the system I'm building, a $200 processor just doesn't seem right.

    I've noticed in a lot of tweaktown reviews and benchtesting they've used the 4000+, which is why that was my original choice.

    Those X2's do look really appealing, being dual core and all, but it seemed to me the 4000+ did just as good, if not better in most of the bench tests.
    Last edited by Bobby74213; 05-17-2005 at 11:59 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    Either the 3200+ or the 3500+ will do very well. If you have money to spend, then go for the "cheap" processor and get yourself some water cooling to make it run even better!
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default Re: FX-55 vs Athlon 4000+

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobby74213
    So you're saying an overclocked venice core processor will run faster than a 4000+? That just doesn't seem right. I've got around $800 to spend on a processor, and, with the system I'm building, a $200 processor just doesn't seem right.
    Regardless of how it seems, a Venice will clock higher than the 4000, and the X2s perform much better, unless you have a completely clean system used for nothing but gaming, meaning you have nothing, not even antivirus running in the background while playing a game.

    As for the motheboard, you are right. The SLI board comes with an extra RAID controller that allows for more SATA/RAID, including RAID 5, which isn't supported on the other one.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •