Hi,I have a dilemma here. I see a $400 difference between the AMD4000, which is 2.4Mhz and the FX55, which is 2.6Mhz.Are the $400 worth the difference?Does the FX have any special treatment that makes it work way faster than the AMD4000, or is it only the .2 difference that there is between them (nothing difficult to overclock if this is the case)?Thanks for your answersLeo

With the recent AMD price cuts, I wouldn't even consider buying a single core CPU anymore.You can get the X2 4600+ @ 2.4 ghz per core for less than you would pay for either of those.Also, if you are building an entire new system, I would wait a few more weeks for stock of Core 2 Duo.If you are upgrading from AMD, sticking with AMD is the right choice.

I agree. Right now is not the time anymore to go single-core. While single-cores will be still around for a long time, most modern applications and games will make more and more use of the dual-core features, thus significantly improving performance compared to single-core CPUs. FSX will be capable of dual-core threading as well.You best choice would be any AMD dual-core.------Update: This article, if true, claims that FSX will *NOT* make full use of current dual-cores. At least not in the current beta. Of course, this is all hypothetical, based on experiences from a single person at Oshkosh, so it has to be taken with the benefit of a doubt.http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=54251------ Patrick

Pat, In the last review from Oshkosh that I read, an ACES 'rep' said that dual core WAS optimised in FSX.If you look further down that thread you linked to, you will see a comment from tdragger which basically says that dual core is indeed fully functional in FSX.Glenn

>------>Update: This article, if true, claims that FSX will *NOT* make>full use of current dual-cores. At least not in the current>beta. Of course, this is all hypothetical, based on>experiences from a single person at Oshkosh, so it has to be>taken with the benefit of a doubt.>>http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=54251>------> >PatrickI think that is not right. The MS team (tdragger most recently) has said FSX does take advantage of dual-core cpu's.Now as to the LEVEL to which FSX takes advantage of dual-core cpu's is, well, no one knows. We will find out though, from each other, once FSX is out. I don't have a dual core right now but will be keenly interested in others results.Rhett

Well, as nobody actually anwered the question I assume the only difference between the two is .2 Ghz.I do have a FX55, and as I am moving to part of the world in which parts availability is poor and expensive I am thinking about getting a backup in case the one I have dies (I would die along with it, lol).Of course this means I want to pay as little as possible, and a processor that is almost as good as the one I have, and that with not too much overclocking becomes the same, at $140 is a total bargain.Had I known about this before I bought the FX55 I would have bought the 4000I don't get why would someone buy a FX55 at 600, when a 4000 is at 150.Leo

Be careful judging a CPU by the amount of clock cycles (GHz). You could do that until a few years ago, but currently the CPU speed relies on many more factors than GHz.I agree, the 4000+ offers currently the best price/perfomance ratio and I would choose it any time over an FX processor.Pat

To the limit of my knowledge, both the 4000+ and FX55 are San Diego core cpus.If I wanted a "backup" cpu, then you bet I would get a 4000+ for $140. But then again, you could get a 3800+ (dual core) for the same. But then a 3800+ would not be as fast as a 4000+.The 3700+ (also a San Diego core) was the best price vs. performance there was, for a while. But that has recently changed.But if you are going to a remote part of the world, what makes you think just the cpu would give out. If your power supply or motherboard overheats and fries, you're still out-of-luck, even if you had a 4000+ to drop in there.Rhett

While I can't answer your question exactly..I can offer this...I have the following system as well as the one in my sig:4000+(San Diego), Asus A8NSLI Premium, XFX7800GTX Oc, 1gb Mushkin Hi Perf LvL2 PC3200, DangerDen Liquid Cooling, 2x36gb Raptors(Raid0), WD Cavier 250gb 16mb, SoundBlaster Audigy2zs, OCZ Power Stream 600w, Plextor PX-230A, Plextor PX-760A, Mitsumi Card Reader, Asus Vento 3600(note: a couple of day's ago I swapped the 4000+ out with a 4800x2...However this has been my main FS Rig for some time...I plan to replace the 4000+ after some comparison testing is complete..I have enough spare parts to build the 4800x2 up into another rig...)While the FX-57 system is a bit "snappier" feeling...In a nutshell FS performance is very similar when "under heavy load" in the sim...My FS settings are all sliders maxed and 60-80% traffic...I use 1600x1200x32 resolution..Minimum FPS with both systems are in the High 20's to lower/mid 30's with either system...I normally lock the 4000+ system on 35FPS...I normally lock the FX-57 on 40FPS..During the "non taxing" portions of the sim...Max FPS on the FX system will reach the High 200's+...While the 4000+ will usually max out just over 100FPS...None of that FPS stuff really means allot to me personally...I'm the type that pays more attention to how smooth FS runs and how quickly textures load ect...Both systems are capable of running FS Very Very smooth with studders being negligable/non-existant...Texture loads are instantanious...IQ is Very Very comprable between the two...Although I can't speciffically compare the 4000+ to the FX-55...Hopefully this may offer a bit of insite?? I'm of the opinion the 4000+ offers outstanding performance...I would be very hard pressed to recommend the FX-57 over the 4000+...IMHO it's not worth the money...Yes..The FX-57 offers some performance advantage over the 4000...I suppose it's up to the individual...To me the performance difference is negligable...FYI: Prior to my 4800x2 swap...I had been the 4000+ Overclocked to 2.8ghz for a while now...I also have a couple of other buddies who have been running stable at 2.75...My comments are based on the 4000+ running at the stock 2.4ghz...If you would like to wake it up a bit...It seems to be up to the challange...Good Luck in your decisions..Edit: After I typed all this I actually noticed your post ie: you already own an FX-55 and are looking for a back-up...Sorry for writing all this then...I'm gonna leave it though as it took me a while..he heYeah!! The $140 4000+ is definatly the way to go!! Although it's not factory unlocked like the FX's...It's still a good overclocker...It will handle 2.6 with now sweat!!Sorry for all the Yacking Above...I should have read through all the posts first..

>I don't get why would someone buy a FX55 at 600, when a 4000>is at 150.>>LeoOne reason.....unlocked multiplier (the ONLY reason to go 'FX')But for us mere mortals, the 4000+ is a much better deal.But why not get a X2 4600+ for not much more or a X2 4200+ for around the same?Same clock speed on the 4600+ (2.4) but 2 cores. easily OC'd to 2.6 and beyond which is then X2 5000+ AND your FX55 speeds.Makes more sense to me.....Glenn

Hey guys, excellent answers. ThanksFirst of all, the 4600 is around $250. If I didn't go with the 4000, I'd just jump to the 4800.I am scared about the life of my CPU for a couple of reasons. I was on one of those days you can't stop yourself and bought a used FX55 clawhammer. Later I learned the clawhammer runs hotter than the San Diego, meaning among other things a shorter life. I don't know how did the previous user treat the processor either.So far, after several months, the CPU works great and after I installed a Zalman 9500 on it, the temp is around 33/35 while idling and never higher than 45 when working at 100% for long periods of time.On the other hand I am moving from the heart of the Caribbean, where temps never go below 80 (80 is a cold night in winter, lol) to the end of the world, the South of Southamerica, which is pretty cold, and the avg temp is about 70 F (the temp id around the 30/50s at this time of the year). That will help me with the life of the CPU for sure, but nonetheless I will feel a lot better knowing I have a brand new 2.4 Ghz in a box waiting to be installed. As a matter of fact I might install it, overclock it and keep the FX as a backup.Parts availability there is expensive, and hard to get, but a mobo is not so hard to find as a processor, and other than the fact that I already have a backup PSU, PSUs are pretty much available. If I'd lost my FX55, an AMD 4000 cost around u$d 400 :(. Now I need a little further help: Where can I find a good overclocking tutorial for an AMD 4000.ThanksLeo

A64 Overclocking guide:http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.as...7&enterthread=y