Would someone please give me a quick AMD tutorial or a reference on their processor designations? For example what does the 3800+ on the Athlon 64 processor mean? Is this a faster processor than the 3700+ processor? What is a FX-55 processor? Some people refer to their processor as a "San Diego." Does that mean it was made in San Diego? (just kidding). And most important...what is the main reason why I would want to buy an Athlon processor for FS9 rather than an Intel processor?Thanks for any help!Airbus

For comparison reference, have you looked here?:http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/Default.aspx

...and have a looke at http://www6.tomshardware.com/ regarding comparisons between AMD and Intel.Ulf B

The more expensive the better !!!!!Also, AMDs are known to give you better gaming experience (for a $$).Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

I don't know much (haha) but "San Diego" is a core name for a certain line of AMD cpu's. They feature 1MB of L2 cache, which is twice the previous core "Venice". There are the 3700+ san diego, which is 2.0? ghz and the 4000+ san diego which is 2.2 ghz. I may be a little off on those ghz but you get the picture. 3700+ san diego's currently run about $220, 4000+ about $320The FX... series are I believe essentially hopped-up "San Diego" core cpu's, and go 2.4 2.6 2.8 or something like that ghz. Currently there's the FX53, FX55, and FX57, and apparently the FX60 will be out in a few months. FX57's currently run about $1,000!!Here I am unsure, but I think 3800+ are dual core at 1.8 ghz each, 4200+ and 4400+ are Manchester? core and are also dual-core. You can get a 3800+ for about $330, or about what a single-core 4000+ costs.The 4400+'s are dual cores with 1MB L2 cache EACH. That's nice stuff.Hope this gives you an idea about things...and do visit the links the others posted, they are more accurate than I am.

Perhaps have a look at the following link? http://extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1876715,00.aspIMHO, Tom has a preference for Intel CPUs. Good luck and kind regards Jaap

I agree it's kind of confusing. The current AMDs are known as "K8". There are various form factors, aimed at different markets:Socket 754 - supposed to be "value"Socket 939 - supposed to be mainstream desktopSocket 940 - supposed to be serverYou will find that motherboards are pretty much designed with AMD's intentions. That is, a 939 motherboard will have enthusiast features like O/C options, latest chipsets, best onboard sound, etc. Note that in 2006, 939 will be replaced with a new form factor, socket M2, which will use DDR2 memory.The 939 is where most gamers today are focused IMHO. It is supported by the best range of moboards and chipsets.Processors for 939 are supplied in two process fabs: 130nm and 90nm. The 130s are obsolete. I don't know if they are still in the retail channel or not. The 90nm process is being built in a new facility, Fab36, in (east?) Germany. Eventually when process technology gets better, I guess they will move to 65nm.There are a variety of different cores using this 90nm process. They are branded (more or less top to bottom):OpteronFX64SemperonThere is also dual-core X2.Opteron was a "server" processor for the 940 form factor, but of late seems to have crept into the 939. FX is the "hotest" (and most expensive) version, then the 64s. Semperon is probably not worth considering. All of these come in various speeds and L2 cache. There also is a change in core design. The earlier cores are rev D, and the current shipping ones are rev E. The core names such as San Diego or Venice are just shorthand ways of describing the core.I've probably missed something. Maybe someone can correct any errors.scott s..

>>Processors for 939 are supplied in two process fabs: 130nm and>90nm. The 130s are obsolete. I don't know if they are still>in the retail channel or not. The 90nm process is being built>in a new facility, Fab36, in (east?) Germany. Eventually when>process technology gets better, I guess they will move to>65nm.>Seems like I saw some 130nm process Clawhammer AMD cpu's for sale at a popular online retailer recently. Considering that AMD is phasing out the Opteron, I think those will get pretty cheap in the next few months. And regarding the move to 65nm process, I hear both Intel and AMD will be doing that here in 2006.>>I've probably missed something. Maybe someone can correct any>errors.>>scott s.>.>No, you provided great info, I learned a lot from your post. Thanks.