AMD 64 Question

well by then ps3 will come out and ill be off my comp and on the consol so it wont matter how many bits weve got.
 
FlamingTeddiz said:
Ok thanks, but i have another question, its more general. What is the difference between the fx 53 and the 3400 besides its more expensive, .2ghz faster and different core? I only see the differences on newegg, is the buss speed different?

the FX-53 uses a different core and it comes with the multipliers unlocked. Fx-53 also has more cache.
 
skunx710 said:
Well, lets see windows xp was released in 2001? And we have just now gotten to the point of "stable" three years later isn't bad I suppose.
But 64 bit will not release til like middle of 2005, so lets call it 2008 and we shall have a windows 64 bit "stable" os...maybe


this is all based on the assumption that Mr. Gates will be pulling double-shifts for the next 3 years like he has the past 3.......RIGHT!
Haha; 64-bit will be mid 2005 for XP... but thats not really important other than for the releases of Intel's 64-bit Chips. Longhorn will be 64-bit though; so it'll be mid 2005 before we have a reasonable Windows for 64-bits, mid 2006 before we have a great 64-bit OS.
 
Indeed, :(. I hate the fact that Microsoft and Intel are in cahoots with one another, and 64Bit OS will probably come when Intels lame 64Bit chips are released! (BOOOO INTEL, YOU SCUM!!)

Personally, I know that main difference between the FX series and normal Athlon64 is their cores, and the fact that the processor FX series is optimized for visual processing with its Sledgehammer core. Other than that, no differences. If you are going for gaming, go FX series, otherwise if you are into games, but not a hardcore gamer, go standard ATHLON64. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom