/ Sign-up
Your question

whats the difference in AMD's chips...

  • CPUs
  • Cache
  • AMD
  • Dual Core
Last response: in CPUs
January 4, 2006 12:30:43 AM

ok the new FX-60 is supposed to be dual core 2.6 Ghz, 2x 128 kb L1 Cache, 2x 1 Mb L2 Cache, unless im mistaken its the same damn chip as the X2 5000+ someone please correct my Intel brand(15 years going strong without a hitch) ass

More about : whats difference amd chips

January 4, 2006 2:11:21 AM

Yes the FX-60 and the X2 5000+ seem very similar. They will both clock to 2.6GHz. The only sensible difference would be that the FX-60 will have 1MB of L2 cache per core while the X2 5000+ will only have 512k. However, the difference in performance due to cache alone will not be that great. The FX-60 will have its multipliers unlocked for better overclocking though.

The FX-60 has a firm launch date of January 15 I believe, which is right when Intel will be shipping the 955EE and the rest of Presler and Cedar Mill. The current indications are that the FX-60 will be very expensive and priced above the FX-57, which will likely remain in production as its faster in games, at around $1200. The X2 5000+ on the other hand has no firm launch date set. AMD will likely hold off on the X2 5000+ another month or too in order to avoid stealing sales from the FX-60. In any case the current X2 4800+ competes well enough so there isn't any rush.
January 4, 2006 4:42:57 AM

In any case the current X2 4800+ competes well enough

For those who dont understand LCdataese, that means it still beats Intel's flagship 955.
Sorry Intel, try again latter.
Related resources
January 5, 2006 1:20:35 AM

I was just saying they both have there strengths. The X2 4800+ is $200 cheaper and has greater value. However, the 955EE is still superior for my uses as it can truly multitask as advertised, being able to virus scan, MP3 encode, Windows Media encode, unzip files, and play Splinter Cell with 10 average fps faster than the X2 4800+ and more importantly maintaining a playable min fps. This true multitasking performance is perfectly suited for my needs as I would like to be able to encode 2 videos, 1 audio stream, run background applications, and my foreground ones at the same time.

With such a high price and targeted at the high-end its good to know that it is offering great overclockability with 4GHz easily reached with stock voltage and stock cooling. (4.26GHz stock in some cases). If I were to be spending $999, I would run it at those higher speeds by default. With the performance advantage at 4.26GHz over the X2 4800+ whether multitasking or not, it would be worth the price difference. The temperature difference is easily mitigated with decent cooling and the increase in power being offset by the 10% power reduction offered by the 8-phase voltage regulators that are included with the ASUS motherboards likewise targeted for the same market. 8-phase regulators also offer noticable processor temperature reductions. The new 12x multiplier allows the 955EE, even one overclocked to 4.26GHz and beyond, to downclock to 3.2GHz depending on usage further controlling power and temperature.
January 5, 2006 2:38:18 AM

ok the new FX-60 is supposed to be dual core 2.6 Ghz, 2x 128 kb L1 Cache, 2x 1 Mb L2 Cache, unless im mistaken its the same damn chip as the X2 5000+ someone please correct my Intel brand(15 years going strong without a hitch) ass

the new fx-60 will have 256kb L1 cache, while the rest of their processors will have only 128 kb. :)  found that off the inquirer
January 5, 2006 3:31:21 AM

being able to virus scan, MP3 encode, Windows Media encode, unzip files, and play Splinter Cell with 10 average fps faster than the X2 4800+ and more importantly maintaining a playable min fps

Where did this come from?
I find it hard to believe, with what we know about HT's penalties.
Then again, play FEAR, or any other "newer" title, and the 4800 just blows the 955 away.
January 5, 2006 4:23:38 AM

The performance benefit of HT under heavy load isn't new. While its true that HT under general light and medium loads does tend to have a negative effect, especially when the software isn't optimized, it does create results under heavy multitasking. Even the 840EE outperforms the X2 4800+ when playing Far Cry while encoding MP3, zipping files, converting to PDF, and encoding a Xvid. Despite 4 heavy background processes, the 840EE can maintain perfectly playable frame rates of above 70 fps in Far Cry at 1024x768x32 in high quality mode while the X2 4800+ is slower by around 10 fps.
(The graph at the bottom)
January 5, 2006 4:58:06 AM

You are an idiot.
First off, look at that chart again.
The XE takes a hit, each time a prog is added. The X2 only takes a hit, when the 3rd and 5th progs are added. Anyone who actually wanted to do those things, and still play a game would set the afinities so that the game used one core, and the other progs used the other.
This would work perfectly with the X2, but because windows doesn't like to see a core not used, HT would make the XE slow down.
January 5, 2006 6:28:29 AM

The L1 cache amount of the FX-60 is exactly the same as the regular X2. They all have 128k (64k Instruction + 64k Data) per core.

"Each of the cores has 128KB of L1 and 1024KB of L2 cache memory," taken from the page itsself. IF its dual core, and it is, then multiply it by 2, 2 megs L2 and 256k L1
January 5, 2006 4:14:52 PM

The performance hit when running an odd number of tasks isn't just limited to the X2 and is common to the 840D and the 540J. What is interesting is that the 840D and even the 540J can match the X2 4800+ in fps when running 3 other heavy tasks. It's not like the X2 "only takes a hit" for the 3rd and 5th program as it is still 40 fps down from its peak and is still slower than the 840EE under four tasks. Whether the 840EE loses some to every additional program or not, the drop off in performance for the X2 4800+ after 2 tasks is still steeper. The 955EE would improve upon the performance of the 840EE as while it may not correct scheduling conflicts, the doubled cache and expanded FSB will relax the resource crunch of HT.

Even if you play around with the affinities, it's likely that the 840EE or the 955EE will still be ahead in overall performance. Allowing the game to run on a dedicated core will allow the X2 4800+ to pull ahead in fps as we know that its superior in dedicated game performance. However, the performance of the background applications running on the single remaining core will suffer. The performance of the A64 4000+ falls considerably when a second task is added, while the 540J manages to perform admirably due to HT. Discounting running 3 or 5 applications since its deemed unfair, the 540J likewise performs better than the A64 4000+ when its running 4 heavy programs which is what that 2nd core of the X2 4800+ would be doing once the 1st core is dedicated to the game.

Games may be controversial since, as you say, if you really want gaming performance you can dedicate a core. However, looking back at the Anandtech comparison, the 955EE still appears superior in terms of heavy multitasking. Running 4 programs, avoiding the X2s weakness with odd numbered tasks, the 955EE manages to complete a virus scan, a MP3 encode, a Windows Media encode, and an unzipping more than 15 seconds or nearly 10% faster than the X2 4800+.

In addition, in both reviews the Intel processors were at a slight disadvantage. While the X2 4800+ was given enthousiast DDR 400 with low latencies of 2-2-2-5 for Digit-Life and 2-2-2-7 for Anandtech, the 840EE received DDR2 533 at 3-3-3-8 and the 955EE received DDR2 667 5-5-5-15. Better performance could have been achieved with DDR2 667 at 3-2-2-8 or synchronous DDR2 800 at 4-3-3-12 for the 840EE and DDR2 889 at 4-4-4-12 for the 955EE.
January 5, 2006 4:23:29 PM

I would say anyone who would actually want to do all those things and play a game at the same time is a moron.


January 5, 2006 4:24:59 PM

I wasn't taking issue on your information on the FX-60 as its correct. What I was commenting on was your statement:

while the rest of their processors will have only 128 kb

If you meant single core proceesors than thats correct. The X2 processors on the other hand, have the same amount of L1 cache as the FX-60 namely 128k per core or 2x128k in total. It's generally better not to straight add the caches in dual cores since they are physically separated, and not shared with the exception of Yonah.

Since the FX-60 will have the same amount of L1 cache as the X2s, its more clock speed that is the differentiating factor from the family along with unlocked multipliers.
January 6, 2006 2:44:05 AM

I have to agree with mpjesse. But even a moron can see that with 1 or 2 heavy tasks only, Amd is the way to go.
Anything beyond that, you start to take hits, no matter what chip you use.
I will give you this though. If you always run 4 heavy tasks, while you game, you are better off with the 955. (Actually you need a psychiatric assessment and some prioritizing skills)
Oh, and dont forget to get extra cooling. That 955 puts out 86 more watts than the 4800, @ 100% cpu usage. That's almost double. You might be able to pick up the cooling system from an old nuclear reactor for cheap.
January 7, 2006 2:41:59 AM

First idiot and now moron. There's no need to get so worked up. Besides I would think running multiple tasks and parallelism is better prioritization and more efficient. Encoding, unzipping, and PDFing are all click and forget tasks anyways so its not like I would go psychotic trying to manage multiple programs. In any case, if I were to game while running 4 heavy tasks, I'm not sacrificing much performance as the 70+ fps at 1024x768x32 and high quality settings is perfectly acceptable for casual gaming.

It's hard to tell what the actual power consumption will be as every website seems to give different ranges. In any case if I were to spend my money getting a 955EE, I would use an ASUS i975X with 8-phase voltage regulators to cut the consumption 10% and of course a good cooler.

Dell just annouced an interesting gaming system. The specs are amazing with a 4.26GHz 955EE, 2 of the new 150GB Raptors, 2GB of DDR2 667, and a Quad-SLI setup of GeForce 7800 GTX 512 for 2GB total of video RAM to match the system RAM. Of course we won't know the real performance until someone reviews it. With it being built in limited quantities, the prices will no doubt be through the roof. Even if I had that type of money to spend, I'd want to build my own rather than give it to Dell.