FX-55 still the way to go?

yes?

On Thu, 26 May 2005 03:39:19 GMT, Nobody wrote:

yes?

Nope.

A64 4000+ Rev. E San Diego ( 90nm, SSE3 ), 2.4 GHz. Very likely to be
able to overclock to near 2.6 GHz. Newegg $494.99 Retail boxed.

( FX55, 130nm, no SSE3 is $815.99 )

A64 4800+ X2 when available. Will be in the $800 -$900 price range.

John Lewis

(John Lewis) wrote in news:42954bd1.8010287
@news.verizon.net:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 03:39:19 GMT, Nobody wrote:

yes?

Nope.

A64 4000+ Rev. E San Diego ( 90nm, SSE3 ), 2.4 GHz. Very likely to be
able to overclock to near 2.6 GHz. Newegg $494.99 Retail boxed.

( FX55, 130nm, no SSE3 is $815.99 )

A64 4800+ X2 when available. Will be in the $800 -$900 price range.

John Lewis



Ok, I see your point. However, why is the FX55/Clawhammer twice as much?

There's got to be more than just 200MHz...

On Fri, 27 May 2005 01:17:42 GMT, Nobody wrote:

(John Lewis) wrote in news:42954bd1.8010287
:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 03:39:19 GMT, Nobody wrote:

yes?

Nope.

A64 4000+ Rev. E San Diego ( 90nm, SSE3 ), 2.4 GHz. Very likely to be
able to overclock to near 2.6 GHz. Newegg $494.99 Retail boxed.

( FX55, 130nm, no SSE3 is $815.99 )

A64 4800+ X2 when available. Will be in the $800 -$900 price range.

John Lewis



Ok, I see your point. However, why is the FX55/Clawhammer twice as much?

There's got to be more than just 200MHz...


FX-55 old-technology, larger die, poorer yield, runs much hotter.
AMD is not bothering to lower the price... People will still buy the
older parts for a while, if they are not closely tracking
developments. And many worship at the altar of clock-speed. You can
probably over-clock the Fx-55 to near 3GHz, if you have decent
fan-cooling.... YMMV, of course. However, dual-core is the future,
and the A64 4800+X2 has exactly the same functional features and
clock-speed per processor-core as has the A64 4000+ Rev E.
Just need a BIOS update for the dual-core on the 939-motherboards.
Check with the board manufacturer. Any 939 motherboard capable of
powering a FX-55 will have no problem with the dual-core 4800+.

Decisions, decisions................

John Lewis


John Lewis
processor-core

There's got to be more to it than just the speed difference.

On Fri, 27 May 2005 18:43:30 GMT, Nobody wrote:

There's got to be more to it than just the speed difference.


Well, you are welcome to use Google to find out more....

IMHO, the FX-55 is now passe... and the FX-57 may never see
the light of (production) day --- swept away by market demands
for the AMD dual-core desktop processors. Remember that,
unlike Intel, AMD is silicon-capacity limited. The current
generation of Intel dual-core processors is horribly
power-inefficient, compared to AMD... they are architecturally
no more than 2 Prescotts jammed together on one substate.
AMD can hit Intel where it hurts with their dual-core silicon,
but Intel will be introducing revised-architecture dual-cores
mid-end of 2006, so AMDs window of opportunty is limited.
Intel is also pricing the lowest-speed version of their dual-core
Pentium-D at fire-sale prices to keep AMD out of the desktop
mass-market while they scramble for their updated architecture.
Unfortunately for Intel, they made another mistake -- unlike AMD,
Intel's dual-core also requires a brand-new motherboard based
on the 945 or 955 chip-sets, or appropriate new 3rd-party
chipset-offerings such as nVidia's Intel nForce4.

John Lewis

(John Lewis) wrote in news:4297b560.35579297
@news.verizon.net:

On Fri, 27 May 2005 18:43:30 GMT, Nobody wrote:

There's got to be more to it than just the speed difference.


Well, you are welcome to use Google to find out more....

IMHO, the FX-55 is now passe... and the FX-57 may never see
the light of (production) day --- swept away by market demands
for the AMD dual-core desktop processors. Remember that,
unlike Intel, AMD is silicon-capacity limited. The current
generation of Intel dual-core processors is horribly
power-inefficient, compared to AMD... they are architecturally
no more than 2 Prescotts jammed together on one substate.
AMD can hit Intel where it hurts with their dual-core silicon,
but Intel will be introducing revised-architecture dual-cores
mid-end of 2006, so AMDs window of opportunty is limited.
Intel is also pricing the lowest-speed version of their dual-core
Pentium-D at fire-sale prices to keep AMD out of the desktop
mass-market while they scramble for their updated architecture.
Unfortunately for Intel, they made another mistake -- unlike AMD,
Intel's dual-core also requires a brand-new motherboard based
on the 945 or 955 chip-sets, or appropriate new 3rd-party
chipset-offerings such as nVidia's Intel nForce4.

John Lewis





I think I'm going to wait a bit and see what the prices on the x2 will
be. I've looked at some benchmarks and, while the x2 doesn't perform
better than the FX55, it does a better job of maintaining overall system
'perceived' performance while running multiple tasks.

On Sat, 28 May 2005 23:36:31 GMT, Nobody wrote:


I think I'm going to wait a bit and see what the prices on the x2 will
be. I've looked at some benchmarks and, while the x2 doesn't perform
better than the FX55, it does a better job of maintaining overall system
'perceived' performance while running multiple tasks.


FYI, the one other significant difference between the FX-55
and the (now old) 130nm A64 4000+ :- The FX-55 clock multiplier
is unlocked -- hence the ability to overclock more readily without
'straining' the memory system.

John Lewis

(John Lewis) wrote in news:42993bcb.16898347
@news.verizon.net:

FYI, the one other significant difference between the FX-55
and the (now old) 130nm A64 4000+ :- The FX-55 clock multiplier
is unlocked -- hence the ability to overclock more readily without
'straining' the memory system.

What about the San Diego 90nm A64 4000+...is that locked or unlocked?

On Sun, 29 May 2005 03:58:10 +0000, Nobody wrote:

What about the San Diego 90nm A64 4000+...is that locked or unlocked?

All Athlon 64's are multiplier locked on the high end, but it doesn't
matter. A 4000+ will have a multiplier of 12x200 for a default speed of
2400MHz. Raise the FSB clock to 233 and then you have 12x233 for 2800MHz
if you think it'll run that fast. Probably not, so chose a number in
between, say 217 for about 2600MHz. Now you've got just a little better
than an FX/57.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm