Amd Shoots Themselves In The Foot!?

[Carlz0r]

So what abou the 4000 then, scince it was an FX at one time?

Nope. 4000 only has the lower multipliers unlocked.

[Amd_Lover2004]

So I guess when they converted it to the normal Athlon 64 Line they removed the multiplier?

[wayout44]

Well they just internally lock the higher ones out.

[Amd_Lover2004]

Yeah thats what I meant sorry.

[Carlz0r]

It's too bad Opterons have their multipliers locked. Can you imagine running a 2 way opteron system at 2.8-3.5 gHz a piece?

[Amd_Lover2004]

Everyone that owns a server now would be like, "**** what the hell good is this piece of crap I got here." And eventuary go for the good stuff. Although I do see the scence in locking the Optron line, Servers are ment to last a long time and overclocking them would dramaticly shorten their life span. Depending on the amount of overclocking of coarse. Optrons Being used in servers mainly.

[Yawgm0th]

So what abou the 4000 then, scince it was an FX at one time?

Nope. AMD locks the maximum multipliers on all non-F models. You could just buy an FX-53 instead of a 4000 if you needed that.

[wayout44]

Nope. AMD locks the maximum multipliers on all non-F models.

Damn, I was almost sure that that was already stated earlier.

[Yawgm0th]

Well he seemed to ignore it...

[toliveistodie948]

So what abou the 4000 then, scince it was an FX at one time?

k i guess my question is what exactly is the diff between the FX-53 and the 4000. also im lookin at getting a FX-55, do does anyone know/heard any rumors of amd releasing a non FX version and if that is built off the 90nm core. and if they did release a non fx version would it be more/less stable or bout the same and which would be better for OC'ing?