Crazy Processer companys, I see a fx-55/62 still prices the same as if it was released even when the core2duos are out, O_o O_o o_O O_o,
Well then theres a Cut price but still the core2duos are the better bang for buck then the fx-55/62, fx-55/62 can DIE,unless they cut the price to make it a attractive bang per buck against the core although 2 cores will be faster than 1.
I disagree, the fx-55 being only 199 seems like a pretty good value right there. I don't know about how good the 6000 will overclock, but i'm guessing not to much because amd systems seem to have hit a wall a bit above 3ghz
About the 5200 vs fx-62, depends what you want, they will both go up to 3ghz and then some (the 5200 is very simular to the fx-60 in almost every aspect, so expecy same oc results) but depends on whether you can pay the price premium for unlocked multipliers, whether you want to overclock and how much you are willing to overclock, because the 4800 will overclock to about 3.13 acoording to most sites and the fx-62 generally stopps at about 3.2, so its all what you want and how much money you have
well, lets see, amd single kill the intel single cores, inbluding all the extreme pentiums. This is an fx chip, so it has unlock multipliers and people have been taking these easy to 3.2 ghz. So lets see, twice the cores should equal twice the price, not the with this chip. Th fx-60, dual core version of the chip is 800. so I personally think that that chip is a good, just older technology.
Plenty people still use p4s right now, so I don't see how that isn't a good cheap upgrade right there (besides that its not dual core)
I take it the difference is the FX is a single core vs 64 being dual core.
is the FX chip 64 bit?
Which would overclock the best?
All AMD chips are 64 bit -- an FX single core, (see odd numbered FX chips).
The higher clock will give you better performance in single threaded applications, the dual core will give you better performance in multi-threaded applications or if you are doing a lot of heavy multitasking.
Overclocking AMD chips is more difficult than Intel chips. Using simply air cooling, typical over clocks on earlier versions could not reach 3.0 GHz, on today's chips the FX-62 can hit 3.1 or 3.2 GHz or so -- all this on air cooling. AMD overclocking is limited by their process technology and architecture. AMD makes slower switching transistors so the fastest max theoretical speed is reached much earlier, SOI also self-heats, which decreases mobility so it is a catch 22, the higher you clock the hotter the transistor gets locally (regardless of your cooling solution), and slower the electron can travel, thus reaches that max speed quicker.
Now --- I understand you are bent on AMD, that is not a bad thing --- but if you are considering overclocking, the C2D just trashes AMD chips on this front. C2Ds are reaching 80 to 100% overclocks. If you are going to OC to get to the best performance, you are -- in my opinion -- throwing your money away on AMD.