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).'"

Comments

Other Reviews

[hattig]

Tech Report (FX60 beats out 955 in most of the benchmarks, if not by a large margin then at least consistently).

Also check out AMDZone, AnandTech, Björn3D, FiringSquad, HEXUS, HotHardware, LostCircuits,
PC Perspective, t-break, and TrustedReviews who all have reviews as well.

Re:Other Reviews

[metarox]

I just can't wait to see how well AMD will do once it goes 65nm and changes to DDR2. Power consumption will probably drop by a significant amount proving once again that the AMD design is better. They actually are better with 90nm and DDR memory in most benchmarks.

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.

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. 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.

Re:Other Reviews

[kesuki]

DDr2 ram isn't being used because of it's abysmal timings. http://www.ocztechnology.com/aboutocz/press/2005/1 48
compare that to the 2-3-2-2 timings one can get on DDR modules.

The reason why there is such a huge discrepency between performance between some review sites and others is that some sites are using abysmal 3-3-3-3 timings DDR memory for the FX-60 while others are using the better timed DDR chips. For gaming there is a HUGE advantage to having 2-3-2-2 timings because the entire content of the ram can be dumped almost twice as often as 4-4-4 timed DDR2, which because of it's better frequencies can pump more data at a slower rate.

Mind you AMD will need DDR2 support in the future, unless they somehow decided GDDR3 was better, because in about a few years DDR2 modules will be coming down to the 2-2-2 timings level, and will blow away the standard ddr modules. i mean technically if you look at video cards with ddr2 and ddr3 memory there is no engineering reason why someone couldn't make a ddr2 or ddr3 memory that worked awesome today, but there is plenty of 'marketing' reasons why they nead to have a 'clear' roadmap into the future.

DDR memory still has a lot of years of life left in it if you get the good timings stuff, like ocz or patriot. too bad ddr2 is 240 pin and ddr1 is 184 pin, so one can't make them pin compatable.. and no doubht ddr3 and ddr4 won't be pin compatable when they come out either.

ah well, tought to say, but if i was at AMD and trying to think of a way to 'counter' the DDR2 solution intel is using i'd instead opt for the simplified GDDR3 as main system memory. At least i'd consider the viability of doing so. the high end memory card market overnight decided to drop agp support and ddr2 support and go all pci-e with gddr3, because they were simpler more elgeant and properly working designs. agp is, was and remains a kludge to work around a problem that a better solution hadn't been thought of and ddr2 is full of legacy design needs from it's legacy heritage too.

Anyways, I'd rather see an AMD system (on 65 nm core) with GDDR3 modules than DDR-II modules.

Re:Other Reviews

[default luser]

Mind you AMD will need DDR2 support in the future, unless they somehow decided GDDR3 was better, because in about a few years DDR2 modules will be coming down to the 2-2-2 timings level, and will blow away the standard ddr modules. i mean technically if you look at video cards with ddr2 and ddr3 memory there is no engineering reason why someone couldn't make a ddr2 or ddr3 memory that worked awesome today, but there is plenty of 'marketing' reasons why they nead to have a 'clear' roadmap into the future.

AMD needs DDR2 support in the future because, even with the latency issues, DDR2 at 667 MHz still outperforms DDR 400 with fast timings.

In addition, DDR2 uses a much lower voltage (1.8v), as opposed to DDR (2.6v), giving it significantly lower power consumption. If AMD wants to compete on the mobile front, they'll need to move to DDR2 pronto...Intel already made this move with Dothan and the mobile 915.

As for video cards, thay're not a good comparison. They get exceptionally good usage out of even high-latency memory becuase they perform non-random reads and writes. Graphics engines work on blocks of memory at a time, so they can take full advantage of the burst read modes (reads / writes multiple columns in one continuous burst) offered by DDR, DDR2 and GDDR3; this helps hide the high latency of these speedy parts. What, you didn't think that cards boasting 600-700 MHz DDR1 were doing it with low latency, did you? Fast DDR2 and GDDR3 parts are also very high latency

Sure, you can leverage burst reads on a PC, but only so much. If you have a lot of randomly-accessed data, burst reads will not be able to cover up the latency of reads / writes, and will simply mean more data to clog up your cache.

Also, GDDR3 is still not shipping at nearly the same density levels as DDR1 and DDR2. DDR1 is available with 2Gb density, and DDR2 is available in 1GB density. The best GDDR3 can do is 512Mb density chips, and these are currently only available through Samsung. The price of uptfitting a system with 1GB ram using these high-end 512Mb GDDR3 chips would be astronomical.

Re:Other Reviews

[level_headed_midwest]

For some strange reason, I'd not expect AMDZone to have a completely unbiased view on the AMD chip.

Kinda INtel Biased

[Unixfreak31]

Maybe I am an amd Droid but the last i read the 4800+ and the 955 were almost identical in most benchmarks expcept those that intel always does well in (Specproof etc) and from the article the fx-60 does slightly better than the 4800+ which makes sense granted the fx is slightly faster so I would say AMD has a slight edge here but any who wants to spend 4 digits on cpu period INTEL or AMD??

Re:Kinda INtel Biased

[gol]

whoa! no more caffeine for you

price difference

[ShaneThePain]

you really think 32 bucks is going to make a difference to me if im going to buy a THOUSAND dollar processor?

Re:price difference

[Sj0]

It's a condition I call being "Pathologically poor".

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. :P

Re:price difference

[click2005]

Especially when you'd probably save about $32 in electricity costs from running the AMD over the Intel for 3 months.

Re:price difference

[Sique]

It might make a difference for assemblers who try to put out machines priced under a certain limit. If they are trying to build something like a $1599 machine, they have $30 more headroom for the other components, leading maybe to the next better graphic card or a an additional 512 MByte of RAM.
In a market where specs for the components are everything, the prices are made to fit unter certain arbitrary limits, and the balanced choice of components takes a backseat, such $30 may be the deciding factor for choosing the processor architecture.

Re:price difference

[pla]

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.

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:price difference

[Ruger]

Well, it's $32 more, but the delta we're typially used to (AMDvsIntel) is negative...AMD being considerably less. So being $32 more isn't really the issue. If you expect the AMD to be $100 less, it's really overpriced by $132.

Re:price difference

[InsaneGeek]

Idle the Intel 955 uses 189 watts
Idle the AMD FX 60 uses 148 watts
Difference of 41 watts
41/1000 = .041 watts per kWh .041 * $.078 = $0.003198 difference in cost per hour to run (7.8 cent average)
$31 / .003198 = 9693.558 hours = Electricity break even point ~403 days

Under load the Intel 955 uses 286 watts
Under load the AMD FX 60 uses 225 watts
Difference of 61 watts
61/1000 = .061 watts per kWh .061 * $.078 = $0.004758 difference in cost per hour to run
$31 / .004758 = 6515.34258 hours = Electricity break even point ~271 days

Unfortunately? or not?

[digitaldc]

Unfortunately, the FX-60 doesn't blow away Intel's recently announced Pentium 955 Extreme Edition, and it's actually slightly more pricey.

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

[Quick Sick Nick]

It may be a whopping $32 dollars more expensive, but that's better than replacing your motherboard and memory which would be necessary to switch from intel to AMD or vice versa.

It isn't always a matter of, "this is the slightly better processor," unless you're building a new system.

Better for games, still.

[Ruger]

AMD usually out performs Intel in game tests...which is the only reason to own one of these bleeding edge processors, right? It was interesting how much cooler the FX-60 ran compared to intel's 955 Extreme Edition. 15C less is huge. Cooler case, less power required for fans...so quiter too. AMD has always been the better value too, but in this case it's MORE than the intel. AMD should do it's best to avoid this becoming a trend.

amd vs intel

[chrisranjana.com]

Initially AMD's selling point was price, now they have proved quality.. price comes second

article way biased

[akhomerun]

this summary is so biased, it's rediculous. by being a cooler processor and faster in practically every benchmark, doesn't the FX-60 deserve to cost $30

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

[PowerBert]

Is going out to buy a AMD64 X2 4800+.

1,000 dollar processor perfect for gaming?

[cgenman]

No offense, but when did people start spending 1,000 dollars for just the processors in their gaming rigs?

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:1,000 dollar processor perfect for gaming?

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

If people want to drop $1000+ on these processors even when they don't need them, I say more power to them. Intel & AMD can take that money and use it to design more powerful chips that will benefit those that do need them (and I'll have to pay less for an FX-60 when I actually need one). :)

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

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

PC Gamer Magazine

[Neoprofin]

PC Gamer reviewed the EE955 and the FX-60 in their Febuary issue and stated:

"The FX-60 trounced the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 in test spins with Quake and F.E.A.R. Even more humiliating in F.E.A.R. the FX-60 came out ahead of the PEE 955 overclocked to 4ghz by 25FPS." ExtremeTech ran plenty of benchmark programs, but in real application tests there was no competition, The FX-60 showing to be around 30% faster in every benchmark.

Re:Will this mean other X2 prices will go down?

[Weaselmancer]

Here's hoping they do, but it probably won't happen within the month. I bit the bullet and bought a 4400+ X2 around the beginning of last December and paid about $520. They're not coming down in price very fast.

But that being said - it's worth it. X2 is so good you'd swear it's alien technology.