diff netween Athlon 64Fx and simply Athlon64

[krisjr]

hi.
well cud anybody tell me the difference btw athlon 64Fx and only athlon 64 in purely performance terms and not exactly in specifications term..what makes so costly form others...

[swatkat]

See a complete shootout between Athlon64 and Athlon64FX here....

[krisjr]

Originally Posted by swatkat

See a complete shootout between Athlon64 and Athlon64FX here....

hi there,
geez tx mate.if any other less technical links plz post tem

[Ethan_Hunt]

Non-technial lingo ehhhhh.....hmmm lets see

Now first that both being 64 Bit processors have different pins count on their processors i.e the athlon uses 754-pins whereas the 64Fx it gets increased to 940-pins socket.....also the onboard memory controller for athlon 64 is just one whereas in case of athlon 64fx it has dual memory(128-Bit)controller,hence doubling the bandwidth of memory processing......the boost that these fx (939 socket based) processors have is just slightly above their normal 64 counterpats but create great diff in the prices though.....as the Fx processors are priced significantly at a higher price than the athlon 64 processors

thus the conclusion the normal 64 proccy is more than enough to satisfy ur current needs and wants.....but as time progresses and the later demands higher processors than an Fx upgrade would definetly prove worth it

[swatkat]

Also, FX series needs ECC Registerised RAM....that is RAM is buffered and has extra feature ECC(Error Correcting Code), which means that RAMs also come at a premium price.........

[[flAsh]]

hey swatkat !! newer fx series (FX-53, FX-55) processors based on socket 939 don't require ECC registered ram, they use unbuffered ram ie simple DDR ram. the FX series as are based on CLAW HAMMER core featuring 1mb L2 cache . they support 1000 MHZ HT bus (ie 1GHz FSB) which is there on all S-939 Athlon 64. there's a little performance gap if u compare a ATHLON 64 of same speed on S-939 with a FX counterpart of same speed due to extra 512KB cache.
but, but, but ATHLON 64 based on socket 939 are far more overclockable than a FX on stock cooling.

[krisjr]

tx all of u dudes(swatkat,flash,tom cruise)..keep posting..so u saying athlon 64 will do the job till some time but after that wud it be easier to upgrade to 64Fx proccy..no hassles..do let me know

[swatkat]

ALL Athlon Series specifications are listed here...
http://www.pcbuyerbeware.co.uk/AthlonSpecs.htm
one glitch..they have mentione completely wrong FSBs for some of the processors!!

[Ethan_Hunt]

Originally Posted by krisjr

tx all of u dudes(swatkat,flash,tom cruise)..keep posting..so u saying athlon 64 will do the job till some time but after that wud it be easier to upgrade to 64Fx proccy..no hassles..do let me know

Yup dude trust me the 64 proccy would be more than enough to sustain todays 32-bit apps.......plus there aint much 64-bit supportin apps these days....so yea it will be worth the price.....but still if u have that hard extra cash then why wait go for FX

[krisjr]

Originally Posted by allwyndlima

Yup dude trust me the 64 proccy would be more than enough to sustain todays 32-bit apps.......plus there aint much 64-bit supportin apps these days....so yea it will be worth the price.....but still if u have that hard extra cash then why wait go for FX

ok thats fine mate..but its not far away(64bit applications)..microsoft is surely going to take the lead..but its still some time away..but what i wanted to ask is that is it a breeze change from 64 to 64FX or does it entail something else.

[[flAsh]]

athlon 64 fx are multiplier unlocked and hence are a boon for overclocking if u hav sum serious cooling.
Athlon 64 are also multplier unlocked but only in one direction ie multipliers can be decreased only.

[mamba]

votz the diff , lets c

THEY COST THE SKY , n ur paying 4 just a 15-20% performance increase almost tripple the money

r based only on the 939 (Clawhammer) socket n fabricated through the 130nm process . vereas the simple 64z r available both on 939(Winchester , Newcastle n Clawhammer) n 754(Newcastle n Clawhammer) socketz n r also fabricated by 2 , 130 n 90 nm processes
Clawhammerz have 1 MB L2 cache n r 130 nm , Newcastlez 512 KB of L2 n r 130 nm & Winchesterz 512 KB n 90nm
the 90 nm 1z r more efficient in power consumption , so should go 4 them (3000+ , 3200+ , 3500+ , although therez also a 3500+ 4 939 socket whichz a Newcastle )

at a time therez only 1 FX processor , current 1z a FX-55 . earlier FX-53 is now 4000+

u would have 2 check up the mobo manual 2 c if it supports the FX . eg moboz based on nForce4 SLI n Ultra support the FX , dont think a simple nForce chipset does . would check up n let u no

[krisjr]

Originally Posted by mamba

votz the diff , lets c

THEY COST THE SKY , n ur paying 4 just a 15-20% performance increase almost tripple the money

r based only on the 939 (Clawhammer) socket n fabricated through the 130nm process . vereas the simple 64z r available both on 939(Winchester , Newcastle n Clawhammer) n 754(Newcastle n Clawhammer) socketz n r also fabricated by 2 , 130 n 90 nm processes
Clawhammerz have 1 MB L2 cache n r 130 nm , Newcastlez 512 KB of L2 n r 130 nm & Winchesterz 512 KB n 90nm
the 90 nm 1z r more efficient in power consumption , so should go 4 them (3000+ , 3200+ , 3500+ , although therez also a 3500+ 4 939 socket whichz a Newcastle )

at a time therez only 1 FX processor , current 1z a FX-55 . earlier FX-53 is now 4000+

u would have 2 check up the mobo manual 2 c if it supports the FX . eg moboz based on nForce4 SLI n Ultra support the FX , dont think a simple nForce chipset does . would check up n let u no

geez that was cool man..tx for the reply..do let me know..well a mobo was supports say 64FX make can also work properly with only 64 based models rt..

[krisjr]

Originally Posted by mamba

votz the diff , lets c

THEY COST THE SKY , n ur paying 4 just a 15-20% performance increase almost tripple the money

r based only on the 939 (Clawhammer) socket n fabricated through the 130nm process . vereas the simple 64z r available both on 939(Winchester , Newcastle n Clawhammer) n 754(Newcastle n Clawhammer) socketz n r also fabricated by 2 , 130 n 90 nm processes
Clawhammerz have 1 MB L2 cache n r 130 nm , Newcastlez 512 KB of L2 n r 130 nm & Winchesterz 512 KB n 90nm
the 90 nm 1z r more efficient in power consumption , so should go 4 them (3000+ , 3200+ , 3500+ , although therez also a 3500+ 4 939 socket whichz a Newcastle )

at a time therez only 1 FX processor , current 1z a FX-55 . earlier FX-53 is now 4000+

u would have 2 check up the mobo manual 2 c if it supports the FX . eg moboz based on nForce4 SLI n Ultra support the FX , dont think a simple nForce chipset does . would check up n let u no

geez that was cool man..tx for the reply..do let me know..well a mobo was supports say 64FX make can also work properly with only 64 based models rt..

[krisjr]

Originally Posted by mamba

votz the diff , lets c

THEY COST THE SKY , n ur paying 4 just a 15-20% performance increase almost tripple the money

r based only on the 939 (Clawhammer) socket n fabricated through the 130nm process . vereas the simple 64z r available both on 939(Winchester , Newcastle n Clawhammer) n 754(Newcastle n Clawhammer) socketz n r also fabricated by 2 , 130 n 90 nm processes
Clawhammerz have 1 MB L2 cache n r 130 nm , Newcastlez 512 KB of L2 n r 130 nm & Winchesterz 512 KB n 90nm
the 90 nm 1z r more efficient in power consumption , so should go 4 them (3000+ , 3200+ , 3500+ , although therez also a 3500+ 4 939 socket whichz a Newcastle )

at a time therez only 1 FX processor , current 1z a FX-55 . earlier FX-53 is now 4000+

u would have 2 check up the mobo manual 2 c if it supports the FX . eg moboz based on nForce4 SLI n Ultra support the FX , dont think a simple nForce chipset does . would check up n let u no

geez that was cool man..tx for the reply..do let me know..well a mobo was supports say 64FX make can also work properly with only 64 based models rt..

[Ethan_Hunt]

@krisjr.....first del some of ur tripple posts

Btw the 64Fx model mobos will be compatible with only 64 bit proccy's........and hence will be optimised for utilising 64 bit appd more and 32 bit apps will also be enhanced while using this proccy......since the dual channel controller gives a boost for The Fx processors they have a small adv over 64.....also microsoft is just planning on the Xp's 64-bit version release or somtin....and with longhorn still in its Alpha stage dun know if it will be based on the 64-bit working architecture as well

Hmmmmm so many questions now.....are u really planning to buy one????

[krisjr]

hoping to build a monster mate with my money though.dad wont fund me.so asking these qs to u all tech nerds..i am a management stud so am not that tech saavy..i am tech saavy but still dont know tech stuff that much since i havent studied science/engineering..Its my passion so am just learning frm u alll.

[mamba]

Originally Posted by krisjr

geez that was cool man..tx for the reply..do let me know..well a mobo was supports say 64FX make can also work properly with only 64 based models rt..

damn rite , nobody would even think bout makin a mobo that supportz the FX n not the normal 64 , not financially viable , is it

n yup a plain vanilla nForce4 doesnt support the FX , n supports only 1.5 GB/s of SATA , compares 2 the 3 GB/s of the ultra n SLI