AMD FX 53, or AMD something else

[Maschulo]

Whats up guys got a question

The Amd FX 53 in Newegg is still above $800.

The Amd 3500+ is under $400.

is it worth buying the FX53 to play games.. i want the best but am not going to spend 800 on a processor..
and they say that the FX53 is the fastest but for 800 no way...

now another one that is looking good to me is the 3800+
now witch one should i pick to play my games in nov. the 3500, 3800... or just keep waiting and see if the FX53 goes under 700 before nov witch i doubt pls help.. any input will be good...

 

[Mik3y]

by the time the 4000+ comes out, it'll beat the fx-53 and will still be cheaper then $700. either get the 3800+ now or wait a month or so til the 4000+ comes out.

 

[EightySix Four]

the FX-53 is mainly for the oc'ers, cuz with some compressor cooling, you can hit like 3ghz on those things

 

[Maschulo]

any links on this 4000+ so i can read up on ????

 

[masshass81]

The FX-53 is the fastest, but the speed difference is definitely not worth the hefty price, especially for someone like you who is not willing to spend so much on a cpu...

I think the best bang for your buck right now would be 90nm s939 A64 3200+ for $233 (OEM)

Or maybe even the A64 3500+ for about $330 retail, but I dont think the 3800+ is worth it, especially for over $600... Check these s939 gaming benchmarks You'll see that the 3500+ is almost on par with the 3800+.. Spending that extra $250 for an extra ~3fps is not worth it IMO.. But hell yeah I would love to have one if I had money coming out the wazoo.. Anyway, You will see much more noticeable performance gains if you invest the money you saved from the processor into a bleeding edge graphics card (GeForce 6800Ultra) and more memory. :thumbsup:

How much are you looking to spend btw? We are able to recommend a more specific system if you state your price range.

 

[masshass81]

Originally posted by: Maschulo
any links on this 4000+ so i can read up on ????

AMD Samples Athlon 64 4000+, FX-55 Chips, but on 130nm

 

[Maschulo]

Thanks alot guys i know what to do now.

 

[masshass81]

Originally posted by: Maschulo
Thanks alot guys i know what to do now.

Aww c'mon you can't say that and not tell us what you're planning to get! :brokenheart:

 

[Maschulo]

LOLOL, ok ok sorry

am going to wait till almost the end of October if the 3800 goes down in price even further then that is what i will get but if not then i will get the 3500 and be happy till prices go down sometime in January.. and then upgrade to something else... so what do you think??

In other words am looking at the 3500

 

[masshass81]

Originally posted by: Maschulo
LOLOL, ok ok sorry

am going to wait till almost the end of October if the 3800 goes down in price even further then that is what i will get but if not then i will get the 3500 and be happy till prices go down sometime in January.. and then upgrade to something else... so what do you think??

In other words am looking at the 3500

I'm thinking: Damn you're rich, getting a 3500+ and then upgrading 3-4 months later! :Q The 3500+ should last you a while. Besides, since this is a gaming rig, youre better off upgrading to dual PCIe instead of another cpu.

 

[Maschulo]

nah, am not rich, lets see what happens when i use the 3500+ with the Asus V9999 Ultra (Nvidia 6800 ultra) if it runs great then i will stay with it.. just time will tell, lets see how EQ2 reachs to it.. only time will tell

 

[Ironmanstl]

From what I have read a 3800 was almost inline with an fx-53, lagging not far behind, if any
and now that I have one I would have to agree

I was set to buy a 3400, then to my amazement saw a 3800 on the shelf...


Glad I went with the 3800

 

[caz67]

3800+ is a better choice, better value for money than the FX53

 

[Manzelle]

From what I can tell between the 3800+ and the FX-53 aside from the price...is the fact that the FX-53 is unlocked which is quite nice...worth the extra cash? Maybe to some...

 

[masshass81]

besides, with the 3500+ (2.2Ghz), you only have to OC it 200Mhz to get it clocked at 3800+ (2.4Ghz) speeds :thumbsup:

 

[clarkey01]

"by the time the 4000+ comes out, it'll beat the fx-53 and " by Mik3y


Sorry, they both run at the same speed (2.4Ghz) , both dual channel, both have 1 Meg cache, both 939. I dont see a difference, there appear to be the same spec, hence the same performance.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
"by the time the 4000+ comes out, it'll beat the fx-53 and " by Mik3y


Sorry, they both run at the same speed (2.4Ghz) , both dual channel, both have 1 Meg cache, both 939. I dont see a difference, there appear to be the same spec, hence the same performance.

the fact that they run the same clockspeed isnt important. the fact taht they can both run dual channel is negligible, and 1 mb cache isnt too important either. they are both different cores, which has a lot of meaning. the a64 3700+ is at 2.4ghz and has 1mb L2 cache. since dual channel has less then a few percent of advantange in memory performance, the overall system performance is increased by less then 1%. therefore, this means the conversion to socket 939 will make it equivalent to a 3800+, and the fx-53 as barely any faster then the 3800+ (only a few fps). remember how the fx-51 wasnt much faster then the 3400+? well, the 3500+ is as fast as it now.

 

[clarkey01]

the specs the same tho, so what makes in your view the fx53 faster >?

the 3700+ (2.4ghz) is not dual channel, hence why its not a 3800+.