Fx-55...?

[patio furniture]

i was really deadset about getting the FX-55, but is it really worth the $850+ pricetag? Or would one rather recommend getting the 4000+ or the 3800+?

ive read some mixed reviews that have been changin my mind a bit.

 

i just need some input lol B)

[tbone2sk]

I would really only get a fx-55 if you are going to be benching. If you want to overclock a lot, then the fx-55 is the right chip. You can save a lot of money by just buying a winnie, which will be close to the speed of a fx-55 with a little overclocking. What are you going to be doing with this comp?

Edited February 11, 2005 by tjohnson1988

[cold_snipe]

EDITED

 

oo ok sorry about that, then id say go with a lower one

Edited February 11, 2005 by cold_snipe

[txtiggerr]

unless you HAVE to have the "best chip" out there I would gor 4 a 3000 or 3200 and clock it up to 2.6 Ghz only difference then would be cache and it is not that important from what I have seen of the reviews

[tbone2sk]

No I do mean that a fx-55 is a much better overclocking chip then a winnie. You have to have the right cooling, but the fx-55 is a much better overclocker than a winnie.

[patio furniture]

well the main thing id be doing with this comp is gaming and digital animations/graphic editing

 

im just wondering if theres main differences in the technology used, essentially which would be better in the long run being that processors dont have a long time span in the tech world

edit: come to think of it a lot of hardware doesnt

Edited February 11, 2005 by patio furniture

[GregP24]

No I do mean that a fx-55 is a much better overclocking chip then a winnie. You have to have the right cooling, but the fx-55 is a much better overclocker than a winnie.

416804[/snapback]

 

I don't see many 700mhz OC's on FX-55s unless you they are PS cooled. Winnies will do 700mhz OCs no problem.

[tbone2sk]

Yes, but a fx-55 is very fast in the first place. If you are not going to be doing anything extreme I would get a winnie. If you want to overclock than get a 3000 and save some money.

[ccokeman]

1mb L2 cache helps in the performance dept. Vs 512 for the winchester.

[Nuclear]

I don't see many 700mhz OC's on FX-55s unless you they are PS cooled. Winnies will do 700mhz OCs no problem.

416808[/snapback]

 

True, but a 700MHz OC on a Winchester will still get whupped by a 300MHz FX-55 OC.

 

You can't compare a Winchester to a FX chip. It's like comparing apples to oranges. If you want the best, get a FX-55. If you want something affordable, get a Winchester.

[patio furniture]

what about an oc on just the 4000+, with the amd price drops, i found one online for $649 boxed

[Kash]

Not to start anything ugly here, but you said that you want it primarily for gaming and digital animations/graphics editing, and if rendering times are REALLY important to you, then you might want to consider a Pentium 4, since they're better at the whole video/graphics editing area.

 

Now, if you do editing only occassionally and do much more gaming, then I would suggest going for an AMD processor. Now, if you're not really interested in going for EXTREME overclocks, and you CAN afford chips in excess of $600, then I would suggest the 4000+, which you can just OC to FX-55 speeds (it's only a 200MHz overclock, easily done), and save yourself a bundle of cash.

 

Of course, if you DO want to overclock like crazy, then I would suggest getting at most a 3500 Winchester and going all out with it. A 3500+ is clocked at 2.2 GHz and is only $300, which is MUCH less than the FX-55, especially if you're willing to do extreme overclocks. With the right amount of cooling, a 400MHz OC to FX-55 levels shouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

I know you want to get the latest and greatest out there. The problem is that the latest and greatest can be had for MUCH less if you're willing to put in a little work. Plus, we all want you to save up that money and buy some kick-butt RAM anyway.