Athlon 64FX vs. 64 4000+

[Blind_Arrow]

hahah, this is just for fun, the information where apokalipse gathered from must be expected processor specifications that someone has written there before FX-55 was made. so not his fault. but i'll concentrate on true information on the forum.

 

[PP Mguire]

thats actually current, still no need for the flame though lol.

 

[Apokalipse]

I see what it is; the 90nm 4000+ has 512kb L2 cache but the 130nm 4000+ has 1MB

 

[PP Mguire]

huh wonder why?

 

[Blind_Arrow]

where is the 90nm AMD 4000+?

I have just finished writing to AMD for the proper web update, as other third party sources can be un-reliable.

at least good thing about intel's processor is that they have everything on their website.

 

[PP Mguire]

but amd pwns them anyways, and this is really a petty arguement though.

 

[Leonidas]

well apocalypse you 16 year old know-it-all you apparently have something to learn... instead of blabbing about your amazing knowledge perhaps you should learn to check around instead of reading something posted by some joe schmoe in SEPTEMBER!(check that website)... newegg, along with AMD's own site list it as 1mb for BOTH, how can you not accept that they are basically the same is beyond me, most people argue about stuff they own, but you are just arguing for the fact of arguing... and thanks arrow for carrying on the good fight in my stead

 

[psydesign]

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9488^9532,00.html

 

[Blind_Arrow]

well this 8.7% difference is just because of 200Mhz higher clock on FX-55 @ 2.6Ghz. while 4000+ is 2.4Ghz.

the FX-53 is exactlly the same as AMD Athlon64 4000+, not the FX-55

Thanks Leonidas for backup, now i've started thinking how AMD's will take my e-mail as I told them that we are fighting for the true information on computer forum (thanks God, I didnt told them the forum name, or it would have been a disgrace for the forum)

 

[Megadeth2]

Many reviewers have proven that the Sledgehammer core for the Opteron is architecturally exactly the same as the Newcastle, Winchester, and Clawhammer cores for the Athlon 64. It is just AMD's way of squeezing more money out of people. Since they are gaining more of the market, they believe they can start dictating prices like Intel can right now. (No Offense) The 4000+ is just a renamed Athlon 64 FX-53 except it doesn't have a multiplier that is fully unlocked. The Athlon 64 4000+ has a multiplier that can go down, but it can't go up. If you're ocing the the FX-53 will the better of the two.

Oh and I think Apokalypse is right about the 4000+ 130nm and 90nm versions. It seems logical to me because the 90nm processors have a 7% increase in speed over a 130nm with the same rating. So, it is logical that AMD would trade in 512K cache for 90nm since it would mean better perf on the 90nm, think about it you oc a 90nm by 100 mhz and your actually getting a 2.675 clock speed instead of 2.5 since the 90nms run 7 % faster clock for clock.