4000+也是1MB L2. 唯一的差別只勝下不能調倍頻.
Anandtech的評論也對4000+的定位頗有微詞. 他認為3800+反倒是較好的選擇.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipset...spx?i=2249&p=15
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipset...spx?i=2249&p=17
Final Words
As we've shown just in the final pages of this review, AMD's launch of the Athlon 64 4000+ doesn't mean all that much other than bragging rights. The justification of the rating is questionable, as is the release of the processor, since it is little more than a rebadged FX-53 with some of its overclocking appeal removed. The fact that Intel has pulled the launch of the Pentium 4 4GHz while AMD has come to market with a 2.4GHz Athlon 64 4000+ doesn't mean much, but there is little to complain about since AMD has many more attractive Athlon 64 options.

What the cancelation of Intel's 4GHz Pentium 4 does say however is that Prescott was a waste. Intel would have done a much better job of competing had 90nm been simply a die shrink and done without the architectural "enhancements" of Prescott designed to ramp up clock speeds. Granted hindsight is 20-20 and we can't blame Intel for not having that knowledge of the future, but we can say that once again, it looks like AMD made the right bet, this time with reference to their 90nm strategy. We would strongly recommend any of AMD's 90nm parts thanks to their significantly lower power consumption, competitive price as well as their performance.


It is worth noting that after the Athlon 64 3500+, AMD doesn't really have many price-competitive options with Intel. The 3800+ and 4000+ compete in a price segment that even Intel's Pentium 4 560 won't touch, making Intel's flagship desktop processor cheaper than AMD's similar offering - a first if we've ever seen one. So although the Athlon 64 3800+ and 4000+ are very strong performers, you're definitely paying for them. Although it is worth noting that even the FX-55 is cheaper than Intel's Pentium 4 3.4EE.

The introduction of the FX-55 with strained silicon technology is an interesting and unexpected move from AMD, at least at this point. We knew they were planning an FX-55, but we had no idea it would include strained silicon support - the question of when we'll see strained silicon and higher clock speeds at 90nm does still remain.

With 2004 quickly coming to a close, we can't help but wonder if this will be the last year for the foreseeable future where we will have a processor speed war to talk about. With 2005 destined to be the year of multiple cores, and with dual core solutions from both AMD and Intel guaranteed to run at lower clock speeds than present day single core chips, are the great MHz and GHz races of years past on hiatus for a while?

What about software support for multi core processors? Although Intel has happily shipped over 50 million Hyper Threading enabled Pentium 4s in just over two years, the vast majority of desktop applications are still not multithreaded. Will the introduction of dual core CPUs be a clever way of weaning the populous off of fast CPUs so that lower clocked, slower overall, multi core CPUs can tide us over until performance actually improves? The prospects are interesting.

We expected Intel to launch Hyper Threading with killer applications and benchmarks that would truly show its necessity on the desktop, but we were rather surprised to see that the best we got two years ago were some scripts that simulated isolated situations. Our fears are that 2005 will hold a repeat of Intel's HT launch on the desktop; while no one is arguing that dual core won't have a future, we're wondering if it may come a bit too soon to actually do anything. Obviously only time will tell, but until then don't expect too many more speed bumps from either Intel or AMD. It seems like both camps are going to be increasing cache sizes and playing with other architectural tweaks in the near future before they can get dual core out the door.