3500+ Vs. Fx-53

[LoudHoward]

Hi people.

Pretty soon I will be upgrading to a S939 system and I was wondering which one of the two chips I should choose. I know it sounds like a dumb question so let me elaborate. What would give me more performance at it's max overclock? I have noticed that certian 90nm 3500+ chips have done 3GHZ on air. I know that an FX-53 wouldn't be likely to manage this, maybe 2.8 @ the most.

So, which would give the highest overclocked performance on a watercooled system? A 3GHZ 3500 + or a 2.8 GHZ FX-53?

Would a 4000+ be something to consider

Thanks for your time.

[Nitrox]

Actually that 90nm at 3Ghz would be faster than the FX-53 on all fronts, so that makes choosing easy doesn't it? :D
The 4000+ is basically an FX-53 with a locked multi, makes no sense to me...

[Whodini]

Good luck spotting a 3500+ that will do 3Ghz on air though :( Those are even beyond extraodinary chips ;).

[Mariachi]

If you can assure you'll manage to get 3Ghz from the 3500, so get it no doubt.

I don't think 4000+ worths it, in around the same price you can get the best silicon + wafer AMD produced at that time,
and if you get a FX from week 0432 and beyond it's almost like a FX55 in terms of clockability.

Good luck :thumbsup:

[LoudHoward]

Okay, sounds good. Would a 3800+ be something to consider? I mean, since it comes higher at stock, wouldn't it have a higher chance of reaching very high clocks? Is AMD planning to make any 90nm 3800+ chips any time soon?

[Whodini]

higher stock clock doesnt necessarily mean higher overclock.

[LoudHoward]

I know that, I was just thinking that the same principle would apply to the 3500+/3800+ as to the FX-53/FX-55.

Anyone have any idea where I can get some benchmarks concerning this?

[Nitrox]

Try google ;)