Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD Releases Dual-Core FX-60 Processor

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the slipping-off-the-cutting-edge dept.

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).'"

6 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Other Reviews by hattig · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Other Reviews by metarox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. price difference by ShaneThePain · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Fascism is the greatest political ideology ever conceived. Sorry.
    1. Re:price difference by click2005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    2. Re:price difference by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. 32 dollars by Quick+Sick+Nick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.