Give us single core 64 6000+ s939 procesor?

E

einer2060

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
272
What do u people think?

It would be very nice to se AMD puting a socket 939 single core CPU, like Athlon 64 6000+ whit mega cach and al suports in 2007. I know this will not hapen (shame on AMD).
If u have quality 2Giga ram and 64 4000+, it would be the best upgrade over the 4000+.
Or cheapen this little baby "AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 / 2MB Cache / 2000MHz FSB / Socket 939" to around ~200 Euro (~250$).

OK it must be aloved to dream.



What do you think about that?
 
i think no... multi-core/multi-threaded applications are the way to go.
 
Hmmm, then it could be X2 5000+, s939.
The FX60 is dual core i think. But way to expensive for s939.
 
sitheris said:
why would you want single core?
Click to expand...


Exactly. I'm running on a 3200+ single core right now and am drooling over the new duals. I, for a long time, back when people were doing dual p3 500mhz's have thought that dual was the way to go. Offloading for games, two intensive projects at once - it just makes sense.
 
This wouldn't work for 2 reasons... The price would be too high for the majority of the "non-enthusiast" market... And the performance/price would be too low for the enthusiast market.
 
Thats wright, but still i don't understand why amd stoped at x2 4800 they could give us AM2 like 5000+..., As i sad the FX60 i think is way way to expensive... FX60 is for multiplier overclocking (theres the power), but if it goes dead there would be nice 700$ going by by :D .
 
2Fresh said:
Why not? The X2s are really only superior in multi-tasking.
Click to expand...


They just feel smoother overall. Plus, who doesn't multi-task these days :p
 
2Fresh said:
Why not? The X2s are really only superior in multi-tasking.
Click to expand...

If you are gaming, then most likely you are running windows of some modern flavor.
The XP kernel is multithreaded, you are are really getting a benefit from the dual processor whether you think you are multitasking or not.

I know my single p4-2.53 isn't as smooth as a dual p3 1.4 in normal xp usage.
 
mobiux said:
If you are gaming, then most likely you are running windows of some modern flavor.
The XP kernel is multithreaded, you are are really getting a benefit from the dual processor whether you think you are multitasking or not.

I know my single p4-2.53 isn't as smooth as a dual p3 1.4 in normal xp usage.
Click to expand...
I used to have dual PIII 1.26's - they were great!
 
This needs to be sent over the the speculation sub-forum. Oh wait, it doesn't exist. :rolleyes:
 
sitheris said:
They just feel smoother overall. Plus, who doesn't multi-task these days :p
Click to expand...


My rig is only used for games and tunes. :p

And umm..."The last and best CPUs for s939 are X2 4800+ and FX60."...yeah, ok... I run my Opti 148 @ 3.2Ghz. The FX-55 I just got (i hope) will run much higher, do to the multipler. I have no need for an X2, just no point when you dont run multiple tasks. ;)
 
2Fresh said:
My rig is only used for games and tunes. :p

And umm..."The last and best CPUs for s939 are X2 4800+ and FX60."...yeah, ok... I run my Opti 148 @ 3.2Ghz. The FX-55 I just got (i hope) will run much higher, do to the multipler. I have no need for an X2, just no point when you dont run multiple tasks. ;)
Click to expand...

Background offloading and graphics drivers. Even if all you do is game, dual is the way to go.
 
Another vote for dual.

As another member stated in a clever dos like format, the opteron 165+overclock = win..
 
And what clockspeed would we need to justify a 6000+ rating?

Seeing how a 3000+ is 1.8GHz, I'd assume a 6000+ would be 3.6GHz.

Not gonna happen. :rolleyes:
 
Dan_D said:
Once you go dual you never go back.
Click to expand...

Well, that might be true for some people, but with dual core fixes for the AMD X2's disabling multithreading and shutting down one core to solve gaming problems, forget it. At least for me. And as for the Intel E6600, the lowest price in Canada is $389 CDN. And that's without shipping and taxes. Forget that!

I like my socket 754 3700+ and 2 GB OCZ Platinum RAM. I even ordered a legitimate copy of Win XP Pro so I won't have to endure DRM and other forms of crap on Vista. Cripes, they even say BF2 will run 10 to 15% slower on Vista AND require 4 GB of RAM.

Where are we anyway, in crazy town^
 
No matter what, dual core is really the way to go now, it runs so nice and smoothly. I have x64 running on my desktop with an x2 4200, i wouldnt trade it for anything right now.
 
harpoon said:
And what clockspeed would we need to justify a 6000+ rating?

Seeing how a 3000+ is 1.8GHz, I'd assume a 6000+ would be 3.6GHz.

Not gonna happen. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, whatever would be comparable to a ~6 Ghz Intel.




:p :p :p
 
z3r0- said:
Background offloading and graphics drivers. Even if all you do is game, dual is the way to go.
Click to expand...


No games really take advantage of dual right now. Anyway, just buy what you like. As I have said..I have no use for one right now. Maybe when games come out that really take advantage of the 2nd core...I might buy. But I feel my rig is just fine for now.
 
2Fresh said:
No games really take advantage of dual right now.
Click to expand...

Oblivion, ghost recon advanced warfighter (I think), and quake 4 are supported for dual core. The next quake game I think it might be called quake 2007 will be supported also. And the next DX10 flight simulator game.
There are supposed to be a boatload of titles coming out to support dual core in the next year alone.
It will soon be the standard...
 
Oblivion rocks if you do the oblivion.ini threading hacks on a dual core

:D
 
BlackTigers91 said:
Well, whatever would be comparable to a ~6 Ghz Intel.




:p :p :p
Click to expand...

Well since Core 2 Duo is faster with less MHz than the Athlon 64 I'd say you'd need a 7.0GHz or so Athlon 64 to do the job.

Conisdering the 2.4GHz E6600 beats out the 2.8GHz FX-62.

Arcygenical said:
Zomg 8 ghz :eek:
Click to expand...

Nope. You'd need roughly 7.0GHz to be comparable, and probably 7.5GHz to surpass a 6.0GHz Core 2 Duo. 8.0GHz would definitely surpass it decisively though.
 
Dan_D said:
Well since Core 2 Duo is faster with less MHz than the Athlon 64 I'd say you'd need a 7.0GHz or so Athlon 64 to do the job.
Click to expand...

This is a single core, so I would be comparing it to the older P4's....

As this would be on an older platform...
 
SRY that i did so mutch diference in people whit this topik.
I only think it is lame from amd, us not givin the X2 5000+ from AM2 socket or VERY cheapen the FX60.
I don't i will go AM2, AM2+, or Intel right now, i have a sistem i will run til end sommer/beginning winter 2007 and maibe then waiting for 2008, it depends on software...

But the FX60 could be nice, but is way to expensive for my 2 cents.


OMG, my english goes bad, sry for that.
 
BlackTigers91 said:
This is a single core, so I would be comparing it to the older P4's....

As this would be on an older platform...
Click to expand...

Well as everything moves to multi-core, you'll find that very few single core CPU's will be available in the not so distant future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top