Having only been seriously into computers for about a year, I have gained so much knowledge...however there is one thing I've never understood. Whats the difference between the AMD Athlon 64 line of processors and the AMD Athlon FX line? Both are sockent 939 and both are 64-bit. Why does the FX line cost so much more than the regular 64s? And I remember watching "The Screen Savers" and them saying that the FX line doesn't offer enough performance than the regular Athlon 64 to justify the extra cost. Excuse my ignorance and noobiness, but I have always wondered this.
NOOB Question
- Thread starter beedubaya
- Start date
- Status
Nubius
Golden Master
- Messages
- 11,599
I don't know either really. Perhaps it's just because every once in a while a company offers out something that's supposed to be a gear up but turns out to be way too expensive for as little increase as it provides. But in all honesty I really don't know. Upon going to AMD's website I didn't see any differences that really stuck out. I didn't read the entire product brief but I was mainly looking for key features that would seperate it.
Apokalipse
Golden Master
- Messages
- 14,559
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
the FX's have an unlocked multiplier, and more L2 cache
The Merlin
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,432
Yeah, thats the only difference really, only 512kb more L2 cache
TheMajor
PowerQuest / Opera
- Messages
- 10,176
- Location
- Netherlands
Athlon 64 is more bang for your buck.
MasterJason
In Runtime
- Messages
- 431
The Unlocked Multiplyer is a big plus for overclockers and the 1mb of l2 cache
- Status
