CPU upgrade advice -- Single v.s. Dual core?

[KimB]

I believe the FX60 is 2.6GHz core.

Looks like you're right:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103608

That would put it closer to a hypothetical dual-core P4 at 3.9-4.2GHz. But it may overclock pretty easily to 2.8GHz

Edit:
Heh, and it looks like the highest-clocked dual-core P4 is 3.4GHz (the 65nm Pentium d 950).

 

[Tahir2]

Nice article and look at their comparison for power consumption on idle and load:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=fx60&cookie_test=1

The FX-60 is the fastest processor out there, and Intel’s offerings really aren’t coming close in the big picture. Our benchmarks clearly show that this new FX model gives better performance compared to AMD’s own Athlon64 X2 models along with Intel’s new Pentium-D processors. While Intel has improved performance and efficiency with their new 900-series chips, and they can even win a benchmark here or there, it’s still pretty clear that AMD owns the dual-core arena. The FX-60 really is the best of both worlds, as the chip provides excellent performance in both workstation-class application and games.

 

[Tahir2]

Yup, 2.6GHz with 1MB cache per core.
Perhaps someone with an FX60 could tell us how these things run..

 

[Cartoon Corpse]

i stand rejected...i'll check my mag again when i get home. there was a 0.2Gz diff between fx58 and fx60...i think. apparently im going senile though.


hey i also saw my new 150G raptor on that link chalnoth!

 

[Tahir2]

Well I have handled the FX60 and the 150GB Raptor recently so I have a slight advantage with regards to looking at a mag

Yeah I know I have a great job.

 

[Cartoon Corpse]

DOH! now i remember ....my mag was saying you sacrificed a little (0.2G) for the dual cores.

FX-57 processor ran at a clock speed of 2.8 GHz with 1 MB of cache, whereas this new FX-60 dual-core processor has two cores running at 2.6 GHz

 

[Cartoon Corpse]

wattage under load...

AMD Athlon64 FX-60 (2.6 GHz) 238

good thing i went with the 680W PSU!

 

[ANova]

Well the norm has been Intel for many years. It is only because of the product that AMD has offered that the tables have turned. Or are you going to tell me that AMD have more marketting budget or bought themselves market share? Maybe AMD has a superior product and has made more astute business and technical decisions in the recent past?

Calling other people fanatical and stating they come out of the closet at times is pretty fanatical behaviour from you. But then there is no debating with some people.

Intel was the norm because they practically invented computing for the mainstream but in fact AMD has been the norm for awhile among enthusiasts, even when they're products weren't as great. It's always hilarious when people insinuate something; I never said AMD's products are bad, I guess because I don't follow the consensus around here you automatically assume as such? They have great products, what I'm arguing is rather the Intel bashing that is prevalent and unsubstantiated among enthusiasts. AMD is the underdog, I understand people like rooting for them, but often times FUD just gets thrown around and it gets a bit ridiculous.

As far as the fanatical comment, I think it applies for afterall this thread did explode after I made a simple comment, followed by the usual stream of more comments urging me to switch sides and how the alternative is so much better. I have my reasons, why not leave it at that.

 

[Tahir2]

I never suggested you switch but the other statements you made about Intel processors and then denying the very facts posted by other members seemed like fanatical behaviour to me on your part. The thing is no one called you a fanatic but you did call others a fanatic.

What's the point of arguing over a processor anyway.. it isn't life and death.

 

[ANova]

I didn't deny anything and while you specifically didn't suggest I switch, others did. Deny the general pro-AMD, anti-Intel atmosphere around here all you want, it doesn't change anything.

 

[KimB]

Intel was the norm because they practically invented computing for the mainstream but in fact AMD has been the norm for awhile among enthusiasts, even when they're products weren't as great.

I wouldn't say that at all. Sure, AMD was popular back in the K6 days among gamers looking for good price/performance, but best absolute performance was, for a very long time, held solely by Intel.

It wasn't until the Athlon came out that AMD could claim an absolute performance lead, but there were some issues with some of the first motherboards, so it took a little while for AMD to gain ground among performance enthusiasts.

Edit:
You may also find there was quite a bit more pro-Intel sentiment back when the P4 had the best performance, before the power consumption came to bite it in the ass.

 

[Tahir2]

Deny the general pro-AMD, anti-Intel atmosphere around here all you want, it doesn't change anything.

Why would I deny it?

 

[Moloch]

There must be a reason for the pro amd bias on the web

 

[Sxotty]

I didn't deny anything and while you specifically didn't suggest I switch, others did. Deny the general pro-AMD, anti-Intel atmosphere around here all you want, it doesn't change anything.

Since AMD is better for gaming why would we deny the pro-AMD bias?

 

[ANova]

Since AMD is better for gaming why would we deny the pro-AMD bias?

Actually, I was speaking specifically to Tahir since he seemed to be in disagreement about the bias, but maybe fanaticism was too strong a word.

I'll be the devil's advocate and say that your assumption that AMD is better for gaming isn't true, for the Pentium 4 isn't the only Intel processor.

 

[Moloch]

Actually, I was speaking specifically to Tahir since he seemed to be in disagreement about the bias, but maybe fanaticism was too strong a word.

I'll be the devil's advocate and say that your assumption that AMD is better for gaming isn't true, for the Pentium 4 isn't the only Intel processor.

core duo faster

 

[KimB]

I'll be the devil's advocate and say that your assumption that AMD is better for gaming isn't true, for the Pentium 4 isn't the only Intel processor.

Er, isn't the P4 Intel's only desktop processor? I mean, sure, it's possible to construct a desktop system with a Pentium M, but not only will it not outperform a high-end Athlon64 at stock clocks, but it's far from a normal rig...

 

[ANova]

Er, isn't the P4 Intel's only desktop processor? I mean, sure, it's possible to construct a desktop system with a Pentium M, but not only will it not outperform a high-end Athlon64 at stock clocks, but it's far from a normal rig...

Yes, but my point was that in the mobile space it's the fastest processor available, including gaming. It can be used in the desktop space and while not quite as fast as the desktop A64s at stock speed, overclocked they can outperform them at a lower operating frequency. Obviously they need to be overclocked because they were designed for mobile use, on the desktop that's not a concern though they still run very cool. It really isn't hard to use a Pentium M on the desktop, there just aren't many motherboards to choose from. The Core Duo is even better but there aren't any motherboards available for it, actually it's gaming speed is about the same as the pentium M clock for clock but it's performance in everything else is much improved, not to mention it's dual core.

 

[Moloch]

Yes, but my point was that in the mobile space it's the fastest processor available, including gaming. It can be used in the desktop space and while not quite as fast as the desktop A64s at stock speed, overclocked they can outperform them at a lower operating frequency. Obviously they need to be overclocked because they were designed for mobile use, on the desktop that's not a concern though they still run very cool. It really isn't hard to use a Pentium M on the desktop, there just aren't many motherboards to choose from. The Core Duo is even better but there aren't any motherboards available for it, actually it's gaming speed is about the same as the pentium M clock for clock but it's performance in everything else is much improved, not to mention it's dual core.

You're nuts...

 

[Sxotty]

Your statement while intriuging is still a bad idea.

Have you looked at the prices you pay for a decent (intel) mobile processor?

And if you go down that road, have you seen the awesome overclocks on the Opterons? They would wipe the floor with the PM in games.

Intel undoubtedly has a better mobile chip, but for me mobile is not for gaming it is for power savings. As I said before I am not a crazed ******, I honestly hope Intel comes out swith something respectable b/c we need some true competition. Did you read what Ruiz said too? He said AMD might be willing to tread water inthe desktop segment to try and make inroads in the corporate segment so now is the time for Intel to pounce if they are ever going to.