How good is the A64 4000+ san diego?

[Powermoloch]

Hey there, I just got back from newegg and saw the cpu selling @ 135 shipped. Is it that really good? Is it as good as the FX-55?

 

[Kromis]

Its probably pretty good, but the multipliers are locked. And I think maybe the FX series overclock better?

 

[akshayt]

I would say don't get 4000 Sand Deigo. I doubt whether it has much of a room for overclocking either.
Get X2 3800 and overclock it past 2.6ghz or maybe 2.8 speeds if possible and then it is equal or better than AMD 64 4000. In the near future dual core rules. Or get entry level 3500.

 

[Captante]

Its pretty good for a single-core CPU... the difference is that the FX-55 is clocked at 2.6ghz & is multiplier-unlocked making for easier overclocking.

I'd suggest either the 3700+ San Diego for single-core @ $99 or the 3800+ X2 dual-core @ $149 instead, but the 4000+ is a much better choice for the money then an FX.

 

[Powermoloch]

Originally posted by: Captante
Its pretty good for a single-core CPU... the difference is that the FX-55 is clocked at 2.6ghz & is multiplier-unlocked making for easier overclocking.

I'd suggest either the 3700+ San Diego for single-core @ $99 or the 3800+ X2 dual-core @ $149 instead, but the 4000+ is a much better choice for the money then an FX.

The great thing I have right now that I'm currently using 2 x 1gb Mushkin XP4000 DDR 500 @ 230 mhz on my sempr0n 3100 rig :frown: (long story lol). It will be great to push the ram @ 250 mhz on a new chip . I know DDR 500 is pricey these days, luckily I just got it for 159.99 not too long ago

What would you recommend...? Dual core and push it to the limits or stick with the 4000+ and stay at stock?

here's my rig atm

http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.aspx?rigid=31215

 

[Captante]

Personally I'd say go with the 3800+ & overclock the daylights out of it... 2.4ghz is close to garanteed & 2.5-2.6ghz isn't an unreasonable goal.

 

[Powermoloch]

Originally posted by: Captante
Personally I'd say go with the 3800+ & overclock the daylights out of it... 2.4ghz is close to garanteed & 2.5-2.6ghz isn't an unreasonable goal.

yeah, it seems the dual cores are the hot stuff these days. It wouldn't hurt to try one . Now I need to save up some cash lol

 

[akshayt]

Yes, for gaming AMD 64 4000 SD is just 1% below FX55

 

[gobucks]

Originally posted by: Kromis
Its probably pretty good, but the multipliers are locked. And I think maybe the FX series overclock better?

FX's, ironically, overclock like crap. they are pretty much pushed to the limit of whatever core they are built on. you get basically 1 multiplier bump, and that's it without serious watercooling and insane voltage.

as for performance of the FX versus 4000+, the 4000+ performs identically to the FX-53. an FX-55 is about 7% faster due to the extra 200MHz. there is nothing magical about the FX that makes it run faster than "lowly" non-FX chips. equal clockspeed and cache means equal performance.

if you're looking to buy a new chip though, I'd look into a dual core one - maybe a 3800, 4200, or ideally a 4000 if you can find one. they should overclock to 2.5GHz or so and the extra core helps multitasking immensely.

 

[akshayt]

FX55 and AMD 64 4000SD perform identical where FX>SD, by 1% or so
FX53 and AMD 64 4000CH perform identical, where CH>FX53
FX53>3700SD>3800

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

 

[996GT2]

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: akshayt

FX53>3700SD>3800

The 3700+ San Diego is not always faster than a 3800+ Venice/Orleans due to the 200MHz slower clock. In tasks where the extra 512k of cache is not used, the clock speed boost gives it the advantage.

To the OP, a 4000+ SD is basically an FX55 with a locked multi and a 200 MHz slower core clock, but with some OCing it should do FX55 (even FX57) clocks.

 

[cmrmrc]

basically, i think that the 4000 is useless since you can get to the same clocks with overclocking with the 3700 unless you don't oc but i doubt it.

it is the 3700 or get a dual core 3800/4200....4600 are getting pricey now....

 

[hennethannun]

the initial 4000+ processor are just those chips that were GOING to be FX-55 processors, but weren't ready to ship until after the introduction of the FX-57. they just rebrand the processors at Athlon 64 (instead of Athlon FX), lock the multipliers and ship them. Now, will the FX series being several generations past the FX-55, that is no longer the case, but stock performance will be quite similar, it is just the overclocking performance where the FX would (hopefully) be better.

EDIT: also, the FX will come with heatpipe cooler, as opposed to the boring old stock crap that comes with the 4000+

 

[Powermoloch]

I'll not be planning to overclock in a future system. I wonder if either the 4000+ or the 3800 X2 is a good choice. I play games...I'm not planning on multitasking. But I'll have to wait and see if games are going to benefit on the dual core setup...time will tell.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

If not overclocking the 4000+ should be great, by the time games can utilize the second core you will probably be looking to upgrade anyway