3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

[Bobby74213]

A lot of people are recommending the 3500+ 90nm for the new nforce4 boards, but I don't understand why. It would seem the 3800+, 4000+ and FX-53 would be better choices, but they don't seem to get much attention. Is it because of the price or does the 3500+ have better overclocking abilities?

[Darthtanion]

Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

FX processors suck when it comes to overclocking; and yes, I'm speaking from personal experience. But as far as overall horsepower is concerned, I'll still knock more than a few heads right off in terms of sheer performance. But yes, the price seems to be prohibitive for a lot of users... well, maybe MOST users.

[sr4470]

Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

The 4000+ and FX-53 have 1mb of cache, but other than that, an overclocked 3500 90nm (and 3000\3200) will likely be just as fast when overclocked to 2.4ghz (which is fairly easy), and more efficient in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation, as well as being better value for money.

[Yawgm0th]

Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

A lot of people are recommending the 3500+ 90nm for the new nforce4 boards, but I don't understand why. It would seem the 3800+, 4000+ and FX-53 would be better choices, but they don't seem to get much attention. Is it because of the price or does the 3500+ have better overclocking abilities?

Both. The 3500 can out-OC the 4000/FX-53 on most setups, but if you can afford a 4000 without cutting heavily in other areas, it's worth it.

[joedemagio]

Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

Isn't the 4000+ a rebadged, cheaper FX-53?

[Amd_Lover2004]

Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

Yes but with a locked multi, the FX chips have no multiplier locks what-so-ever.

[tuxfreak]

Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

FX processors suck when it comes to overclocking; and yes, I'm speaking from personal experience. But as far as overall horsepower is concerned, I'll still knock more than a few heads right off in terms of sheer performance. But yes, the price seems to be prohibitive for a lot of users... well, maybe MOST users.

there were plenty of people willing to pay $1000+ for Intel's now antiquated "EE" chips not so long ago...

[sr4470]

Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

there were plenty of people willing to pay $1000+ for Intel's now antiquated "EE" chips not so long ago...

Thats because you can squeeze alot of mhz out of them, along with most P4s (assuming you have some extreme kind of cooling, and a good motherboard)

[tuxfreak]

Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

I think you missed my point there, but it wasn't relevant anyway :)

[sr4470]

Re: 3500+ 90nm vs 4000+ and FX-53

Well theres always some people who will pay that much. The business term for the EE's marketing would be "skimming and creaming", in other words taking large profits per unit from the top 1% of buyers who are willing to purchase the EE.