WHY IS THE AMD FX-60 SO DAMN SLOW?

[AmdMELTDOWN]

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=1845

 

[Action_Man]

I think we all know where this is going to go.

 

[TabrisDarkPeace]

Because the Conroe is a 4-issue (per core) processor.

The Athlon 64 FX-60 is only a 3-issue (per core) processor.

It is similar to comparing the higher clocked Radeon 9600 Pro to the lower clocked Radeon 9800 Pro. (We all know the Radeon 9800 Pro wins out, because it has 8 pipelines at lower clock speed, instead of 4 pipelines at a higher clock speed). It is basically the same thing comparing Pentium 4 to Athlon 64 / Opteron to Conroe. (Intel Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest being the 'new / future' Core processors, not just dual core Pentium-M's like the 'old' Core Duo was which was released in the last batch of Intel notebooks)

You can compare ATI GPUs here:
http://apps.ati.com/ATIcompare/

For example:
Part: RADEON 9800 PRO 128MB vs RADEON 9600 PRO 128MB
Engine Clock Speed (MHz): 380 vs 400
Pipelines: 8 vs 4

Gives the following final performance:
Pixel Fillrate: 3.04 Gpixels/sec vs 1.6 Gpixels/sec
Geometry Rate: 380 MTriangles vs 200 MTriangles

That should shed some light on why various processors can perform very differently.... for similar reasons. (in laymens terms anyway).

Clock speed alone usually means jack.

 

[chuckshissle]

Yet another never ending nerd war. Well, if FX-60 is slow then get a better one.

 

[endyen]

Ah meltie! you are just the person to answer this. I haven't been able to get my hands on an FX, or X1900XTs, but got to run the Quack benches on my friend's 170 opty@ 2.6, with X1800XTs in crossfire. Scores were 156 without the patch and 223 with. So , why does the OCed FX, with X100XTs score worse than a 2.6ghz opty with crossfired X1800XTs?

 

[endyen]

No, it was running SPOOLSV.exe as a service, closed loop. That's why Intel wouldn't let them look at device manager.

 

[apache_lives]

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=1845

The FX60 isnt slow, but conroe is faster (or according to benchmarks) to word it better, and for now the FX60 is the fastest stock chip on the market otherwise.

I somehow doubt that 4 ipc is the reason for the speed - the Itanium has what 9 IPC and it shamefull aparently (and hot where as conroe is colder) so its more like a totally new core using P6 and netburst elements to make a god dam fast chip (P4 has the best prediction engine to assist the long pipelines and its issues, using that with a p6 design would zoom alone, and everything else) - its a combination of everything tweaked and done well to make, well conroe.

Its just a generation leap and a big one at that, AMDs current design now needs some heavy optimisations to come back and that usually takes 9+ months and more for initial designs so id say 2 years from now they will have something to compete (also cause they wont want to waste the current AM2 design when its only new and not even out yet).

They cannot just add some cache, up the "fsb" and memory speed to beat it unfortunatly.

 

[sik1977]

Sigh... another troll thread.... why...

Please donate your SLOW FX60 NOW to those who have the even SLOWER A64s, and wait for the (phantom chip) Conroe, which i hear should be out is just six months... WOW... did I just say that Conroe is not AVAILABLE right now!!! hmmm.... but still do donate your FX60.... goes for all the FX60 owners who think their FX60 are SLOW!!!

 

[johnmar33]

WHY IS THE AMD FX-60 SO DAMN SLOW?

coz its not fast.... 8O

 

[johnmar33]

if fx60 is slow for you, then get conroe (if u can get one right away) :twisted:

conroes should be compared to upcoming AMD am2's, so stop this crap!

 

[Mardark]

They know most of the settings and game versions used in the AMD tests. So if you don't believe the results, then set up your own AMD machine and duplicate them from the AMD side. I really don't understand why someone hasn't done that already, since so many people do not believe the results. I would have thought, within a day of these results from IDF, it would have happened.

And if your Fx-60 is so slow, then send it my way. I will take that SLOW processor off your hands, so you it wont be bothering you so much.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

The FX60 isnt slow, but Conroe is faster (or according to benchmarks) to word it better, and for now the FX60 is the fastest stock chip on the market otherwise.

Its just a generation leap and a big one at that, AMDs current design now needs some heavy optimisations to come back. . .

Apache is correct about a lot of things. The FX-60 is the fastest processor. Conroe will more than likely be even faster when it is released.

This is another source confirming the Intel benchmark(eting). I don't trust these benchmarks 100% because Intel won't just hand the technology over. I would love to see Tom's Hardware benchmark a production Conroe in their labs, those are benchmarks I'll feel more comfortable with; independent ones.

One thing that I disagree with Apache about is that I think AMD has more flexibility in their current architecture than what you think. They can play the Pentium 4 game with their FX line and make run as fast and as hot as possible and throw some more cache on there (although MadModMike has posted there is a limit to the benefits of increasing cache size).

- Conroe will more than likely be faster
- The FX-60 is and will remain the fastest processor until Intel releases Conroe
- Don't completely trust the Intel tainted benchmarks; we need independent ones
- When we do get independent benchmarks they will more than likely she Intel was a little shady with their numbers, but not too far off

 

[Maxiius]

Just for the record, in windows, it reads my CPU as Althon 64 FX-60, not Althon unknown processor. If they say its a FX-60, then windows will pick it up as an FX-60. Whatever

 

[thebunny]

AMD FX-60 is the fastest processor on the market. :!:

 

[amd-x-bit]

I agree the FX60 is meant to be t he best processor on the market just like the AMD Athlon 64 X2 series.

I am an AMD fanboy but I think that the Intel 'Conroe' will possibly get a possible increase over AMD`s Socket AM2 Athlon 64`s and FX62s but not much possibly by 5% at the most.

 

[amd-x-bit]

I agree the FX60 is meant to be t he best processor on the market just like the AMD Athlon 64 X2 series.

I am an AMD fanboy but I think that the Intel 'Conroe' will possibly get a possible increase over AMD`s Socket AM2 Athlon 64`s and FX62s but not much possibly by 5% at the most.

 

[amd-x-bit]

I agree the FX60 is meant to be t he best processor on the market just like the AMD Athlon 64 X2 series.

I am an AMD fanboy but I think that the Intel 'Conroe' will possibly get a possible increase over AMD`s Socket AM2 Athlon 64`s and FX62s but not much possibly by 5% at the most.

 

[thebunny]

lol U said it 3 times :lol:

 

[CompGeek]

K we got the picture. No need posting 3 times the same thing.
And the FX 60 is the best CPU(overall,not at all tasks) at stock but it's a very poor OCer 3 GHZ is a limit for AMD chips(IE very few can pass it while being stable,that's of course with "buyable" things). I'd rather OC a 350$? opteron 165 Oclock it to 2.8 and save some cash. Or if i'm really mad get a 955 and OC the hell out of it(BTW can't wait for Netburst's final shot,the Intel 965).

 

[Ycon]

4.00 GHz at stock would be much better, just looks kewler.

 

[thebunny]

K we got the picture. No need posting 3 times the same thing.
And the FX 60 is the best CPU(overall,not at all tasks) at stock but it's a very poor OCer 3 GHZ is a limit for AMD chips(IE very few can pass it while being stable,that's of course with "buyable" things). I'd rather OC a 350$? opteron 165 Oclock it to 2.8 and save some cash. Or if i'm really mad get a 955 and OC the hell out of it(BTW can't wait for Netburst's final shot,the Intel 965).

I agree it is not worth buyng an FX60 when you can OC an opteron

 

[p05esto]

Why is it slow??? DUH man, cuz it's not INTEL!

 

[Lord-Ilpolazzo]

This whole argument is prety pointless really..

Of course the conroe should be faster than and FX60.. It would be prety retarded of intel if it wasnt, since the conroe is future technology that isnt due for release for *AGES* wereas the FX60 is here right now in the present, and has been for some time. Thered be something severly amiss if conroe wasnt faster than an FX60!!

But, as a side note all the benchmarks iv seen have been gameing related, so frame rates are dependant on the graphics cards, drivers, motherboards and various stuff that i have no idea about. Intel could easily have found a way to boost frame rates over the FX60s, but it dosent really mean much..

It would be far more interesting to see some benchmarks that are entirely cpu related, ie plain cpu benchmarks without involving graphics in the equation. Like some rendering benchmarks.. sciencemark.. all that kinda thing..

But in conclusion, dose it really matter? why is everyone so scared of the POSSIBILITY of conroe being a massive improvement over anything weve seen yet? It should be a good thing, cos as far as i can tell what ppl like u and me care about is having the most powerfull cpu we can get our hands on. Im not sure loyalty comes into it. It dosent matter who makes the damn thing! when you buy a computer unless you have other unsual requirements (your an energy saving obsessed type person, or you want no fan noise or other special requirements that take precidence) you go for the fastest thing you can buy! and thats what ul all do, unless you so blindly guided by a misplaced and irrational sense of loyalty to one company or another despite possible evidnece to the contrary.

discalimer: id just like to state my complete independence in this matter. I go with whoever makes the fastest chip i can afford at the time of buying a system. The fact if bougth amd twice in a row generates some sense of loyalty, but if something faster came along from a rival company id be a fool to choose the slower product. wouldnt you say so?

so lets stop this whole argument and look foreward to an exciting future!! of more processing power and lower power coinsumption from both manufactures!!

 

[thebunny]

This whole argument is prety pointless really..

Of course the conroe should be faster than and FX60.. It would be prety retarded of intel if it wasnt, since the conroe is future technology that isnt due for release for *AGES* wereas the FX60 is here right now in the present, and has been for some time. Thered be something severly amiss if conroe wasnt faster than an FX60!!

But, as a side note all the benchmarks iv seen have been gameing related, so frame rates are dependant on the graphics cards, drivers, motherboards and various stuff that i have no idea about. Intel could easily have found a way to boost frame rates over the FX60s, but it dosent really mean much..

It would be far more interesting to see some benchmarks that are entirely cpu related, ie plain cpu benchmarks without involving graphics in the equation. Like some rendering benchmarks.. sciencemark.. all that kinda thing..

But in conclusion, dose it really matter? why is everyone so scared of the POSSIBILITY of conroe being a massive improvement over anything weve seen yet? It should be a good thing, cos as far as i can tell what ppl like u and me care about is having the most powerfull cpu we can get our hands on. Im not sure loyalty comes into it. It dosent matter who makes the damn thing! when you buy a computer unless you have other unsual requirements (your an energy saving obsessed type person, or you want no fan noise or other special requirements that take precidence) you go for the fastest thing you can buy! and thats what ul all do, unless you so blindly guided by a misplaced and irrational sense of loyalty to one company or another despite possible evidnece to the contrary.

discalimer: id just like to state my complete independence in this matter. I go with whoever makes the fastest chip i can afford at the time of buying a system. The fact if bougth amd twice in a row generates some sense of loyalty, but if something faster came along from a rival company id be a fool to choose the slower product. wouldnt you say so?

so lets stop this whole argument and look foreward to an exciting future!! of more processing power and lower power coinsumption from both manufactures!!

5 stars to that :trophy:
I totaly agree

 

[Rob423]

yea deff.

FX-60 is fine for most people.

especially for games, messaging, and browsiing the web.

It's still to much $$$

i'll wait to see what else is released.

later guys,
Rob