San Diego 4000 vs Fx57

Mr Spoon · 31 Jan 2006 at 02:03

big price difference but is there much performance difference (games/3d) ?
any benchmarks anywhere ?

btw, i have a 4000 already and have the option of buying an Fx57 for £300, plus then i can sell my 4000.

King_Boru · 31 Jan 2006 at 08:59

Well the FX57 runs at 2.8Ghz and the 4000+ at 2.4Ghz, thats a whole 400Mhz difference.

I'd get the FX57 for £300. Make sure it hasnt been overclocked to the max under phase with extreme volts as this could have damaged the CPU.

Mr Spoon · 31 Jan 2006 at 11:26

yea the CPU has not been overclocked.

sja360 · 31 Jan 2006 at 11:31

person must be mad to sell it for £300. i'd personally look at selling it for around £450-£500

james.miller · 31 Jan 2006 at 11:32

cant you just overclock the 4000+ ? i know i wouldn't be spending £300 on an fx57 when the 4000+ will most likely clock to that speed.

what a waste of money tbh.

clone · 31 Jan 2006 at 11:33

Get the FX57 m8 also find out what stepping it is as different steppings different overclock,sold my FX57 a few months back great cpu.

King_Boru · 31 Jan 2006 at 12:59

james.miller said:
cant you just overclock the 4000+ ? i know i wouldn't be spending £300 on an fx57 when the 4000+ will most likely clock to that speed.

what a waste of money tbh.

Yes proberbly to the SAME as the FX57 but the FX will pretty much garentee 3.0Ghz on good air where as the 4000+ will probarbly struggle. In the end if you sell the 4000+ for £180 odd pounds the FX will certainly pay for itself when you sell it on again.

mightynimrod · 31 Jan 2006 at 13:02

james.miller said:
cant you just overclock the 4000+ ? i know i wouldn't be spending £300 on an fx57 when the 4000+ will most likely clock to that speed.

what a waste of money tbh.

But then the FX57 would probably clock to 3ghz.

I'd say that was well spent, as he'll get £140 ish for his SD4000

£160 for a multi unlocked 3GHZ cpu - no brainer mate.

Mr Spoon · 31 Jan 2006 at 14:02

thanks for the comments, the guy is selling the Fx57 to get an Fx60. I tried overclocking the 4000 and even with decent temperatures I never got it very far i think 205 fsb instead of 200, and it didnt like much higher clock speeds either.
My 7800 GTX overclocks nicely to 550/1300 though

wyatt gates · 31 Jan 2006 at 15:26

clone said:
Get the FX57 m8 also find out what stepping it is as different steppings different overclock,sold my FX57 a few months back great cpu.

very pleased with the Fx57 is a beast of cpu,it may not show it speed in 3dmark 06 i get 4159 score with 7800 gtx ,but in the real world it is a so powerful

Hesky82 · 1 Feb 2006 at 05:07

Mr Spoon said:
thanks for the comments, the guy is selling the Fx57 to get an Fx60. I tried overclocking the 4000 and even with decent temperatures I never got it very far i think 205 fsb instead of 200, and it didnt like much higher clock speeds either.
My 7800 GTX overclocks nicely to 550/1300 though

205fsb, that’s just over 2.45ghz with a 4000+, to be honest that is pretty disappointing! You sure your ram isn’t the limiting factor here? Either way if your current rig isn’t a fan of high fsb I’m sure plonking an fx-57 in with all its multipliers you should see 2.8ghz easy, it would be the safest bet for high clocks anyway.
On the other hand your spending quit a bit of dosh, even though it’s on a cheap fx-57 dont forget you’re in dual core territory.

mightynimrod · 1 Feb 2006 at 06:30

Hesky82 said:
I’m sure plonking an fx-57 in with all its multipliers you should see 2.8ghz easy, it would be the safest bet for high clocks anyway.
.

I'd bloomin wll expect that seeing as 2.8ghz is its stock speed

Easy 3ghz on air matey. Even at 15x200

Hesky82 · 1 Feb 2006 at 07:03

i said that because he has found it hard to get anymore than stock out of his 4000+, I've not really come across many san diegos that crap out 5fsb over stock.

juno_first · 1 Feb 2006 at 10:08

The fx57 may score low in 3dmk06 but playing todays games; i recon its the dogs & would probably play todays games better at 3ghz than an fx60 @ 2.9ghz.

Personally I would prefer dualcore because its the future and quicker with eg. running many Windows applications, but by the time games use dualcore properly there may be an fx61, :rolleyes:

Hesky82 · 1 Feb 2006 at 10:52

Odd numbers are for single core fx cpus fx51,53,55,57. Even numbers are for dual core fx cpus so undoubtedly the cpu after the fx60 will be the fx62. Core will no longer be called Toledo but called Windsor, there gonna crap out a little and only run the fx62 at 2.67ghz due to the transition to 333fsb, skt am2 and ddr2 here we come, not :rolleyes:

mpy32 · 1 Feb 2006 at 11:15

juno_first said:
The fx57 may score low in 3dmk06 but playing todays games; i recon its the dogs & would probably play todays games better at 3ghz than an fx60 @ 2.9ghz.:

i take it you have not seen todays games like

quake 4

fear

cod2

on a dual core then mate????

Hesky82 · 1 Feb 2006 at 11:24

dont forget City of Villains.

Game programmers caught the dual core bug ages ago, people just dont know it yet

Hesky82 · 1 Feb 2006 at 11:34

a little multi-threading patching going on here.

fx60 at stock 2.6ghz
fx57 at stock 2.8ghz

juno_first · 1 Feb 2006 at 12:02

Interesting stuff, my experience is that singlecore runs as quick as dualcore in games, clock for clock, which is why an fx57 @ 3 be quicker than fx60 @ 2.9, as this is what you could expect them to clock to.

I tried the COD2 HT 101 patch but it went worse

I will try find some dualcore patches I think hmm.

Hesky82 · 1 Feb 2006 at 12:19

juno_first said:
I tried the COD2 HT 101 patch but it went worse

I will try find some dualcore patches I think hmm.

You have nvidia gfx cards that is why.

dual-core optimisation is now inherent in nvidia's own gpu drivers and this unfortunately interferes with x2 optimisation patches available for these games, you frame rates will actually drop!
you need to disable NVIDIA's own optimisations to allow the patch to work correctly mate.