Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Difference between FX-55/57 and 4000+?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 8, 2005 3:01:00 PM

I'm trying make a super gaming rig...is the performance difference between the two noticable?

<font color=blue> There's no such thing as hell, but you can make it if you try.</font color=blue>

More about : difference 4000

July 8, 2005 3:38:48 PM

I myself have been wondering about this, but I've been seeing that a lot of people have been able to oc 3700/4000 to equal or higher speeds than FX-55. So I don't think the performance gap would be vary noticable if it's easy to reach the speeds.
July 8, 2005 4:22:18 PM

The 4000+ has the same tech specs as the FX-53. (2.4ghz, 1meg cache) The only difference is that standard A64's have the multiplier locked upwards (you can lower the mult, not raise it) but the FX's are completely unlocked.

The FX-55 and FX-57 are each 200mhz (2.6 & 2.8ghz resp.) faster than the FX53/4000+ (otherwise same specs). The FX-57 is from the new San Diego core, but the FX-55 can be from either the new SD, or the old Clawhammer core (I think... I know originally the FX-55 was Clawhammer... not 100% sure its got an SD version).

Anyways, you're already screaming at 2.4ghz, so is 2.6/2.8 noticeable? Not really on today's games, but there may be games in the near future (no proof - I'm just prognosticating) that can use the faster speeds.

For the money, I'd even drop to a 3500 or lower, but if you have the money...

Mike.

<font color=blue>Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside the dog its too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx</font color=blue>
Related resources
July 8, 2005 5:09:32 PM

Oooh, I didn't know the FX was completely unlocked. That's very enticing, although pricy.

You are right about the FX-55 the first was Clawhammer, and it does in fact have a San Diego version now, as does the 3700+ ;) 

The unlocking fact makes me like the FX-55 more now lol, but I don't know if I want to spend half of the total planned system cost to upgrade for a base 400mhz.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 8, 2005 5:31:54 PM

Even if its unlocked, its already clocked pretty high, especially for the clawhammer on 130nm process. In my opinion the money is better spent on fast memory that will let you raise the frontside bus to its limit. I even beleive you will see a bigger speed improvement with a higher FSB than a higher Multiplier.

Thats just my 2cents.
Its your money! But listen to mommy and spend it wisely!(wow I should be a rapper :smile: )

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
July 8, 2005 5:58:58 PM

Does the 4000+ overclock well on default air cooling?

<font color=blue> There's no such thing as hell, but you can make it if you try.</font color=blue>
July 8, 2005 6:35:02 PM

As much as I would like FX, I have to pay entirely for this computer and that's why I'm more mindful of components' performance and prices. I've been an Intel boy for a long time but have become interested AMD, especially due to temps. I know that I want a 90nm either Venice or San Diego. Comparing the two rather quickly, it seemed like the L2 cache is the only difference? Would this lean one toward better game performance?
July 8, 2005 6:53:23 PM

Really, it depends on the program/game as to whether more cache helps or more mhz. Unlike the Pentium 4, which really seems to gain performance from cache, A64's don't seem to ramp performance up so fast with extra cache, so mhz is <i>generally</i> more important. But at the same clock, more cache is faster. If you're overclocking, go for SanDiego because both can reach about the same clock speed, and the extra cache helps performance.

I don't have a current example (venice/SD comparison) handy, but for socket 754, the clawhammer (1m cache) 3200+ ran at 2.0ghz and the newcastle (512k cache) 3200+ ran at 2.2ghz. <i>Usually</i> (depending on the program/benchmark) the newcastle outperformed the clawhammer. But get the 3000+ newcastle (2.0ghz) and the clawhammer outperformed it.

Mike.

<font color=blue>Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside the dog its too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx</font color=blue>
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2005 7:06:24 PM

At the same clock speed the larger cache will be faster. In reviews that I've read, the larger cache has very little impact on performance. IMHO, if the Venice has a higher clock, then go with the Venice.

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>
July 8, 2005 8:02:54 PM

Venice 3500+ @ 2.2ghz = $272
San Diego 3700+ @ 2.2ghz = $325

So based on this clock it's paying $53 for double cache. Unless SD can pull higher voltages lower or something, Venice looks like a solid buy does it not?
July 8, 2005 8:15:49 PM

The venice is a very good buy indeed, and since you are being price concious, you could go even lower, but the 3500+ is a good bang per buck buy.

<font color=red>It's impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious<font color=red>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
July 8, 2005 8:26:32 PM

I dont have exact numbers and I dont really have the time to go check on the web but I dont expect the 400+ to overclock that much on stock cooler.Probably between 200-400mhz but people have to back me up on this as im not really sure.
With an aftermarket fan from TT or Zalman and a good case flow you can probably do better.
If you planning on overclocking, the lower model are much better in that respect because fo the lower multiplier. It will let you reach the same speed bu with a higher FSb resulting in better performance in most case.

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0
July 8, 2005 8:45:49 PM

Hmm interesting point, a 3200+ drops another $77 off. The only problem with going down is it makes it that much harder to get the oc back up. Nothing like a good challenge though right lol?
July 8, 2005 9:49:24 PM

If you OC the 3200+ and have a good video card you won't even notice the difference. The video card is more important for gaming because after certain point the CPU won't be the bottleneck.

<font color=red>It's impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious<font color=red>
July 8, 2005 11:22:21 PM

Maybe I should get a higher video card than I planned then. I was looking at a BFG 6800GT. I'm not sure how tight money will be but the 3200+ is freeing up $120 potential.
a b à CPUs
July 9, 2005 1:15:24 AM

Tell us what you plan on building right now. We can critique the entire system and give you advice on where to beef up the system and where you can cut back on some $$.

__________________________________________________
<font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>
July 9, 2005 1:36:28 AM

Damnit fate start your own thread instead of 'jacking mine!


I'd like to get a few more opines on the original question...


<font color=blue> There's no such thing as hell, but you can make it if you try.</font color=blue>
July 9, 2005 1:52:52 AM

Alright I'll throw some parts at you. But first off I want to thank everyone for the input so far, so here goes:

cpu: AMD 64 3200+ ($190) or 3500+ Venice ($267)
mobo: DFI UT NF4 ($129) or Epox 9NPA+ ($106)
ram: OCZ Gold Series 2-2-2-5 ($138-$15)
gpu: looking at BFG brand 6800GT ($349)/ Ultra ($506)/ 7800Gtx ($619)
psu: totally clueless, currently using an Ultra brand (no problems to date :) 
case: Lian Li PC-61 ($110) <i>undecided</i>

So if I go with the 3200+ I might shift cash to the video card department. My choice of ram is going to determine the motherboard. I'm pretty sure the Epox can't get enough voltage for the OCZ, so if I do get the OCZ then I would get the DFI for the voltage. The DFI however has 2 PCIe slots for god knows what reason. Epox has an extra and more logical pci slot instead which is nice.

As for the case I'm still fairly undecided. I'm very picky about cases and how they look at are layed out. So I don't mind going a little higher on it. Plus I'm going for an aluminum case with mod potential. But that's insignificant, the main focus here is the hardware.
July 9, 2005 1:56:22 AM

I'm sorry Magus, but you're correct I should probably move it or something.

First day here and I'm already aggravating vets lol. At the very least you're pulling front page time :tongue:
July 9, 2005 6:32:38 PM

My suggestion... Get a 3200+ now and overclock it with a very high-end GPU (7800 would be the best). In the future, if you need more CPU power you'll be able to upgrade to dual-core S939 CPU which will have become "mainstream" and more apps. will be optimized/coded to use both core.

-
GA-K8NF-9 / <b><font color=green>Athlon 64 3200+</font color=green> @ 3800+</b>
Infineon DDR400 (CL2.5) 2x512Megs
<font color=green>GeForce 6600GT 128Megs</font color=green>
<A HREF="http://www.getfirefox.com" target="_new">Get Firefox!</A>
July 10, 2005 2:10:42 AM

1 meg cach gets better with higher clockspeeds. Dont get me wrong the 1/2 meg cash A64's are still fast but comparing them @ speeds above 2.6ghz to 1 meg chips shows you what the cach can really do for you. There is also a myth that 1 meg cach chips get better lower framerates in games. I think that its just a myth to be honest but who knows.

The know-most-of-it-all formally known as BOBSHACK
July 10, 2005 6:43:03 AM

see ,57 has a san diego core,2.8ghz speed while 55 has a
clawhammer core & 2.6ghz,
57 is built in 90nm process and 55 is not only in 130nm but also some of 55 is in 90nm
i can't find the difference between 53 and 4000+,
that's all
July 10, 2005 6:47:17 AM

One difference is the FX chips are unlocked multipliers, while the 4000+ is locked upwards.

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
July 10, 2005 5:18:22 PM

Are you going to OC your CPU and Vid card?
July 10, 2005 8:36:34 PM

I do have to say that Dual proccessors is for the futer of gaming just like 64bit is for the futer right now its not that great but it will kick ass in 2 years

-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
July 11, 2005 1:25:07 AM

Quote:
One difference is the FX chips are unlocked multipliers, while the 4000+ is locked upwards.

I forgot about that, that's a good point. Also depending on core, I think the SD runs at lower voltages.

Quote:
Are you going to OC your CPU and Vid card?

Definitely a must for the CPU, depending on how high end of a video card I get, I may.
July 11, 2005 6:28:04 AM

FX57 has had a high freq,it's not easy to oc higher
Athlon64 3000+(Venice) is good at oc,it can oc from the default to 2.6ghz!!,the performance after oc is amazing...
it almost can catch up with FX55...
!