Maybe in the near future thinking of upgrading but just want to know where my cpu stands so as to make the best decision within my budget. I currently have a FX-60, taking all things equal, amount of ram, gpu ect, ( I know there is a difference in ram speed but just go with it anyway), what intel core 2 duo and fx-60 are considered equal give or take a slight margin?

from fx-60 what to intel what?

Maybe (just may be, I don't have any of these dual-core cpus) clock for clock, it's comparable to 2.x C2D (at least I imagine, <2.66GHz). If I'm not very accurate, or wrong at all, feel free to correct me anytime

the 2.6ghz FX-60 comes in between the e6300 and e6400 in most benchmarks. 1.86ghz and 2.133ghz respectively.

Seeing as the X2 6400+ is about an equal to the E6550 at 2.33GHz and knowing that the 939 FX-60 was slightly faster clock for clock than its AM2 counterpart its about a 2.2GHz C2D. At this point you would be better off with a quad core. The Penryn 2.5GHz would be a good step up but if you need the upgrade now Q6600.

If you go to the cpu charts from 2006, on the 3DMark06 cpu score, you'll find the FX60 in between the C2D e6400 and the e6600. This doesn't tell the whole story for sure, especially since the e6600 is far more overclockable than the FX60, but it does give you a starting point.

I've run a FX60 for a long time myself and am thinking of an Intel upgrade, especially since the Phenom failed so bad. For the money, the Q6600 seems to be a good chip for an upgrade. On a P35 or X38 board, alonjg with some good air cooling, you should reach 3.5 ghz-3.6 ghz with no problem and it will outperform the FX60 so well that you'll be smiling for the next couple years.

An FX-6o is 2 x 2.6 ghz with 2 x 1 meg cache

A Athlon 5000 is 2 x 2.6 ghz with 2 x 512 cache. with DDR@ versus ddr for the FX, speeds are very close.

Look up a 5000+ and thats pretty much where an FX-60 is

wait for perryn at a good price its a waste right now for you to buy anything else honestly.

A Q6600 would be quite an upgrade, but wouldn't show a huge difference in single threaded environments, but overclocked it would stomp the FX60.

Thanks for all the replies guys, helps immensely. Now that I know where my cpu stands, and kind of impressed, would have guessed it was lower on the ladder. Figure its best to just keep the FX-60 and upgrade in a year or two, just have to replace that dying 6800gs now.

What are you using your machine for? Your FX-60 is still not a bad machine.

I'm still using my FX-60 with 2 gigs, and recently I upgraded to an 8800GTX, and I tell you I can still run top tier games at 1920*1200, max settings, 2-4xAA, etc. (except Lost Planet, but that was a crappy port; and Crysis, but what can?). Unless Crysis or the upcoming Alan Wake are in your sights, or other high-end applications are on your plate, a new vid card will do wonders for you, and is an *easier* upgrade than your entire platform.

yeah, your proccesor isn't bad, it's around a E6400 or 6320 or E4600-500. The graphics cards get obsolete much quicker than the CPU does (Pentium 4-D's are an exception)