Different Between A64 SD 4000+,Opteron 144/146/148 and FX55

[Massive]

Sorry for the noob question

As far as I know is that A64 SD 4000+, Opteron 144/146/148 and FX 55 have the same cache which is 1MB (CMIIW)
FX has the unlocked multiplier, A64 SD 4000 has locked higher multiplier then it default, and the opteron one I don't whether it is locked or not :p: .

So, is there any physically different on those processor?
And if those processor run on the same setting (HTT, multiplier and CPU clock) which processor that will comes with the highest performance? and why is that?

[TaPaKaH]

don't forget that FX5 can be on the old 130nm Clawhammer core ;) -> crappy OC

otherwise - all given CPUs have similar cores, so should have same performance @ same clock.
The only difference I see is multiplier...

[zir_blazer]

don't forget that FX5 can be on the old 130nm Clawhammer core ;) -> crappy OC

otherwise - all given CPUs have similar cores, so should have same performance @ same clock.
The only difference I see is multiplier...
There are two A64 FX-55 versions, the Clawhammer with Strained Silicon, and a later San Diego.

All these Processors uses the same physical Core but with different nominal specifications.

[Massive]

There are two A64 FX-55 versions, the Clawhammer with Strained Silicon, and a later San Diego.

All these Processors uses the same physical Core but with different nominal specifications.

So if they're all San Diego core they would all be just the same technical spect except the multiplier?

How about HTT?

and overclocking wise, which one from one of them that should have the best overclocking result?

I'm curious about why does AMD create such processor with same spec.
By creating A64 SD core they literally killed their opteron 144/146/148 market, that's why they start to make Opteron 165 which have dual core to make differentiation on their product line. But that lead me to another question, what really is the differences of desktop and server processor (A64 = desktop and Opteron = server), is that only the cache? Because X2 and Opteron 165 (and above) now have the same spec except for the cache.

And why they create FX series which have the same cores with higher price just for us to pay the unlocked multiplier. At first I think that FX series will have high quality core so they are like underclocked processor so they will have superior overclocking performance, but appearently not, it looks like the FX series is not so overclock friendly.

IMHO Personally I think AMD is unable to catch up with Intel product line today, they winning side is only by value/performace wise not by power/performance wise. I still AMD fan though, but these differentiation is making me confuse which one I should go when upgrading since they all comes with not too far price range and can be used in the same socket. And based on reviews I read on the net, migrating to DDR2 is not making big perfomance leap to AMD side as the Intel does.

CMIIW