question about athlon fx

[dsj]

How fast is the fx 51? Is it faster than the 4000+? How much does it cost right now?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

4000 will be faster than the FX51.

 

[dsj]

What socket is the fx 51 in? And what's the uniquess of the fx over the 64? What's the difference between them?

 

[dsj]

And what socket is the 51 in?

 

[Bona Fide]

You can make the 4000+ faster with little [very little] effort. Plus you have the added comfort of 939-pin compatability.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

The FX51 comes in both s939 and s940. The main difference with any FX processor is it has fully unlocked multis (up and down), while A64's have top locked multis. With A64's you can only lower the CPU multi from the factory preset default.

For instance I beleive both come factory set at 200mhz x 12 = 2400mhz, with the 4000+ you can use any multi 12x or below, with the FX51 you can also use 13x,14x,15x, ect..
The only advantage an FX has is the ability to overclock without raising the HTT, leaving your ram at stock speeds without using a memory divider. But the FX51 is the much older Clawhammer core, where the 4000+ has the newest flagship core the San Diego

 

[dsj]

If I don't overclock then are the fx series better than the normal 64s? I don't understand what a multi is.

 

[theMan]

nah, its the older clawhammer core. thats the original a64 core. you want a newer revision like the San Diego 3700 or 4000. the cpu multi is used to derive the cpu core frequency when multiplied by the the front side bus. so, with normal a64's the only way to overclock is to raise the fsb, which is a factor of the motherboard. if you can increase the multi like on an fx, its easier to oc even if you have a bad mobo.

 

[Screech]

fx51 = 2.2, 53 = 2.4, 55 = 2.6, 57 = 2.8
4000+ = 2.4


i didn't know they even made a fx51 for socket 939. fx53 came in both 939 and 940 i think, but i only remember a socket 940 (slower registered memory, basically) fx51. also i think the fx51 is about 600 (it was on zipzoomfly anyway) dollars while the 4000+ is about $483ish, and more overclockable (albeit no unlocket multipliers).

multiplier (multi) x FSB = CPU clock speed. example, the fx51 is 11 x 200 = 2.2 gigaherts. for the 4000+ it is 12 x 200 = 2.4.

so put simply: even without OCing the 4000+ is better. if you want to OC it would probbaly go farther then the fx51 as well, due to the san diego core.....

 

[GuitarDaddy]

IMO the A64 4000+ will be better regardless of wether you OC or not. Newer technology that runs cooler, uses less electricty and clocks higher if you overclock. The 4000+ also has a better memory controller

The formula for CPU mhz speed is

HTT x CPU multi = CPU mhz, in this case 200mhz x 12 = 2400mhz or 2.4ghz. Intel calls it FSB instead of HTT, but the forumula is the same.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: screech
fx51 = 2.2, 53 = 2.4, 55 = 2.6, 57 = 2.8
4000+ = 2.4


i didn't know they even made a fx51 for socket 939. fx53 came in both 939 and 940 i think, but i only remember a socket 940 (slower registered memory, basically) fx51. also i think the fx51 is about 600 (it was on zipzoomfly anyway) dollars while the 4000+ is about $483ish, and more overclockable (albeit no unlocket multipliers).

multiplier (multi) x FSB = CPU clock speed. example, the fx51 is 11 x 200 = 2.2 gigaherts. for the 4000+ it is 12 x 200 = 2.4.

so put simply: even without OCing the 4000+ is better. if you want to OC it would probbaly go farther then the fx51 as well, due to the san diego core.....

Yes, your correct the FX51 is 2.2 not 2.4, and probably only does come in S940. I was thinking about the FX53😱

And if your prices are correct it really is a no-brainer, it would be silly to get an FX51, way more expensive and slower in all aspects

 

[Aries64]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
The FX51 comes in both s939 and s940. The main difference with any FX processor is it has fully unlocked multis (up and down), while A64's have top locked multis. With A64's you can only lower the CPU multi from the factory preset default.

For instance I beleive both come factory set at 200mhz x 12 = 2400mhz, with the 4000+ you can use any multi 12x or below, with the FX51 you can also use 13x,14x,15x, ect..
The only advantage an FX has is the ability to overclock without raising the HTT, leaving your ram at stock speeds without using a memory divider. But the FX51 is the much older Clawhammer core, where the 4000+ has the newest flagship core the San Diego

Actually, the FX-51 was Socket 940 ONLY (130nm process) and need Registered Memory. The FX-53 (130nm process) Clawhammer core was the first Socket 939 (can use Non-Registered memory) FX-chip, followed about three months later by the FX-55 (also 130nm on Clawhammer core) but using Strained Silicon got a spped bump to 2.6GHz. Several months ago a 90nm process FX-55 was released with the San Diego core (still at 2.6GHz default speed). The newest FX chip (the FX-57) is built on the 90nm process, uses DSL (Dual Stress Liner) Strained Silicon, runs 2.8GHz default speed, and has the San Diego core).

Also, current 4000+s' are built on the 90nm process and utilize the San Diego core. However, the early 4000+s' were built on the 130nm process (basically the early 4000+ was an FX-53 with the "upward" Multiplier locked.