Is the AMD 64 4000+ the same as the fx-53?

[wse_jack]

-This is more related to HL2 on the fact that I only have been playing HL2 since gettin this cpu.

When I went to go buy a new CPU last week, I was looking for that special something that Advanced Micro Devices brings to the world of gaming; large ****ing amounts of kick-ass. I fell just short of the cash for the fx-55 and was going for the fx-53 when the sales dude told me that the fx-53 was going to not be on production line any longer, due to the fx-55 and that the same thing was the 4000+. He said that it was built on fx technology and that in some ways was even better than the fx-53 as far as gaming is concerned. So in a rush to play HL2 (my old CPU burned out on an overclocking error) I bought it; but now I am having seccond thoughts I looked online and found that the 4000+ was going for about 715$ and the fx-53 was about 811$; that made me worried that I made a mistake some where in my choice of the 4000+.

Is it the same or better or is it totaly unrelated to the fx series? cause I dont want to get short handed when it comes to Half-Life 2 performance.


PS: If you want to come an tell me that amd is crap and intel is god, **** off. Just cause it clocks slower don't mean it's wore for gaming power, and untill Intell releases its 64 bit CPU in May, the amd fx-55 is the best CPU for a windows based PC out there, and when Intell does release it's 64 bit CPU, AMD will still kick its ass in gaming power.

 

[Spartan]

I'm sure that your AMD64 4000+ will be too slow to run HL2. Your only option is to buy the fastest server processor on the market and overclock it using liquid nitrogen.

 

[flupke]

@ spartan : i second that.

 

[jonnyapps]

i'd oc it to 55 speeds. that's the only way you can achieve 10x more fps than your eye can see

 

[wse_jack]

funny but I work at safeway and thats 6666666666666666 steps closer to hell than I would like to be, I worked my ass off for that CPU.

-but seriously is it better than the fx-53?

 

[rose 1138]

ha ha read an article about a guy doing that in PCgamer UK ed december copy, anyhoo, they overclocked a 3.1Ghz processor to 6.0Ghz, using a motherboard outside of the case, by an open window and a lot of wound copper wire and liquid nitrogen,

I believe it was as stable as your mate after a mid afternoon drinking session at around 4 am the next day. Yikes, but yay for students, pushing the barriers of sanity and ...yes their own safety!!

 

[Para]

ha ha read an article about a guy doing that in PCgamer UK ed december copy, anyhoo, they overclocked a 3.1Ghz processor to 6.0Ghz, using a motherboard outside of the case, by an open window and a lot of wound copper wire and liquid nitrogen,

I believe it was as stable as your mate after a mid afternoon drinking session at around 4 am the next day. Yikes, but yay for students, pushing the barriers of sanity and ...yes their own safety!!

It was most likely macci (yet another crazy Finn), check out his website @ http://www.akiba-pc.com

 

[Grumpy]

Yes, FX 53 and 4000+ are basically the same CPU. Socket 939 2.4 Ghz 1 Meg Cache..last I looked anyhows

 

[Unfocused]

You think you're processor is neat? Look at this pic: (it's not edited just a raw screenshot)

 

[crackhead]

u dont know what your talkin about the amd 64 3200 runs half life 2 amazing well on full graphics full everything 16x anti whaterery filltering so im sure the fx wateva version is much better u know its not the speed of the cpu that counts and 64 bit enviroment is the way of the future! a new revolution is apun us! but yet they havnt released the xp 64 for sum reason

 

[crackhead]

wow wow wow 5.6 ghz what the how the who the arghhh explain

 

[kaGhaaZ]

how the hell do you have such a cpu? damn im feelin so small with my 2100

 

[Spartan]

He doesn't. It's just some error of HL2, or maybe a case of missing CPU drivers.

 

[KagePrototype]

or it's a photoshop.

 

[doomed - uk]

ha ha read an article about a guy doing that in PCgamer UK ed december copy, anyhoo, they overclocked a 3.1Ghz processor to 6.0Ghz, using a motherboard outside of the case, by an open window and a lot of wound copper wire and liquid nitrogen,

I believe it was as stable as your mate after a mid afternoon drinking session at around 4 am the next day. Yikes, but yay for students, pushing the barriers of sanity and ...yes their own safety!!

Tom's Hardware did that up to 5.25 GHz last year, maybe that gave them the idea.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031230/index.html

Photos of ice on the motherboard:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031230/images/kondensat3.jpg

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031230/images/kondensat4.jpg

 

[Unfocused]

or it's a photoshop.

I said it wasn't edited.

Yes it is an error. After some HL2 tweaking this appeared. I've got a Pentium 2,8Ghz.

 

[Bobcat]

To answer your question:
Yes, the 4000+ is better than the FX-53.

 

[Ebenol]

You think you're processor is neat? Look at this pic: (it's not edited just a raw screenshot)

My 3200+ did that too, it said it was 7.something GHz. That'd be really neat.

 

[Ollibolli]

The only difference between the 4000+ and the FX53 is that the higher multipliers are locked on the 4000+, other than that, they are the exact same processor. So unless you plan to do some (very) serious overclocking (and why would you buy that processor if you intended to do that?) you are better off with the cheaper 4000+.

 

[mattgirv]

To the person who posted the screenshot of Half Life 2 seeing a 5.2GHZ CPU, if you load Half Life 2 under stress (lots of CPU processes running) it will misread your CPU.

I've had something like 3.6GHZ before