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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

Re:Kinda INtel Biased

[gol]

whoa! no more caffeine for you

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.