Different Between A64 SD 4000+,Opteron 144/146/148 and FX55

[Massive79]

Sorry for the noob question

As far as I know is that A64 SD 4000+, Opteron 144/146/148 and FX 55 have the same cache which is 1MB (CMIIW)
FX has the unlocked multiplier, A64 SD 4000 has locked higher multiplier then it default, and the opteron one I don't whether it is locked or not .

So, is there any physically different on those processor?
And if those processor run on the same setting (HTT, multiplier and CPU clock) which processor that will comes with the highest performance? and why is that?

I'd really appreciate if someone can come up with detail explanation.

 

[Zap]

The A64 and FX single core chips with 1MB cache are "San Diego" cores. The Opteron chips (all the way to model 154) are "Venus" cores, also with 1MB cache. There may be some differences in the Hypertransport (though I'm not sure) and the chips may be binned differently, but basically all else being equal (HTT speed, GHz) all three chip types will perform identical.

The A64 and Opterons are locked upwards, but not downwards (for Cool and Quiet to function). The FX chips are unlocked either way.

The highest performer is the one at the highest GHz. Out of the ones you listed, the FX-55 at 2.6GHz is the winner. The Opteron 148 is 2.2GHz and will be slowest. The A64 4000+ is 2.4GHz and in the middle for performance. Note that AMD does list an FX-57 at 2.8GHz and Opterons at 150/152/154, the highest being also 2.8GHz.

If you're overclocking, my recommendation at this time is to go with a lower speed Opteron if your motherboard can do really high HTT, otherwise go with an A64 4000+ (currently at $87 for an OEM). The FX-55 chips from the recent Newegg deals have not proven to be crazy overclockers. I have two, at 2.8 and 2.9GHz, and that about sums up what most people have gotten. Some have gotten to 3GHz. My 4000+ can do 3.2GHz and someone else who got one recently is at 3.12GHz (nobody else reporting any speeds). Opterons are famous for overclocking, though YMMV. I had a terrible 144 model that did only around 2.2GHz, but two other 144 chips that did 2.7GHz pretty easily. From what I read, "most" will do 2.5-2.8GHz. Some lucky ones will do 3-3.2GHz while some unlucky ones will do 2.2-2.4GHz. If going Opteron, which one you choose will depend on your motherboard's high HTT capabilities.

 

[Massive79]

I'm curious about why does AMD create such processor with same spec.
By creating A64 SD core they literally killed their opteron 144/146/148 market, that's why they start to make Opteron 165 which have dual core to make differentiation on their product line. But that lead me to another question, what really is the differences of desktop and server processor (A64 = desktop and Opteron = server), is that only the cache? Because X2 and Opteron 165 (and above) now have the same spec except for the cache.

And why they create FX series which have the same cores with higher price just for us to pay the unlocked multiplier. At first I think that FX series will have high quality core so they are like underclocked processor so they will have superior overclocking performance, but base on Zap experience they're not, that's why right now AMD product line is kinda confusing to me.

Personally I think AMD is unable to catch up with Intel product line today, they winning side is only by value/performace wise not by power/performance wise. I still AMD fan though, but these differentiation is making me confuse which one I should go when upgrading since they all comes with not too far price range and can be used in the same socket. And based on reviews I read on the net, migrating to DDR2 is not making big perfomance leap to AMD side as the Intel does.

CMIIW

 

[sbuckler]

If it's a real server it won't be socket 939, it'll use socket 940 with registered memory and the like. That's where opterons are designed to be used and there is no competition from A64's as they don't come for socket 940. The mystery is why AMD started making socket 939 opterons when they are essentially identical to equivelently clocked and cached A64's? tbh there's very little hard proof they overclock better either.

The only reason I can think of is to rip off the fanatics who having bought a whole pile of A64's and had fun overclocking them did it all over again with operons

 

[Noubourne]

Without a doubt, you should get an Opty 165 and overclock it. It's like $150, and it will give you the best bang for the buck by far.

 

[Massive79]

...I do agree with u, because have you all think why you should make server processor which can be used on any desktop mobo (same socket), it looks like it only marketing scheme to make people try opteron and think that server processor should have better yield in the making process so they will have better overlclocking potential.
Or maybe, I assumed, they make server and desktop processor in the same socket to save cost in making it. In that case, they give us option, but in other case the market segment is making us confuse.

And here's what's funny, but first CMIIW, if I'm not mistaken Opty 144/146/148 core which have 1Mb cache is called Venus, but A64 which have 1Mb cache called San Diego, if they have the same socket, process making, and architecture why should they called it in different core, why not just say A64 with 1Mb cache is a Venus core or Opty with San Diego core

Originally posted by: sbuckler
If it's a real server it won't be socket 939, it'll use socket 940 with registered memory and the like. That's where opterons are designed to be used and there is no competition from A64's as they don't come for socket 940. The mystery is why AMD started making socket 939 opterons when they are essentially identical to equivelently clocked and cached A64's? tbh there's very little hard proof they overclock better either.

The only reason I can think of is to rip off the fanatics who having bought a whole pile of A64's and had fun overclocking them did it all over again with operons