AMD Releases Dual-Core FX-60 Processor

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).'"

Re:Other Reviews

[Stalks]

Something is wrong about the reviews that are out at the moment. Perhaps individual chips vary a lot in performance, because I just checked out the article, your linked review, AmdZone and AnandTech's reviews and they all have cross references for the same benchmarks yet the results show a varying difference between the 2 processors. What is the underlying factor that can make one review look like a benchmark is similar on both architectures, and then a different review and same benchmark, AMD is 60% faster? It makes me wonder if the reviewer tweaks the results to show his/her biased view. Whether it be Intel or AMD.

Its no opteron

[Anonymous Coward]

According to toms, in most cases the 955 couldn't even wax the X2 4800 in most benches.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/05/the_65_nm_p entium_d_900s_coming_out_party/page20.html [tomshardware.com]

Even though it is 65 nm it still can't even beat the X2 for power consumption either.

And to the person who said go out and buy an X2 you've got it all wrong (well somewhat). The most cost effective cpu right now is the 939 dual core opteron for its legendary overclockability. My 170 was installed yesterday and I had no problems bringing it up to 2.4ghz running cool. X2 4800 performance for half the price and I'm not even pushing it at all. I've got no doubts that 2.6 is easily attainable. All for maybe quarter the price of an fx-60.

Those of you looking for a $1000 cpu might be wise to look into the 940 dualcore opterons that can be dualed on a board for 4 cores. Whilst you might pay a few more hundred dollars nobody can deny that 4 core is going to beat the pants off anything 2 core.

Oh but of course most games don't support threading so you're better off with a single core still if you are a gamer.

Hope that helps

Re:Other Reviews

[Glock27]

AMD has peaked, it is downhill from here for them. The new Intel line will start to dominate.

You mean when it actually ships? Intel's desktop lineup (such as the EE processor mentioned) is still Netburst architecture, just at 65 nm.

AMD should still have a great story to tell when it hits 65 nm. and supports newer memory architectures.

Intel still doesn't have an integrated memory controller, or an answer to Coherent Hypertransport [zdnet.com]. Even in its upcoming new architecture.

Competition is a great thing, and Intel has a long way to go before it stops losing marketshare to AMD.

Proper cooling is required for the FX series

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the main points of the FX series of processors is ability to overclock. The new Opteron 939's are able to pull 600mhz+ easially (mine is OC'd 1.1ghz) but they have a problem with very cold temps, ie chilled water and phase change. This is where the FX series excels. You can take a FX-57 to around 3ghz on air and decent water before it tops out, but with chilled water or phase change, you can bring it up to 3.4+. So in reality you are paying for a chip you can OC far beyond anything out there right now.

The few OC's to the FX-60 I've seen bring it up in the 3.3 - 3.4ghz range, which for a dual core that preforms better than every other processor out there, is insane.