Originally posted by: AznKwaiJai
Yea, I feel the same way. Even though I did order it yesterday, is there someone who can reassure me that I made a good purchase? I have a 3000+ Venice clocked at 2.6Ghz.
Um.. well this is an FX chip which means it has 1MB of L2, unlocked multiplyer,
A 3200+ for example, has 512KB of L2, locked.. wont clock nearly as high even if it was unlocked.
For those on S939, this is a great way to delay the move to dual core till ALL games and apps utilize multiple cores.
This is the fastest single core ever made, besides the AMD FX57. Cant get a 57 for $139 measly bucks.
Oh, and if you dont end up wanting your FX, it wont be to hard to get rid of it for the price of entry on this chip. I'm pretty sure if you needed a computer for grandma or a spare, a FX55 would be fast enough to get the job done
The only place this chip gets creamed is in dual core apps.. which in gaming are few and far between. I'm not convinced to go dualcore yet. For my casual desktop use, I'm not going to be "AAAARRGGHHHHH MEINE FX55 IS TO SLOWES!"
Oh, and this is the Sandiego 90nm core. This wouldnt be hot if it were the old clawhammer 130nm version (which I'm guessing barely hit its stock 2.6).
Its pretty tough to knock a $139 FX55 purchase any way you look at it. Keeps me from having to switch out for C2D, new board + ram.
And the other guy said the FX55 is "only" 20% faster than a stock 3200+.. first of all that largely depends on the benchmark and the bottleneck. Also, Conroe is "only" 20% faster than A64 and people dont try to minimalize the performance improvement C2D brought.. which is -not- small or pitiful in the CPU arena. So its equally hard to bash this chip.
You made the right decision and really cant go wrong here. Thats my opinion.