What are the limiting factors... 21 replies

Please wait...

C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

55 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#11 14 years ago

Oh, it's compatible (or will be with a BIOS flash).

Doesn't make the chip any less of a ripoff, though.




N88TR

Old school pimp

50 XP

10th February 2004

0 Uploads

9,921 Posts

0 Threads

#12 14 years ago

But no other AMD runs at 2.8 ghz. I only want the best, and the FX 57 is widely known as that. When I upgrade [like now with the chip] I want it to last for a long time. Eventually, I'll move to SLI and PCI-E, so then I can take the chip with me. I'm trying to think ahead.




Dragokatzov

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

24th January 2005

0 Uploads

1,363 Posts

0 Threads

#13 14 years ago
C38368The FX isn't worth it. Not even close. Buy a 4000+ and bump the clock a little. Or just leave it stock (which is functionally identical to an FX55) and give up the .5fps that it'll cost you. Not worth it at all.

I agree. The 4000+ is a little slower than the FX-57, but for all intensive purposes, a 4000+ will do you just fine. The 4000+ is less than half the price of the FX-57, well, here in Canada atleast




amoreelitesoldier

Back from the dead!

50 XP

8th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,047 Posts

0 Threads

#14 14 years ago

Yes Captain, the FX-57 is the fastest single-core AMD Athlon 64 processor available. That doesn't mean it's worth the outrageous price tag.

(from NewEgg)

FX-57 = $1,011

A64 4000+ = $334

That's such an incredible rip-off that it could almost qualify as theft...




Dragokatzov

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

24th January 2005

0 Uploads

1,363 Posts

0 Threads

#15 14 years ago
amoreelitesoldierYes Captain, the FX-57 is the fastest single-core AMD Athlon 64 processor available. That doesn't mean it's worth the outrageous price tag. (from NewEgg) FX-57 = $1,011 A64 4000+ = $334 That's such an incredible rip-off that it could almost qualify as theft...

ever wounder why they do not sell the FX-53 anymore? The fx-53, like the 55 and 57 are redicusly overpriced, but they are the SAME thing as a 4000+, exact same! except the multipliers are unlocked




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#16 14 years ago

Well I am happy for you getting the FX57. It will last a long time. You will have the fastest single core processor out there for home use. Congrats on your new processor. You will love the thing.

But one thing I would of goten the A8N. Has a lot better chipset.




amoreelitesoldier

Back from the dead!

50 XP

8th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,047 Posts

0 Threads

#17 14 years ago

Isn't the 4000+ the same as the FX-53? If I recall correctly, AMD renamed the 53 to the 4000+.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

55 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#18 14 years ago
Captain AmerikaBut no other AMD runs at 2.8 ghz. I only want the best, and the FX 57 is widely known as that. When I upgrade [like now with the chip] I want it to last for a long time. Eventually, I'll move to SLI and PCI-E, so then I can take the chip with me. I'm trying to think ahead.

I have a 3700+. It's running at the same clock as an FX57, and turns in better marks.

Of course, it's overclocked. But I paid less than a quarter of what the FX57 costs.




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#19 14 years ago
amoreelitesoldierIsn't the 4000+ the same as the FX-53? If I recall correctly, AMD renamed the 53 to the 4000+.

The FX53 and 4000+ bench the same and run at the same speed. Only difference between the two is the FX53 has its multi unlocked.




Dragokatzov

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

24th January 2005

0 Uploads

1,363 Posts

0 Threads

#20 14 years ago
amoreelitesoldierIsn't the 4000+ the same as the FX-53? If I recall correctly, AMD renamed the 53 to the 4000+.

the only diffrence between the 2 is that the fx-53 is unlocked multipliers. just makes it easier to overclock. thought you might be able to buy them cheap now a days, not sure, have not seen them forsame in a long time. they also had a S940 verson of it that required ECC ram. all of the FX-51'a were S940, thus requiring ECC ram