939 fx53 vs 4000+

csimoncsimon Acadiana Icrontian
edited May 2005 in Hardware
So what's the difference between these two procs other than price?
I mean other than the different core ...can they be that much different?
Is it worth the price difference or is it merely a superficial difference?


Model: AMD Athlon 64
Core: Sledgehammer
Operating Frequency: 2.4GHz
FSB: Integrated into Chip
Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/ 1MB
Voltage: 1.5V
Process: 0.13Micron
Socket: Socket 939

Model: AMD Athlon 64 FX-53
Core: ClawHammer
Operating Frequency: 2.4GHz
FSB: Integrated into Chip
Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/1MB
Voltage: 1.5V
Process: 0.13Micron
Socket: Socket 939

Comments

  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited March 2005
    I was wondering that as well when I first heard of the 4000+.

    The only thing I could think of was that AMD would up the L2 cache of the FX line to keep them above the A64 line of products.
  • csimoncsimon Acadiana Icrontian
    edited March 2005
    In reading MediaMans article this is what I'm finding ...

    apparantly the HyperXPort bandwidth is affected.

    AMD Athlon 64 FX-53
    MediaMan wrote:
    128 bit registered ...Up to 12.8 GB/sec (6.4 GB/sec HyperTransport bandwidth plus 6.4 GB/sec memory bandwidth)

    AMD Athlon 64
    MediaMan wrote:
    128 bit Unbuffered ...Up to 14.4 GB/sec (8 GB/sec HyperTransport bandwidth plus 6.4 GB/sec memory bandwidth)

    so I'm seeing that the fx-55 claw now permits unbuffered mem besides the up in frequency.
  • EQuitoEQuito SoCal, USA
    edited March 2005
    If you're thinking about buying a new CPU I'd suggest you wait a little longer as the new cores are comming.
    IIRC, these new cores are FX-55's with half the cache like the "Venice" core already showing up in Europe.
  • csimoncsimon Acadiana Icrontian
    edited March 2005
    EQuito wrote:
    If you're thinking about buying a new CPU I'd suggest you wait a little longer as the new cores are comming.
    IIRC, these new cores are FX-55's with half the cache like the "Venice" core already showing up in Europe.
    Actually I'm waiting to see what toledo and turion will bring ...that puts me in about the next timeslot for upgrade.
    Meantime I'm trying to make sense of teh whole mess! ;D

    apparantly clawhammer fx-55 is practically the same as sledgehammer now spec wise. This leads me to think that fx-57 will be multi-core and a64 will remain uni-core. And probably 1207 pin.
  • lemonlimelemonlime Canada Member
    edited March 2005
    The FX53 and 4000+ are essentially the same chip. The only real difference is that the FX chips have completely unlocked multipliers, and the A64's are only reverse unlocked (i.e can only be set lower).

    Also, Only the socket 940 FX53 requires registered DDR, the 939 operates on the same unbuffered memory that the A64 line does.

    FX53 is very poor in the price:performance department, 4000+ is a much better buy presently. A lot of retailers are dropping the clawhammer prices to make way for the venice/san diego core chips.
  • Tester2000Tester2000
    edited May 2005
    lemonlime wrote:
    The FX53 and 4000+ are essentially the same chip. The only real difference is that the FX chips have completely unlocked multipliers, and the A64's are only reverse unlocked (i.e can only be set lower).


    The new Venice core is supposingly the best of the 64 for overclocking, do you think its becoz he has completely unlocked multipliers like the FX?
  • deicistdeicist Manchester, UK
    edited May 2005
    Tester2000 wrote:
    The new Venice core is supposingly the best of the 64 for overclocking, do you think its becoz he has completely unlocked multipliers like the FX?

    Nope, the venice core A64s are only unlocked downward, same as any other A64. The better overclocking performance comes because they run cooler than other cores, and the integrated memory controller is of a higher quality than previous cores.
  • MedlockMedlock Miramar, Florida Member
    edited May 2005
    deicist wrote:
    Nope, the venice core A64s are only unlocked downward, same as any other A64. The better overclocking performance comes because they run cooler than other cores, and the integrated memory controller is of a higher quality than previous cores.
    I also heard something about new technologies like strained silicon and something else... Supposedly the transistors switch on and off faster or something, theoretically allowing it to run at higher clock speeds. :scratch:
  • GooDGooD Quebec (CAN) Member
    edited May 2005
    Me i've decided to wait a little to have my hand on the 4000+ San Diego Core for my new computer... That's why my computer is not ready yet because i've ordered it from a local store (for the free in-store warranty). They will recieve it in mid-june... I count the days now, less than one month ! :cool:

    With what i've read about the FX-53, compared to what the 4000+ has to offer it is a waste a precious money to buy a FX-53 !

    For me the real choice was between 4000+ and fx-55, but i've decided to save some bucks on the CPU to be able to buy an ATI X850 XT, some OCZ VX memory, a lian li case and a P&C 510 express PSU :thumbsup:

    So, i think if you can't buy the fx-55 , go with the 4000+ for sure and wait for the new core (if you don't buy it on the net you'll probably have to wait ~1 month like me)
  • Tester2000Tester2000
    edited May 2005
    GooD wrote:
    Me i've decided to wait a little to have my hand on the 4000+ San Diego Core for my new computer... That's why my computer is not ready yet because i've ordered it from a local store (for the free in-store warranty). They will recieve it in mid-june... I count the days now, less than one month ! :cool:

    With what i've read about the FX-53, compared to what the 4000+ has to offer it is a waste a precious money to buy a FX-53 !

    For me the real choice was between 4000+ and fx-55, but i've decided to save some bucks on the CPU to be able to buy an ATI X850 XT, some OCZ VX memory, a lian li case and a P&C 510 express PSU :thumbsup:

    So, i think if you can't buy the fx-55 , go with the 4000+ for sure and wait for the new core (if you don't buy it on the net you'll probably have to wait ~1 month like me)


    I c... the thing is i bought me a VapoChill LS and I'm not sure what type of CPU is best to buy in order to take full advantage of ist OC CPU cooling.

    At this stage the FX sounds like the best choice since its compleatly unlocked and i'll be taking the OC further than i could by means of air or water cooling.

    Humm... I wonder how EQuito's Athlon64 4000+ performes with his VapoChill LS unit.
  • GooDGooD Quebec (CAN) Member
    edited May 2005
    Oh i see, me i've decided to go with a Thermalrigth XP-90C, i'm not what we can call an 'extreme overclocker' so for me it'll be just perfect !

    I've never heard of this VapoChill before ... The fact is i don't read a lot about those stuff, but to what i've just read about that... that seem to be quite a cooling beast ! Man how does it cost ? If you can buy something like this maybe you have enough of that precious money to get a fx-55 ?

    If not, then it's only my opinion again but i think you'll be plenty satisfied with the 4000+ (compare to the price/performance that the fx-53 has to offer)

    But maybe you'll want to wait the opinion of an 'hardcore' overclocker to make your decision ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.