Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wait a minute... the FX-60...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 5, 2006 1:42:36 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure someone has brought this up before, but I just wanna get this clear.

The X2 4800+ runs at 2.4 GHz, right?
The FX-60 is based on the same architecture, runs at 2.6 GHz, and is about $300 more expensive, right?

Does this truly reveal the benefit of overclocking? By overclocking the X2 4800+ a measly 200 mhz, you can achieve basically the same processor as a stock-setting FX-60?

Surprised me...
I suppose with good cooling you could OC the 4400+ another 400 mhz to the FX-60 stock settings, too...

More about : wait minute

February 5, 2006 2:06:09 AM

I think I read somewhere that the FX-60 is the same architecture as the X2 series, but AMD just put it in the FX line because it represents their best processor at the moment. Good thing most users know nothing about OCing, else the FX-60 would be a failure... True for every processor i guess.. Maybe the difference is in the fact that you could OC an FX-60 higher than you could OC a 4800+? Meh, I think I'm thinking too much about this.
February 5, 2006 2:20:03 AM

Quote:
I think the FX60 is based on the FX55 CPU. Yes you can overclock a 4800+ to 2.6 and basically have an FX60.

Not quite.
Quote:
I think I read somewhere that the FX-60 is the same architecture as the X2 series, but AMD just put it in the FX line because it represents their best processor at the moment. Good thing most users know nothing about OCing, else the FX-60 would be a failure... True for every processor i guess.. Maybe the difference is in the fact that you could OC an FX-60 higher than you could OC a 4800+? Meh, I think I'm thinking too much about this.

They actually overclock about the same, although the FX-60 has unlocked multipliers.
Related resources
February 5, 2006 2:26:44 AM

The FX-60 is the same design, core and cache of the Opteron 180, but with 200 more MHz and an unlocked multiplier.
That is where the differences end.
If you overclock your Opty to 2.6GHz, you have a stock FX-60
February 5, 2006 3:10:00 AM

Opteron 200 series just has more L1 (if any) cache?
February 5, 2006 11:04:17 AM

I recall reading somewhere that the FX and opty chips has 128bit memory controllers vs 64bit on standrad X2 and athlon 64. I can someone shine some light into this?
February 5, 2006 4:54:16 PM

FX-60 is just a X2 44/4800+ with higher multiplier, thats it.
A vanilla X2 4400+ has about the same max clock as the FX-60 and would even perform better due to higher memory clock, so the FX - like usual - doesnt justify the really premium price like Extreme Editions do.
February 5, 2006 5:00:16 PM

at least Intel provides better value from it's Extreme Editions than AMD's ripoff on the FX :x
February 5, 2006 5:07:28 PM

FX-60 has an unlocked multiplier vs the X2 series.

my X2 4400 Oc'ed to beyond the X2 4800+ pretty easily. Now running at 2x2.475Ghz and all I've got on it is a massive heatsink/fan :D  Saved me some $$$$ too.
February 5, 2006 5:11:55 PM

Quote:
at least Intel provides better value from it's Extreme Editions than AMD's ripoff on the FX :x


I should slap you for saying that.

gtr: All AMD64 systems have a 128-bit Memory Controller, which allows for 2 64-bit channels for Memory (Dual Channel). This includes AMD64 s754, s939, Opties, FX's, X2's, standard A64's, and next-gen AM2's. In my opinion, the reason AMD is charging alot for the FX's is because they know the people who buy their lower-end A64's (not saying ANY A64 is low-end, sure as hell pwns any Intel CPU) are Gamers/People who know enough about computers to get the best, so they charge more for the FX's so they can make a few bucks w/o being too far behind Intel. IMHO, anybody who knows anything about computers, right now, would not buy an Intel CPU.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
February 5, 2006 5:17:31 PM

Not true Modmike. If I had a business and I wanted a cheap dual core I'd go with Intel 820, because 1) its cheaper than all the other CPU's. 2) I am not going to do anything extreme with it. 3) Heat issues wont matter for what a business would do, excepting server apps, or programs that really push a CPU.
February 5, 2006 5:23:33 PM

Uhm...What does a business need with a Dual-Core CPU if it's being used for Word Processing and the like? Maybe you need 17,000 Microsot Word's open at once, idk. And if it's not going to be used for that, and for something larger, than the business wouldn't buy a crappy 820, so that defense is out the window. And they especially wouldn't buy an 820 for a Server, as Balki Bartokamous says, "Don't be reedeeculose!".

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
February 5, 2006 5:28:11 PM

Quote:
Opteron 200 series just has more L1 (if any) cache?


No, all AMD64's from the s754 2800+ to the latest FX-60 all have 128KB L1 Cache (64KB Instruction, 64KB Data). Though I did read that in 2007ish timeframe, when AMD is set to release their new architecture to succeed the AMD64, they plan to put 128KB + 128KB for 256KB L1 Cache, not sure if it is true, but I read it awhile back. Something to ponder about I'd say.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
February 5, 2006 5:39:50 PM

I'd say save the $300 and o/c... besides overclocking the FSB improves overall system performance by increasing bandwidth... that is if you have fast ram. Systems nowadays typically don't run into the problems of FSB overclocking(PCI, IDE channels screwing up etc... etc...) since most boards have async fsbs..
February 5, 2006 5:50:12 PM

Thats why the word overclocking was invented , to save som $$$.OCing is like extreme sports just pass som time to kick a$$.
February 5, 2006 6:06:30 PM

Quote:
I'd say save the $300 and o/c... besides overclocking the FSB improves overall system performance by increasing bandwidth... that is if you have fast ram. Systems nowadays typically don't run into the problems of FSB overclocking(PCI, IDE channels screwing up etc... etc...) since most boards have async fsbs..


this is the reason I think I'd rather buy a cheaper AMD... I thought it was kind of a ripoff to make the FX 60 with so little difference. All a EE P4 is is an overclocked processor, faster FSB, and more cache, and maybe a few other specs, so not much there either... just get a 640 instead of 540, and you got the cache, then overclock it, have a higher clock as well as a faster FSB, so you really pwn the EE. :) 
February 5, 2006 6:14:30 PM

Quote:
I'd say save the $300 and o/c... besides overclocking the FSB improves overall system performance by increasing bandwidth... that is if you have fast ram. Systems nowadays typically don't run into the problems of FSB overclocking(PCI, IDE channels screwing up etc... etc...) since most boards have async fsbs..


this is the reason I think I'd rather buy a cheaper AMD... I thought it was kind of a ripoff to make the FX 60 with so little difference. All a EE P4 is is an overclocked processor, faster FSB, and more cache, and maybe a few other specs, so not much there either... just get a 640 instead of 540, and you got the cache, then overclock it, have a higher clock as well as a faster FSB, so you really pwn the EE. :) 

Anything pwns the EE. Even a s754 2800+ Underclocked to 200MHz.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
February 5, 2006 6:16:42 PM

Intel's overclocked... are a different story though ;) 
February 5, 2006 6:30:41 PM

Quote:
Intel's overclocked... are a different story though ;) 


No they're not. You don't want to debate me on performance of AMD vs. Intel like you're doing in the "AMD IS JUST BAD!!" thread, I've used almost all Intel and AMD processors there is to use (dating back to 486 time) and your "Intel" CPU's are not better than AMD, they were at one time with the P3 vs. Athlon, but those days are long gone.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
February 5, 2006 6:31:40 PM

Quote:
Anything pwns the EE.

I find this comment funny considering how you lectured me on making categorical statements.

I can understand hyperbole but
Quote:
Even a s754 2800+ Underclocked to 200MHz.

that type of exaggeration borders on irrelevance. I know there are many cases where the EEs performance is less than spectacular, but I doubt that is a case.

Quote:
All AMD64 systems have a 128-bit Memory Controller, which allows for 2 64-bit channels for Memory (Dual Channel). This includes AMD64 s754, s939, Opties, FX's, X2's, standard A64's, and next-gen AM2's.

This statement is generally correct. However, S754 chips only have 64-bit memory controllers for single channel operation.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/...

Hmm, the link doesn't work properly because of "^" splits it, but its there.
February 5, 2006 6:34:28 PM

Quote:
Anything pwns the EE.

I find this comment funny considering how you lectured me on making categorical statements.

I can understand hyperbole but
Quote:
Even a s754 2800+ Underclocked to 200MHz.

that type of exaggeration borders on irrelevance.

Quote:
All AMD64 systems have a 128-bit Memory Controller, which allows for 2 64-bit channels for Memory (Dual Channel). This includes AMD64 s754, s939, Opties, FX's, X2's, standard A64's, and next-gen AM2's.

This statement is generally correct. However, S754 chips only have 64-bit memory controllers for single channel operation.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/...

God why can't you fly off a cliff and get off these forumz...sheesh.. Your type of unintelligence borders on "please get off these forumz because you're irritating me"-ance. But yes, you are correct with the s754's mem controller, sad though that you had to go to AMD.com to learn that...hmm...Character Character Character...

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
February 5, 2006 6:41:32 PM

I knew that you were wrong as soon as I read your statement. However, I included the link in accordance with your suggestion about solid supporting evidence. It's funny that when I follow your suggestion, you suddenly aren't satisfied. Perhaps, I'm not the only one with a character flaw.

You know, this grudge that your holding from me correcting your statements about the nature of HyperTransport architecture is tiresome. Not everyone here needs to agree with your point-of-view or stroke your ego.
February 5, 2006 6:43:36 PM

MadModMike, I find that disgusting... you start insulting him when he's only pointing out some facts :roll: and you haven't even been here as long as I have :o 
February 5, 2006 6:50:38 PM

Quote:
MadModMike, I find that disgusting... you start insulting him when he's only pointing out some facts :roll: and you haven't even been here as long as I have :o 


You've been here longer, and that means....???

ltdata: It's not a grudge about the nature of something you've never even had anything to do with, it's your cockyness and arrogant nature of your posts that piss me off, I couldn't care less if you had created HTT or anything for that matter, I still say you need to fly off a cliff, take your Intel Fanboy WINDSHEAR wth you please.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
February 5, 2006 7:24:31 PM

I'd let anyone rip me off for performance like that :D ream: :sigh:
February 5, 2006 7:26:33 PM

Quote:
I'd let anyone rip me off for performance like that :D ream: :sigh:


lol I agree.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
February 5, 2006 7:41:17 PM

Quote:
Opteron 200 series just has more L1 (if any) cache?


Mmmm no but ok. They do have extra HTT links (3 instead of 1) for connecting to an additional CPU at hight speed, thats the real difference. The 8 series has more than the 2 series as well (or is it 2 t hen 3 links? hell i dont care, im not buyinig them... :D )

They are the same thing as the opteron and 4400 / 4800 except the actual clock speed and unlocked multiplier. In fact, the mulitiplier is bout the only thin of significance. the 165 or 170 Opteron is the same thing when overclocked...just less than half the money. A 170 opteron will clock upwards of 3.0ghz per core on air for a mere $380. The $800 savings will get you 2 gig of ram (225ish) and a sweet video card (280 7800gt) AND and a Raptor HDD with tons of cash to spare. In fact, you an build the entire rig for about what the processor alone would have cost you. I dont condone raptors however, their tiny improvement in performance is a high price to pay, unless your loaded. the map load and boot times are a bit better, but framerates once playing are the same. The Audigy 2 or Xfi is a much better upgrade for quality and framerate improvements.

If you get a nice high quality air cooler for $50ish you'll get near 3ghz per core, 2.8 is common on the 170 on the OEM cooler, still over the FX60, call it FX62 on a budget...
February 5, 2006 8:01:46 PM

Intel actually does overclock better than AMD with their 65nm process.
February 5, 2006 8:11:17 PM

I second what was said. A business that 'needs' dual core can probably spare $50 more to buy, say an Opty 165.
February 5, 2006 11:51:51 PM

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure someone has brought this up before, but I just wanna get this clear.

The X2 4800+ runs at 2.4 GHz, right?
The FX-60 is based on the same architecture, runs at 2.6 GHz, and is about $300 more expensive, right?

Does this truly reveal the benefit of overclocking? By overclocking the X2 4800+ a measly 200 mhz, you can achieve basically the same processor as a stock-setting FX-60?

Surprised me...
I suppose with good cooling you could OC the 4400+ another 400 mhz to the FX-60 stock settings, too...


There is something that you don't understand in marketing. Once upon a time, AMD cpu were cheaper than Intel, and their low price were necessary to have market share. But over the time, AMD get better, faster and become more and more popular. More and more people went AMD not only for the price, but for the performance/price ratio that was really good.

That lead into a price war between brand.

When the AMD 64 was released, it was a major step in performance and that hurts Intel. People started to buy AMD not because they were cheap, but because they were better performer. No matter the price. And then, AMD was no more the budget company, but a competitive alternative to Intel. Now AMD is no more an alternative to Intel. It just another CPU player, in the same league than Intel. Now AMD has the power to do that because it is no more the budget line

When you have worldwide recognition, you must have products that stand out among your product line. Easy, GMC has Cadillac, Ford has lincoln, Honda has Acura, Intel has the EE and AMD, the FX.

these product are necessary for brand prestige. Just like you can install.. let say.. an engine that will be more powerfull than a Cadillac one into another GMC product... but that won't make it as prestigious as a Cadillac.

So, is the FX a rip off..Or the EE? No. If you don't buy it, you won't be ripped off. But if you have the money to afford it, you'll have something that other's don't..

So, no matter how fast you are pushing your 4800+, you will have a chip faster than the FX. but you won't have the prestige to say.. Hey, I have an FX.. want to OC it?
February 6, 2006 12:13:00 AM

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure someone has brought this up before, but I just wanna get this clear.

The X2 4800+ runs at 2.4 GHz, right?
The FX-60 is based on the same architecture, runs at 2.6 GHz, and is about $300 more expensive, right?

Does this truly reveal the benefit of overclocking? By overclocking the X2 4800+ a measly 200 mhz, you can achieve basically the same processor as a stock-setting FX-60?

Surprised me...
I suppose with good cooling you could OC the 4400+ another 400 mhz to the FX-60 stock settings, too...


There is something that you don't understand in marketing. Once upon a time, AMD cpu were cheaper than Intel, and their low price were necessary to have market share. But over the time, AMD get better, faster and become more and more popular. More and more people went AMD not only for the price, but for the performance/price ratio that was really good.

That lead into a price war between brand.

When the AMD 64 was released, it was a major step in performance and that hurts Intel. People started to buy AMD not because they were cheap, but because they were better performer. No matter the price. And then, AMD was no more the budget company, but a competitive alternative to Intel. Now AMD is no more an alternative to Intel. It just another CPU player, in the same league than Intel. Now AMD has the power to do that because it is no more the budget line

When you have worldwide recognition, you must have products that stand out among your product line. Easy, GMC has Cadillac, Ford has lincoln, Honda has Acura, Intel has the EE and AMD, the FX.

these product are necessary for brand prestige. Just like you can install.. let say.. an engine that will be more powerfull than a Cadillac one into another GMC product... but that won't make it as prestigious as a Cadillac.

So, is the FX a rip off..Or the EE? No. If you don't buy it, you won't be ripped off. But if you have the money to afford it, you'll have something that other's don't..

So, no matter how fast you are pushing your 4800+, you will have a chip faster than the FX. but you won't have the prestige to say.. Hey, I have an FX.. want to OC it?

oh yeah... couldnt be more right
February 6, 2006 12:43:54 AM

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure someone has brought this up before, but I just wanna get this clear.

The X2 4800+ runs at 2.4 GHz, right?
The FX-60 is based on the same architecture, runs at 2.6 GHz, and is about $300 more expensive, right?

Does this truly reveal the benefit of overclocking? By overclocking the X2 4800+ a measly 200 mhz, you can achieve basically the same processor as a stock-setting FX-60?

Surprised me...
I suppose with good cooling you could OC the 4400+ another 400 mhz to the FX-60 stock settings, too...


FX60 goes higher on air then the 4800, has an unlocked multiplier so you can keep your fsb lower, less strain on the motherboard.

i however dont see $500 differance between the FX60 and the 4800+
February 6, 2006 1:15:16 AM

*cough* opteron *cough*
February 6, 2006 5:38:41 AM

I used to buy AMD because you were likely to get a fireworks show while you were playing, click, click, wadssswwwd space !BOOOM! :twisted:
February 6, 2006 6:33:41 AM

If the extreme edition processor truly wasn't any good then why would they label it as top of the line?
February 6, 2006 12:10:03 PM

Didn't I say it was top of line already? The topic is about the FX, but put the same topic about the EE and the conclusion will be the same except with the EE instead of FX.

It is not about being good or bad. Both are good and will do the job. But they have something that othe dont have, like unlocked multiplier for the FX(unlocked multiplier is what make overclocking so easy...) or extra cache or HT for the EE.

Get a life man.. Neither Intel or AMD will give you money for your support, so stop being emotive.

And as I said, the topic was about the FX chip, not about the E, that why I use the FX name more of the time...
February 6, 2006 12:39:21 PM

Quote:
If the extreme edition processor truly wasn't any good then why would they label it as top of the line?


when the pentium 4 came out it was slower then the P3. did the 4 sugest it was faster?

pentium M is actually a P3, this was found out a few months back.

all the data shows AMD is beter for the price.

and the FX-57 is still the fastest single threaded processor on the market.

oh yeah, BTW dodge WOOT WOOT!!!!
February 6, 2006 2:03:23 PM

The fx 60 will oc to 3ghz on air, stable. Try that with a 4800+. with no oc and 1 7800 512 mb 7800 gtx, 2 raptors,1gb ram, got 9796 in 3d mark 05,6214 cpu. And smooth as silk at 44 deg.C. When people say, well I can oc and get the same speed as a lower clocked cpu, they neglect to remember that the cpu they are comparing to has yet to be oc'ed!
February 6, 2006 3:27:19 PM

No doubt, but as a comparitive value to stock, since some people buy a FX-60 and do not overclock. [/shame]
February 6, 2006 4:00:57 PM

Quote:
MadModMike, I find that disgusting... you start insulting him when he's only pointing out some facts :roll: and you haven't even been here as long as I have :o 


You've been here longer, and that means....???

ltdata: It's not a grudge about the nature of something you've never even had anything to do with, it's your cockyness and arrogant nature of your posts that piss me off, I couldn't care less if you had created HTT or anything for that matter, I still say you need to fly off a cliff, take your Intel Fanboy WINDSHEAR wth you please.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

You should calm down mike and reflect on the fact that you are yourself cocky and arrogant.

That joke I made about your fat ego was just that, a joke. It is unfortunate that you wanted to throw down cause of it. The fact that you have used every AMD and Intel processor since 486(and that you know better) shows your are on the high horse, and instead of talking down to people who don't know as much as you do(supossedly) you could try to educate us instead of berate us into a ipso facto state of being your lap dogs.

I will be the first to admit that I don't know everything about computers or how they work, but I use them as any basic user would. I have liked AMD since the K-6 on my friends comp, playing Half-Life, and casue he said it was faster than the current Pentium. Since then I have kept up with the gaming aspect alone, and seeing Tomshardware reviews about CPU, I know that in games, AMD is the winner to a comparable Intel. But I don't go and tell someone who likes Intel that they are wrong and should shut the frak up.

You want to make yourself more credable, try teaching us about what you know, and not lecturing and slapping our hands for raising a question. You and I are both new, and you won't get respect here if you constantly put down anyone who challenges your perspectives. Infact you will only make more enemies, and discredit your ability to be heard here.


Now as far as the FX-60, for the price, I would go with a FX-57 if you want to play games, cause not even 5% of games or apps takes advantage of dual core yet, and won't do so for a few years. Oh and as for the COD2 multithread, I thought its was only for intel when I downloaded it, and since I don't have a dual core, I wouldn't have been able to use it.

Though if you don't overclock and want the best X2, get it, if you got the money...
February 6, 2006 4:07:29 PM

Quote:
No doubt, but as a comparitive value to stock, since some people buy a FX-60 and do not overclock. [/shame]


OK, for the definative, why should I OC?

I mean sure it makes it faster, but won't I also risk putting a hole through my motherboard when the heat melts the ceramic die? Yes that is an exageration, but you know what I am getting at. I had heard a long while back that OC even with a great heatsink and keeping its heat down will wear out the CPU faster than just being at stock speed.

But I suppose if you wanted 10-30% more preformance out of the setup, thats one reason to do it...
February 6, 2006 4:54:59 PM

Yes, but your processor will last over 10 years running stock, and overclocking it modest levels of say 10% will reduce life maybe 10% to 20%, so you get 7 or 9 good years out of your processor instead. Monitor the temps, and keep voltage to stock or +0.1 volt, and there is virtually no negative impact on CPU.
Regardless, I assure you in 8 years, you won't be boasting about your uber fast FX-60 anyways. :wink:
February 6, 2006 5:53:21 PM

exactly^ Rich said it well,... you won't be bragging about it in 10 years :p 
February 6, 2006 6:34:07 PM

Hell, if we get 10 years out of this government, before someone blows up the world, I would be grateful for a FX-60. But hell in 10 years we might have processors made from organics that makes the FX-60, Conroe, and whatever new tech that is comming out look like a 4004.

However, I don't see why I would want to OC other than to get a bit more performance out of the processor, which would likely be unnoticable anyway. Unless I clocked everything before and after OC, but Still i likely wouldn't see a difference.

Or Feel it.

Hell, I don't brag about my computer parts but to my friends who have all jumped my lead that I got 3 years ago when I made my current rig.(read that over and over and you will understand what I was trying to say...laxy to rewrite) Back when I made this, the 3000+ Barton was nearly top of the line for AMD, just replaced by 3200+ Barton.

And that was my first ever personal computer, not kidding. Before hand I had used my dads, and friends comps to feed my ever growing gaming addiction, and now I have my own and its working damn goos still...except for the hard drive I fried a few weeks ago...lost alot of files, videos of the Tick cartoon, and funny shit like that, and my gigs of deviant art stuff...sigh. First big failure since I made the rig.
February 6, 2006 6:50:10 PM

Backup - always backup!

CD writers ...

DVD writers ...

No need to use a backup program if you don't want to, just copy all your important stuff to an optical disk.

Cost - minimal. Peace of mind - priceless!
February 6, 2006 7:06:35 PM

*Almost* the same is true for a 4000+ OC'd to 2.8 for a FX-57. Except for the 1mb cache instead of 2mb. Pretty sure u'd need water for that one tho.
February 6, 2006 7:14:34 PM

Quote:
The fx 60 will oc to 3ghz on air, stable. Try that with a 4800+. with no oc and 1 7800 512 mb 7800 gtx, 2 raptors,1gb ram, got 9796 in 3d mark 05,6214 cpu. And smooth as silk at 44 deg.C. When people say, well I can oc and get the same speed as a lower clocked cpu, they neglect to remember that the cpu they are comparing to has yet to be oc'ed!

That's too bad you know? My processor idles at 22C and is about 32C under load. Also my 3D Mark 05 score is about 3,000 points higher than yours. ;) 
But yes I suppose you're right. That extra 200MHz of factory certified speed is worth the 400$.(Sarcasm) Also, the FX-60 wasn't out when I bought my X2 4800+, or I would have bought it. :( 
February 6, 2006 7:32:52 PM

Quote:
Also, the FX-60 wasn't out when I bought my X2 4800+, or I would have bought it. :( 


ha ha ha ha ha. thats just silly. for the extra ammount you can get a phase change setup and get the same speeds!!!!
February 6, 2006 7:58:47 PM

But the thing is, I wouldn't. :(  Although I've thought about getting a Vapochill system. Also it was sort of a joke.
February 6, 2006 8:29:52 PM

i am waiting for the OCZ to come out.
!