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 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.