[ZmaN]

They both have the same clock speed, same amount of L2 cache, and for the most part, match up in most benchmarks that i see...

What is the difference between an Athlon 64 FX-53 and an Athlon 64 4000+


I can't find anything different between these two CPU's other than the fact that the 4000+ came out MUCH more recently than the FX-53....

[BlackDove]

Probably dual core or some **** like that.

Actually it seems intricate so go read this http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI0

[MicroPsycho]

IIRC AMD keeps the FX-line as their flagship chips, after the chips get outdated or a new FX chip comes along the previous chip is renamed. So the 4000+ is the FX-53.

[phatosealpha]

I think the FX-53 was built on the older 130 nm process, so it might run a bit hotter.  Also, some FX-53, or possibly all of them use socket 940, limiting your motherboard choices.  There may be 939 FX-53s out there though, so don't quote me on that.  All FX chips are multiplier unlocked, while regular A64s are only downwardly unlocked.  Additionally, I think the older FX chips have the same memory issues when running 4 dimms that the older A64s did. 

[CP5670]

Which processors are you talking about exactly? There is a 940 CG FX53, a 939 CG FX53, a 939 CG 4000 and a 939 E4 4000. The 939 FX53 has an unlocked multiplier but is otherwise identical to the CG 4000.

[ZmaN]

Which processors are you talking about exactly? There is a 940 CG FX53, a 939 CG FX53, a 939 CG 4000 and a 939 E4 4000. The 939 FX53 has an unlocked multiplier but is otherwise identical to the CG 4000.

i dont think an unlocked multiplier is worth the extra 200 bucks over the 4000+....  I'll be getting either that CPU or... naa, the dual core 2.4 ghz X2 cost like 600-800 bucks, that wont be happening...

[GO_Saturn]

i think the XP and the  FX differ in this  way  the FX  has the  onboard memory  controller which is   usually found in the  northbridge chip on lower class Athy XP and Intel class  products which doesnt have such intergration