I cant seem to find the FX-60 (socket939) in the newest CPU charts, and I was wondering how it compares to the newest CPUs. When I got it, it was the uber-cpu, so how does it stack up these days? Is it time to upgrade asap? Or will it still be viable for another year or so.

thanks in advance
~Xaephod

In the schoolyard fight that is current CPU comparisons the FX-60 takes a swift kick in the goolies from very early on in proceedings , with 45nm CPU's on the horizon however I would just baton down the hatches if I were you and wait for what I hope is a storm of great CPU's heading our way.

The FX-60 is still a pretty good CPU and still plays modern titles such as Bioshock like a breeze. Now, that's not to say the FX-60 is capable to competing with pretty much any Core 2 Duo, but it's still a decent chip and should at the least last up until Crysis this November.

The FX-60 is equal to the X2 5200+ Windsor, so it's in the mid-range of the AMD lineup today and will be somewhere around as fast as the E6420 overall. It's still powerful but it's certainly not the fastest piece of silicon out there any more. You still have a couple of good years left to get out of the chip, so don't worry

to MU_engineer
There is no way the FX-60 is even close to the E6420. Apart from anything else, the E6420 is dual core.

the FX-60 is a dual core

So is the FX-60....

its closer to the E6400

The FX60 doesn't no longer has any bragging rights but it is a solid dual core cpu for anything out now! Depending on whether you OC or not it is in the 5xxx+ performance level and not worth an upgrade at this point.

The E6420 is an E6400 with 4 MB L2 and is less expensive than the E6400, so that's why I used the E6420 instead. The performance difference between the two is not that great when compared across the board.

Try using the CPU charts from 2006. I know, some of the newest CPU's aren't on there, but you can still compare it to the E6400.

The FX 60 is 2 x 2.6 ghz cores each with 1 meg of cache.

The X2-5200 is the same, 2 x 2.6 ghz cores each with 1 meg of cache.

The x2 uses DDR2 so it is marginally faster (as in a couple %) faster than an x2-5200+

It's more or less a draw when compared to an E6400 (or 6420) on the Intel side.

Enough with the mindless comparisons already, for the amount of money it cost compared to anything you can buy today it was a rip-off, but yes it's still a good CPU but will get it's arse handed to it with a side salad of kick in the teeth by a CPU costing way less than half it's original price.

I wouldnt upgrade, well not yet. Ive got the 4000+ @2.7ghz and it runs games fine, i supose the fx-60 is even btr as its dual core. As mentioned above its still got some life left init, unless u want hundreds of FPS in the new games! I´d suggest to atleast wait for the 45nm cpus before you upgrade.

-rW

I've got a FX60 in my present machine, overclocked to 3100 mhx, and it handles pretty much everything out there at the moment. In a few months, I may upgrade, but as of yet, there's no DX10 games or anything else to make the need of getting something newer in the cpu department. At least that's my opinion. Sure, a C2D will beat the heck out of it in the charts, but if you (the OP) have a FX60 now, I'd just overclock it and get a good video card rather than to invest in a whole new machine.