Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Questions about the FX-55

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 2, 2007 3:38:44 PM

I have a friend in college who needs cash and is selling his outfit.

Only trouble its, I am having trouble finding out about the chip.

Specs are

Athlon FX-55, with a gigabyte ga-k8u-939 mobo, 2gb of ddr ram running in duel channel, also included is a wireless card does a,b,and g signals and a 500w psu.

When I look up the price of the cpu, I am seeing it for like $500 or I cant find it at all. He says he paid $150 from newegg 7mos ago.

He only wants $200 for it all but I cant find much on the chip except old reviews.

Also not sure of how much an upgrade this would be.

I am currently AMD 3200+ 2.0ghz with 3 512 sticks of ddr.

Any thoughts or insights?

More about : questions

May 2, 2007 3:46:47 PM

Quote:
I have a friend in college who needs cash and is selling his outfit.

Only trouble its, I am having trouble finding out about the chip.

Specs are

Athlon FX-55, with a gigabyte ga-k8u-939 mobo, 2gb of ddr ram running in duel channel, also included is a wireless card does a,b,and g signals and a 500w psu.

When I look up the price of the cpu, I am seeing it for like $500 or I cant find it at all. He says he paid $150 from newegg 7mos ago.

He only wants $200 for it all but I cant find much on the chip except old reviews.

Also not sure of how much an upgrade this would be.

I am currently AMD 3200+ 2.0ghz with 3 512 sticks of ddr.

Any thoughts or insights?
That's a fast single-core cpu. That's also a nice price for everything. The problem is that you're buying old tech. You can probably drop an x2 into that board, when you feel it's time for dual-core....but by then....they'll be as scarce as hens teeth. There's no upgrade potential for quad-core(might not be a big deal to you), but dual-core is here now,and it's benefits are real...and noticeable. GL :) 
May 2, 2007 4:57:54 PM

Also note that he already has a 2.0GHz A64 3200+, so a 2.6 GHz FX-55 won't give him a great performance boost, especially if he's willing to OC the A64.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
May 2, 2007 5:49:17 PM

Small error, my chip runs at 2.2 with out OC'ing. According to bios, there is a option to oc it up to 11% which would take it to 2.44 if i did the math ok.

I have never OC'ed a chip before. Is it worth it? Will I notice much difference?
May 2, 2007 6:25:22 PM

OCing is worth it if you reaad up on what you're doing and have a desire to edge out the most performance out of your CPU. THE FX-55 (or any FX) were meant to be overclocked. Overall they feature the exact same core and featuere set as the other CPU's in the A64 line. With a few minor exceptions. These exceptions alone make them worth more than others.

1. Higher Binned CPU. these things have been tested to usually take more abuse, more heat, and more voltage without problems. Better quality silicon with the least ammount of variance to the design. this usually means that the higher binned CPU's will be more reliable and overclock higher.

2. Unlocked Multiplier. ONly AMD's FX Chips have an unlocked multiplier making overclocking slightly easier. with locked multipliers you have to tweak the BUS speeds and ratio's. Means more than just the CPU gets overclocked so to speak. Fault tolerance in other devices may be hit before the CPU hits its maximum overclock lending to lower overall overclocks.

Going from 2.2ghz to 2.6ghz will yield absolutely incredible results. Add to that the FX's overclockability. theoretically hitting 3ghz or more with decent cooling, and you've got yourself a pretty friggin fast machine
May 2, 2007 7:25:52 PM

I had that board and that cpu and I was only able to get 2.8 out of it on stock cooling. Besides that, if you wanna play games, most current or older games will run great on it with a good vid card. Sounds like a fair deal.
May 2, 2007 7:38:27 PM

So, I can oc my current chip to 2.4 per my bios. But I can oc a FC-55 to near 3.0 ghz which should blow away the 2.4.
a b à CPUs
May 2, 2007 7:47:27 PM

I have the dual core version of the FX-55, and I love the chip, although OCing is a little rough. You can probably OC to 2.8 w/o voltage jumps, however 3GHz would definately require a jump. My FX-60 also doesn't seem to like some Multipliers, especially the ones like 14.5.

Still a great chip. I'd go with it for that great price.
May 2, 2007 7:56:34 PM

I think that is a good buy. I have the Fx-55 also. Unless you are multitasking like mad, it will work for you just fine. Pair it with a good video card and you cant go wrong. It might be an older chip, but it is a good chip.

You didnt mention what you will be using it for, but for the average to above average person, it should do most everything you want. X2 and Dual core chips are great, but most persons dont even need that.
May 2, 2007 8:24:29 PM

I dont do much, lots internet stuff, school work. Only serious work it will do is that I play counter strike 1.6. Not a very system stressful game compared to the new ones.

I dont see me playing a game more stressful than that ever (i am getting a bit old to be playing games) . I have a x700pro AGP card which I think should mate up well with it.

I do appreciate all the responses and keep em coming. I just need to convince the wife. She gets an upgrade too to my old stuff. She has a AMD 1800? or something like that.
May 2, 2007 9:33:06 PM

As has already been said, it's old tech, but it runs fine.

I just gave my FX-55 to a friend as I've just upgraded my system (C2D E6600 - Opteron 170 is now my backup system), but I was happy with it when I had it. There are 2 revisions of this chip: 130nm and 90nm. I had the 130nm (older revision), and it ran a bit too hot for me to consider overclocking. However, considering your usage, I would say overclocking is not necessary.

It will be a small improvement on your existing system (your 3200+ @ 2.2GHz stock should be socket 754 - FX-55 is socket 939, so next generation). Together with the additional memory, there should be a noticeable difference.

What will be more noticeable is the upgrade of the other system.

I think for $200, it sounds like a bargain. However, I think you should ask him to throw in his gfx card also :lol: 
May 2, 2007 10:10:06 PM

If its 200$ buy it right now!
May 2, 2007 10:32:06 PM

Quote:
Small error, my chip runs at 2.2 with out OC'ing. According to bios, there is a option to oc it up to 11% which would take it to 2.44 if i did the math ok.

I have never OC'ed a chip before. Is it worth it? Will I notice much difference?

If your athlon clocks @ 2.2GHz, then it's a socket 754 3200+ (because the S939 is 2.0GHz), and especially if that is a 130nm chip (not so good overclocker), then for $200, i'd go with the FX-55, but then again, it's only worth (always IMO) if the FX-55 is a 90nm SanDiego core because, there are also older Clawhammer FX-55s; 130nm, hotter and not so good overclockers, so I'd have a look at this CPU with CPU-Z. My final advice set is:
__Your CPU____Your Friend's________Action
1__90nm_________90nm___________BUY
2__90nm________130nm_________DON'T BUY (your's could OC even better)
3_130nm________130nm__________MAYBE
4_130nm_________90nm___________BUY
May 2, 2007 10:52:47 PM

Buy it for 200 and sell it for 250. You get 50 bucks!

Man, I need to sleep. 8O
May 5, 2007 3:31:33 PM

I purchased the outfit. Its installed and running.

It is the 130nm clawhammer. My older cpu was the 130nm core also.

I got a nice Ultra x connect 500w psu which means I can take my wife super noisy psu out and put in my quite one. That alone is worth $50 to me.

The core runs hot, it idles at 49c. I have nice new ZALMAN CNPS-7000B-CU LED that I picked up for $30 including shipping on the way to help that.

On 3dmark06 basic version the set up scored about 70pts above my old rigs best mark that I oc'd the cpu and video. But at that mark on the old rig the system was unstable with lots of reboots.

I have monkeyed with overclocking in the bios, but I cant get it do a damn thing and I really dont understand what I am doing to much anyhow.

I did download clockgen, but I cant find my PLL thingy on the list, so I am at a loss on how to use it.

All in all, I am happy with the upgrade. On all basic settings, I am getting a solid 100FPS on CS 1.6 where as my FPS on the prev rig varied alot from 70 to peaking at 100 at times. And things just seem to be a bit better in the game (could be imagination).

I want to thank all of you for helping me. I learned alot.

If you have any comments or suggestions, I would love to hear them.
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2007 3:48:22 PM

Nice buy.

I have the Ultra X2 550W, and it seems to be a great and silent PSU.

It is unfortunate that the CPU was 130nm, that probably added 10C to your idle temp. My FX-60 (90nm, 2x2.81GHz) idles at 30C (though that is with a bigger, all copper fan and very good ventilation)

I wouldn't use Widows based OCers for the CPU, if your BIOS can't do it, don't overclock. Can you find OC settings in your BIOS? That CPU probably could only OC to 2.8GHz, so you aren't missing much w/o OC. Also, those temps are a little high. When one core is maxed on my system, the MAX temp is 45C-50C.

But, all that really matters is that it works great and is fun, which yours is, so I wouldn't worry about OCing.
May 5, 2007 3:53:52 PM

What board do you have and what chipset is it?
May 5, 2007 5:10:48 PM

Quote:
What board do you have and what chipset is it?


ga-k8u-939 its a gigabyte

Chipset is ULi M1689 Chipset

I did manage to get the computer to boot by setting the k8 cpu clock ratio to default (works out to be 13) and moving the cpu clock to 210 which works out to be 2730.

But anytime I move the "k8 cpu clock ratio" to anything but default, the system automatically makes the cpu clock 200. Dont know why or what I am missing
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2007 6:21:17 PM

You should be able to do both. The clock ratio is just what the system clock (the 200MHz) is multiplied by to get the CPU speed. I OC'ed my FX-60 to 2.81GHz simply by changing the multi to 14 (stock 13). I had to do this because my RAM/MB doesn't like when I change the system clock. Mine would boot with stock voltages, but needed a little bump to be perfectly stable.

It sounds like your motherboard might be difficult to OC, and it probably isn't worth the effort, since that 130nm FX-55 probably OCes worse that my 90nm FX-60 (and this 60 is a pain to OC).
May 5, 2007 6:32:01 PM

Well, I got her running right now at 215 x 13 =2795. I had to up the power to 1.5v

So far so good.

But no matter what I tried, I couldnt lower the clock ratio off default and raise the cpu clock.
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2007 6:37:59 PM

That is probably the best safe OC you will get. Have you tested stability with a program like Prime95? Even with newer, cooler running technology I can barely get a higher OC than that, so that is probably as high as that chip will clock easily. Nice job though, the 2.8-2.9 range is about as high as these AMDs will clock without a crazy setup.
May 5, 2007 9:59:56 PM

Quote:
Well, I got her running right now at 215 x 13 =2795. I had to up the power to 1.5v

So far so good.

But no matter what I tried, I couldnt lower the clock ratio off default and raise the cpu clock.

Maaaan, you have an FX chip; Unlocked multi. just set it's multiplier to 14x to get 2800MHz and start playing with the FSB for something above it. You don't have to stress your whole system and be bottlenecked by bad RAM or chipset failure.
Also check the airflow in the case; don't pretend miracles even by the best CPU cooler out there if you don't have a couple of 120mm, intake/exhaust fans (or anything that gives this result or better) removing it's hot air quickly enough from your case.
May 5, 2007 10:17:32 PM

Quote:
That is probably the best safe OC you will get. Have you tested stability with a program like Prime95? Even with newer, cooler running technology I can barely get a higher OC than that, so that is probably as high as that chip will clock easily. Nice job though, the 2.8-2.9 range is about as high as these AMDs will clock without a crazy setup.

I think it could well hit 3.0GHz if it was a 90nm part.
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2007 11:02:08 PM

It probably could if I really tried. I tried keeping the voltages were they were for 2.81GHz and simply upping the multi to 15, but it wouldn't even post. I am not sure if this is the CPU or the MB. The MB is old and has had a rough life (and doesn't seem to like OCing). I probably could squeeze another 100MHz out of mine. but right now it is perfectly stable and I am happy with it.

As for xringx, he said that when he changes the CPU clock ratio that it resets the system clock to 200MHz. Sounds like he may have a bad MB or BIOS, but in any case, it seems he can't change the Multi.
May 5, 2007 11:38:53 PM

im just posting to say how much I love the San Diego core

I LOVE IT

:oops: 
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2007 11:46:31 PM

Yeah, that is a great CPU/core. I would have gotten one like that, except I saw this FX-60 on sale for $200 back in Feb and just had to buy it (I like the sound of "FX-60"). I also needed the unlocked multi because my MB doesn't like to OC.
!