whats the diff between a 4000 san diego and a fx san diego ?

ZL1 · 08-15-05, 10:26 PM

Hi

curious so I thought Id ask

Thanks
Dan

LoneWolf121188 · 08-15-05, 11:43 PM

1) The FX is multiplier unlocked up through 25x, I belive, while the 4000 is capped at 13x

2) The 4000 has a stock speed of 2.4GHz while the FX55 has a stock speed of 2.6GHz and the FX57 has a stock speed of 2.8GHz. However, they will all generally OC to about the same level.

3) The FX55 is twice as much as the 4000+, and the FX57 is 3x more than the 4000+

.

4) the FX series come in sweet silver boxes while the 4000 comes in the plain black and orange box

.

I think thats about it.

Kosmic · 08-16-05, 03:21 PM

That sums it up nicely, LoneWolf. The major money premium for the FXs isn't really worth it since you can just OC to 2.6+GHZ with a 4000+ or even a 3700+ -- My 3700+ is good up to 2640, but my 2 gigs of OCZ don't like to run above 230, so that's where I left my OC. 10fsb and the 100 mhz difference = about 2 fps in game...nothing I'm going to miss.

When not gaming, the computer is folding.

Bottom line: Save yourself $400 bucks -- get the 4000+ and just overclock it.

Sucka · 08-16-05, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneWolf121188

2) The 4000 has a stock speed of 2.4GHz while the FX55 has a stock speed of 2.6GHz and the FX57 has a stock speed of 2.8GHz. However, they will all generally OC to about the same level.

I don't know about that statment. I haven't seen any 4000+'s hitting what the FX series are hitting. The biggest difference is the speed binning. An FX becomes and FX because it can scale better than a 4000+ or less. There are some cases where they will o/c the same, but generally speaking the FX's have always overclocked much further than their regular A64 counterparts. FX-57 is case in point. How many 4000+ San Diego's have you seen over 3500MHz?

Unless you're using sub-zero cooling, and interested in benchmarking competitivly, i would also say go with the 4000+ San Diego. The FX is an enthusiest chip, meant to be overclocked. I hate seeing people spend $1000+ on a CPU and then cooling it with air, such a waste imho

Kosmic · 08-16-05, 03:40 PM

I agree 100%

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sucka

Unless you're using sub-zero cooling, and interested in benchmarking competitivly, i would also say go with the 4000+ San Diego. The FX is an enthusiest chip, meant to be overclocked. I hate seeing people spend $1000+ on a CPU and then cooling it with air, such a waste imho

LoneWolf121188 · 08-16-05, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sucka

I don't know about that statment. I haven't seen any 4000+'s hitting what the FX series are hitting. The biggest difference is the speed binning. An FX becomes and FX because it can scale better than a 4000+ or less. There are some cases where they will o/c the same, but generally speaking the FX's have always overclocked much further than their regular A64 counterparts. FX-57 is case in point. How many 4000+ San Diego's have you seen over 3500MHz?

But what about on air/water? At 30-40C, the difference between an OCed FX and an OCed 4000/3700 becomes much smaller, right?

Sucka · 08-16-05, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneWolf121188

But what about on air/water? At 30-40C, the difference between an OCed FX and an OCed 4000/3700 becomes much smaller, right?

Yes, to a certain degree. They FX will generally still scale better, but not as high as it would under phase.

Vulcan · 08-16-05, 06:18 PM

Quick question on a somewhat related note. How common is it for a 3700+/4000+ to make it to stock FX-57 speeds with a reasonable voltage? I'm thinking of trying out a 3700+ because my venice is just not doing what I want... Even with pretty high voltage (1.35x126%) I can't get more than 2.6 out of it. On the other hand that extra 200mhz or so isn't really worth 140.00 more.

El<(')>Maxi · 08-16-05, 06:25 PM

What's the difference? About $625 deniro

Seriously the FX is the best silicone AMD has, and while the 4000 is nice, it can't really compare to FX-57 in almost every case. Rarely you might have a very good 4000 and a not so great FX-57. Then it might be a little more interesting.

And 4000 has a locked multiplier, the FX does not.

Sucka · 08-16-05, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Quick question on a somewhat related note. How common is it for a 3700+/4000+ to make it to stock FX-57 speeds with a reasonable voltage? I'm thinking of trying out a 3700+ because my venice is just not doing what I want... Even with pretty high voltage (1.35x126%) I can't get more than 2.6 out of it. On the other hand that extra 200mhz or so isn't really worth 140.00 more.

Not very common at low voltage. That's what makes the FX so great. The way they're binned they hit 2.8GHz at 1.39v or so. You just can't get that from a 3700+

And as for that extra 200MHz you need to look at it as the way it's binned, the way it will scale, and the biggest deal to me is available multis. It wouldn't really matter to someone using air cooling, but when you can max out your memory at 1:1 and start having to use a divider that multi really comes into play. My 3700+ was a prime example of this.

hitechjb1 · 08-16-05, 07:32 PM

The table in the following link shows how some FX's, 3700+/4000+ SanDiego overclock in terms of frequency and actual run time under sub-zero, water and air, ....

Different core performance results in SuperPI 32M (post #3 and #4)

darksparkz · 08-16-05, 07:36 PM

The 4000+ chip can generally OC to speeds just under the FXs at air cooling. But the FXs chip can get about 15-20 more fps on games and things like that. For it's price, the FX is not a good price/performance ratio, but if your a gamer or just want the best of the best, the FXs are a great choice.

Sucka · 08-16-05, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksparkz

The 4000+ chip can generally OC to speeds just under the FXs at air cooling. But the FXs chip can get about 15-20 more fps on games and things like that. For it's price, the FX is not a good price/performance ratio, but if your a gamer or just want the best of the best, the FXs are a great choice.

Well assuming they were both at the same frequency there would be zero difference between FPS. Both the cores are identical, it's the ability to overclock that puts them ahead of everything else.

ZL1 · 08-17-05, 07:51 PM

Thanks guys !

BenF · 08-18-05, 12:22 AM

I'm an intel fan so correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought that the 4000+ was the same as the FX53 that is now out of production.

Sucka · 08-18-05, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenF

I'm an intel fan so correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought that the 4000+ was the same as the FX53 that is now out of production.

You're thinking of ClawHammer.

ZL1 · 08-18-05, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenF

I'm an intel fan so correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought that the 4000+ was the same as the FX53 that is now out of production.

from what I know fx53 was 130nm the 4000 SD is 90nm

D

Sucka · 08-18-05, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZL1

from what I know fx53 was 130nm the 4000 SD is 90nm

D

True. There was also a 4000+ in the ClawHammer flavour (.130nm)

RJARRRPCGP · 08-18-05, 05:35 PM

Could you get a better OC'ing Athlon 64 with socket 754 than socket 939 for the same price?

ZL1 · 08-19-05, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RJARRRPCGP

Could you get a better OC'ing Athlon 64 with socket 754 than socket 939 for the same price?

usually 939s do better + you get newer tech boards

D

08-15-05, 10:26 PM	Thread Starter #1
ZL1 Member Join Date: Oct 2003	whats the diff between a 4000 san diego and a fx san diego ? Hi curious so I thought Id ask Thanks Dan __________________ F@H \| Hwbot 12Qd4g2tUAYw97JVTgV6kjjtgNkakzyrXk
	QUOTE Thanks

08-15-05, 11:43 PM	#2
LoneWolf121188 Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sheppard Air Force Base, TX	1) The FX is multiplier unlocked up through 25x, I belive, while the 4000 is capped at 13x 2) The 4000 has a stock speed of 2.4GHz while the FX55 has a stock speed of 2.6GHz and the FX57 has a stock speed of 2.8GHz. However, they will all generally OC to about the same level. 3) The FX55 is twice as much as the 4000+, and the FX57 is 3x more than the 4000+ . 4) the FX series come in sweet silver boxes while the 4000 comes in the plain black and orange box . I think thats about it. __________________ mATX Desktop (Build Log Here): Core i7 3770K @ 4.9GHz 1.53V, 16GB DDR3-1600 RipjawX, EVGA GTX680 4GB, Intel 520 240GB, Seagate 2TB, EK CPU and GPU waterblocks, MCP35X, 120.1 and 180.1 radiators 15" MacBook Pro: 2.66GHz Core i7 620M, 8GB DDR3, OCZ Vertex 2 120GB, 500GB Seagate 7200.4, GeForce 330M 512MB, OS X 10.8.2, Windows 7 x64 Asus Eee Slate EP121: 1.33GHz Core i5 470UM, 4GB DDR3, Intel 320 80GB, Windows 8 x64 The Hardware Destruction Thread\|OCForums Musicians Club Member -12\|OCForums Metal Club Member -12 Well, if he opens the box and its dead, then it would be his fault because the state of the cat is determined by the observer. Then we could be all ‘n00b, you collapsed the wavefunction now! - RoadWarrior, on Schrödinger’s Cat
	QUOTE Thanks

08-16-05, 06:18 PM	#8
Vulcan Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Pa	Quick question on a somewhat related note. How common is it for a 3700+/4000+ to make it to stock FX-57 speeds with a reasonable voltage? I'm thinking of trying out a 3700+ because my venice is just not doing what I want... Even with pretty high voltage (1.35x126%) I can't get more than 2.6 out of it. On the other hand that extra 200mhz or so isn't really worth 140.00 more. __________________ Currently rocking a BlackBook
	QUOTE Thanks

08-16-05, 06:25 PM	#9
El<(')>Maxi Blank Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Seattle	What's the difference? About $625 deniro Seriously the FX is the best silicone AMD has, and while the 4000 is nice, it can't really compare to FX-57 in almost every case. Rarely you might have a very good 4000 and a not so great FX-57. Then it might be a little more interesting. And 4000 has a locked multiplier, the FX does not. __________________ rdrash - 'I'm gonna intentionally try to kill this CPU with more volts'
	QUOTE Thanks

08-16-05, 07:32 PM	#11
hitechjb1 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003	The table in the following link shows how some FX's, 3700+/4000+ SanDiego overclock in terms of frequency and actual run time under sub-zero, water and air, .... Different core performance results in SuperPI 32M (post #3 and #4) __________________ Overclocking sandbox for A64 939 systems with Winchester and beyond A64 CPUs, chipsets, motherboards A64 Overclocking Result Collection Overclocking sandbox: Tbred B DLT3C and beyond - DFI LP UT NF4 Ultra-D, Opteron 165 CCBBE 0610 DPMW 3.00 GHz, highest clock 3.30 GHz, XP-90, G. Skill 4800 2 x 512 MB, X800Pro (Winchester 0447 CBBHD 2.83 GHz 314x9 1.52V) - ABIT NF7-S rev 2.0, Mobile Barton 2600+ IQYHA 0351 MPMW 2.71 GHz (225x12), 18/37 C, 1.89 V, SLK-947U 80mm Tornado (w/ fan control), 512 MB x 2 3500 C2 2-3-2-5, 9500 np -> 9700 np 360/311 - ASUS A7N8X DLX, Tbred B 1700+ 0310 XPMW 2.56 GHz (205x12.5) 1.94 V, max at 2.6 GHz, SLK-800U + TT SFII, 48/40 28/26 C, 512MB 3500 C2 2-3-2-5 (retired) - Intel 8088 4.77 MHz 8bit CPU, 64KB memory, 1 MB HD, 5 1/4" floppy drive, DOS, 200 bps modem, 80x25 char display Last edited by hitechjb1; 08-16-05 at 09:53 PM.
	QUOTE Thanks

whats the diff between a 4000 san diego and a fx san diego ?

Internet Services

Website Development

Tech Hardware

08-16-05, 03:21 PM	#3
Kosmic Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Washington State	That sums it up nicely, LoneWolf. The major money premium for the FXs isn't really worth it since you can just OC to 2.6+GHZ with a 4000+ or even a 3700+ -- My 3700+ is good up to 2640, but my 2 gigs of OCZ don't like to run above 230, so that's where I left my OC. 10fsb and the 100 mhz difference = about 2 fps in game...nothing I'm going to miss. When not gaming, the computer is folding. Bottom line: Save yourself $400 bucks -- get the 4000+ and just overclock it.
	QUOTE Thanks

08-16-05, 07:36 PM	#12
darksparkz Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Chicago, IL	The 4000+ chip can generally OC to speeds just under the FXs at air cooling. But the FXs chip can get about 15-20 more fps on games and things like that. For it's price, the FX is not a good price/performance ratio, but if your a gamer or just want the best of the best, the FXs are a great choice. __________________ Antec P182 w/ 3 Yate Loon D1SL-12 Intel DG965WH Motherboard Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 G.Skill 4x2GB DDR2 PC6400 4-4-4-12 WD Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB OCZ Vertex2 60GB SSD eVGA 8800GTS 512MB Asus DRW-24B1ST Corsair HX520 Scythe Ninja w/Panaflo 120mmx38mm FBA12G12M [Heatware] <---Or rather lack of heatware
	QUOTE Thanks

08-17-05, 07:51 PM	Thread Starter #14
ZL1 Member Join Date: Oct 2003	Thanks guys ! __________________ F@H \| Hwbot 12Qd4g2tUAYw97JVTgV6kjjtgNkakzyrXk
	QUOTE Thanks

08-18-05, 12:22 AM	#15
BenF Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Hell, Michigan	I'm an intel fan so correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought that the 4000+ was the same as the FX53 that is now out of production. __________________ Desktop: -Gigabyte z68x-ud3h-b3 - 2500k @4.5 - XFX 7970 @ 1125/1575 - 8Gb ddr3 1333 - 3x samsung spinpoint f1 1tb - intel g2 ssd- Laptops: Fujitsu Lifebook T Series -M540 - 4gb ram - 300gb hdd Lenovo T61 (out of commission) -t7300-Nvidia nvs130-2gb ram-100gb hdd-14" widescreen "Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught." -Oscar Wilde
	QUOTE Thanks

08-18-05, 05:35 PM	#19
RJARRRPCGP Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: USA (Springfield, Vermont)	Could you get a better OC'ing Athlon 64 with socket 754 than socket 939 for the same price? __________________ Asus Maximus II Gene- Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.6 Ghz (450x8.0) -ICH10R - eVGA GeForce 9500 GT-Fortron FSP500-60GLN(80) 500W PSU " holy cow!! you find a rat in there too!?!?!? " -turbohans "Reinstall winders." -jivetrky "I think I am going to need another coke before I start this up." -cadman420 "Soon Windows will be 50 gb! lololol" -Tokae "NOT FOR SALE IN CALIFORNIA."
	QUOTE Thanks

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search