Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AM2 FX 62 2.8ghz vs AM2 5200 64 2.6ghz

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 23, 2006 2:57:48 PM

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?

More about : am2 8ghz am2 5200 6ghz

November 23, 2006 3:14:47 PM

The FX chip you are talking about is dual core, and 64 bit. FX is just AMD's high performance designation. It'll most likely stomp on the 5200 X2
November 23, 2006 4:08:50 PM

oic - sorry my bad, would the FX 62 traunce the 6000+ ? will it be worth waiting for the 65nm chip instead as i know the 6000+ will be still 90nm

this is such a hard descision what to go for

maybe a new 65mn FX chip with SLi x16 8800 and my PCI-X SCSI would be a reasonable compromise over C2Q and 1950xtx Crossfire @ x8

but I'm getting the feeling the 975x chipset handles overclocked DDR memory better than the AM2 platform.

if a Mobo says DDR800 support, would sticking PC8500 in it be a waste of time and money?

Regards, 1DMF
Related resources
November 23, 2006 4:11:25 PM

It all depends on what the 6000+ X2 will preform like, when its released, and how much it'll cost.
November 23, 2006 7:41:33 PM

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.
November 24, 2006 6:22:52 AM

Quote:
I disagree, the fx-55 being only 199 seems like a pretty good value right there.

OMG, WTF?!?!?!? A singlecore 2.6GHz K8 CPU for $199 is a good value?!!!!!!
November 24, 2006 1:20:53 PM

I'd pay $150.
November 24, 2006 1:32:49 PM

I thought everyone was done with single cores except for current models. :?
November 24, 2006 1:48:03 PM

There's nothing wrong with single core :o 
November 24, 2006 3:58:23 PM

Quote:
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.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/02/thg_tuning_test/

THG looked at FX-62 vs Core 2 Extreme overclocking and compared performance.Harsh......but pretty much true. :wink:
!