AMD Releases Dual-Core FX-60 Processor 191
mikemuch writes "AMD just released their new Dual-Core FX-60 processor which is basically two FX-55s strapped together. Unfortunately, the FX-60 doesn't blow away Intel's recently announced Pentium 955 Extreme Edition, and it's actually slightly more pricey. It gets a slight edge in games and runs cooler, as Loyd Case found when he put the FX-60 through ExtremeTech's battery of benchmarks. From the review: 'AMD now ships a dual-core CPU that's essentially the equal of Presler, while generating far less heat. In terms of performance, however, this means that AMD no longer commands the same type of lead it once did when Intel only had the somewhat anemic 840 Extreme Edition. In fact, AMD is now more expensive, at $1,031 (quantity 1,000), versus the 955 Extreme Edition at $999 (quantity 1000).'"
Kinda INtel Biased (Score:2, Insightful)
price difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately? or not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Althought I understand that some people do not like Intel, I think that this will just make AMD work harder to make a faster processor. The competition between these two chip makers will ultimately benefit everyone by creating better/faster technology. That being said, $995 is a bit pricey.
32 dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't always a matter of, "this is the slightly better processor," unless you're building a new system.
Re:price difference (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll see it in people nitpicking and haggling and generally making an ass of themselves as if they're a step away from the poor house, even though they're doing things which obviously don't qualify them as poor.
This is to be discerned from "Smart shopping" from the desperate nature of it. "Those AMD bastards are so EXPENSIVE!!" for 32 bucks on a 1000 dollar processor is a goof example. However, keep in mind that some people using AMD processors these days were the pathologically poor people of yesteryear who wanted to save a buck at any cost.
Better for games, still. (Score:4, Insightful)
amd vs intel (Score:2, Insightful)
article way biased (Score:5, Insightful)
like that's going to matter when you are buying a $1000 processor. i'd gladly pay the extra 3% for a cooler processor that performs, then my cooling solution could cost $30 less.
I'd also be interested in what the retail prices will be. Yeah, the 1000 quantity intels are cheaper, but what if the markups on the intels are higher once they hit retail? I mean it's not to say that the Intel will be more expensive or the AMD will be more expensive at retail prices, I don't know, but I'd say that there's a good chance that those prices will even out a little when you are buying 1 processor from a retailer.
anyone with any sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Is going out to buy a AMD64 X2 4800+.
Re:price difference (Score:5, Insightful)
But does it have HDCP? (Score:1, Insightful)
As you know Intel created HDCP, so is AMD licensed to use it? Will AMD PC's not be able to view HDCP High Def?
Re:price difference (Score:5, Insightful)
I agreed with you right up to that...
In the "old days", AMD chips cost a LOT less than Intel (like a third to half the price), for 80% of the performance. When you can pay $150 or $400 for basically comparable chips, you can't accuse someone of acting "pathologically poor" for going with the AMD chip.
Recently, AMD has held a small but steady lead over Intel. And they still sold for less, for comparably performing chips... Not half the price, but more than 10% less.
And now... The Athlon 64 has a real competitor. I would tend to call the FP just a tad biased (since another test found the Presler inferior to the 4800, which one might expect the FX-60 to beat). And AMD charges a small premium for it. Not acting as an apologist, just observing a trend... Personally, I think AMD may have made a mistake in judgement there, because it will push away some of their underdog-loving fans.
As for me... I've made the switch to Athlon 64s, primarily for their power and heat edge over Intel, but also because (at least until now) they do perform significantly better, dollar-for-dollar. Very little chance I'll rush out and buy an FX-60... This may very well drop the 4800 to a price at which I will buy it, however.
Re:Other Reviews (Score:5, Insightful)
1,000 dollar processor perfect for gaming? (Score:3, Insightful)
People! Nothing takes advantage of that yet! And by the time things do, the processor will cost 1/8th of what it does today. I've been running an AMD 2400+ for a few years now, a simple 100$ processor, and I STILL haven't found a game that it can't run solidly.
Yeah, if you need a mission-critical server that you desperately need to be as fast as possible... distribute the load.
Basically the top end is for bragging rights and pure-profit silicon. Neither AMD nor Intel can claim bragging rights at the moment. And that's fine, they both should be working hard to push processor design further and further along, and a leadership question will only help that.
But no matter which is the faster processor, please don't buy one. If you really want the ultimate gaming experience, buy three gaming rigs for that price and invite some friends over. You'll be glad you did.
Re:price difference (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:1,000 dollar processor perfect for gaming? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Other Reviews (Score:3, Insightful)