newegg has fx-60!!!

Enjoicube said:
I think FX series get canceled befor they reach 600 bucks usually.
Click to expand...
well.. it used to be that we only had one FX at a time, fx-51, then it got cancelled as the fx-53 came out, then same for fx-55
the fx-57 broke that trend, and now we still have fx-55
i'm hoping amd stops making the fx-55's, leaving us with just the fx-57 and 60
 
well, it's gonna be a long time since we see any for sale (new) below what the fx-55 is at now
 
and you know how that cpu performs in comparison? like SHIT ;)

might as well get a 3800+, it'll out-perform it, despite having 1/4th the cache, and clocked 800mhz lower ;)
 
CCUABIDExORxDIE said:
and when overclocked to 4.5ghz, it can BARELY break 30 seconds in superpi. something this chip can do at STOCK SPEEDS! so now that 270 vs 1300 isnt too great is it?
Click to expand...
I must disagree, cause 1300 at 4.5 which i (wild guess so sorry) guess that it will only lasts about a year maybe less. (i could be wrong)
Point is though why would you do that to a $1300 chip. Still though amd has the upperhand on multimedia instructions and fsb along with L1.
 
locutus24 said:
I must disagree, cause 1300 at 4.5 which i (wild guess so sorry) guess that it will only lasts about a year maybe less. (i could be wrong)
Point is though why would you do that to a $1300 chip. Still though amd has the upperhand on multimedia instructions and fsb along with L1.
Click to expand...

i was reffering to the 920 at 4.5ghz. anyway, you can get a performance gauge from te 920 doing 4.5ghz having a sub 30s spi 1m and a 2.6ghz fx60 doing sub 30s spi 1m at stock. And if well taken care of, a chip will last for ever. but honestly, only those of us who are Xtreme will be buying this. and just so you guys know, a 3.4ghz fx60 is about on par, benching wise, with a 3.9ghz FX57.
 
locutus24 said:
Is that seriously only L2 with 1024x1024. Why not 2048x2048
Ok im not an intel !!!!!! but http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116237
$270 v $1300 and the intel has a 65nm process
Click to expand...
Athlons (and all AMD processors for that matter) do a LOT more work per clock cycle than an Intel chip. An FX-60 will annihilate that Pentium D 920. It will need to work at over 4GHz to match the FX-60.

2.8GHz on an AMD chip is not the same as 2.8GHz on an Intel chip.

If a chip uses 65nm process, that is not a reason to buy it over a 90nm chip. 65nm does not equate to better performance. 65nm means less heat and better overclock potential. All current AMD chips run very cool, especially compared to their Intel counterparts and also overclock moderately.
 
CCUABIDExORxDIE said:
but honestly, only those of us who are Xtreme will be buying this
Click to expand...
and have a lot of cash to burn ;)

but yes.. a good number of the FX buyers are the ones who buy like 4-5 of them, take the best one and put it under phase, while selling the rest.
 
wait hold on. the fx-60 is DUAL CORE? so basically... taking the best gaming processor and making it dual core? how the hell did i never hear anything about this???
 
dingobiatch said:
wait hold on. the fx-60 is DUAL CORE? so basically... taking the best gaming processor and making it dual core? how the hell did i never hear anything about this???
Click to expand...
because u never said hi to google! now he hates u and wont tell u anything :p
 
mmm thats a sweeeeeeeeeeet processor.. to pricey for me though :p I'll just stick with my opteron 175 Demark that I'm buying tomorrow :D
 
Double Jesus said:
anyone wanna lend me some money?

by lend i mean give?

i have paypal, it's easy!
Click to expand...

thread killed due to self promotion lol...

just gonna have to egay it in a year, maybe then i can sell my kidney on the black market.
 
essi1553 said:
thread killed due to self promotion lol...

just gonna have to egay it in a year, maybe then i can sell my kidney on the black market.
Click to expand...
omg rofl... selling your kidney for a processor.. hahaha
 
dingobiatch said:
wait hold on. the fx-60 is DUAL CORE? so basically... taking the best gaming processor and making it dual core? how the hell did i never hear anything about this???
Click to expand...

Not really

FX-57 = 2.8Ghz
FX-60 = 2 cores at 2.6Ghz
X2 4800+ = 2 cores at 2.4Ghz

Technically the FX-57 is faster and will probably still beat the FX-60 in many games b/c of its faster single threaded performance and they usually overclock better (3Ghz+). All they did was take a 4800+ and crank up the speed 200Mhz by giving it a higher multiplier. And most of the FX-60's are hitting about 2.8Ghz when overclocked, still not bad considering its 2 cores. That said, I'd still prefer an FX-60 over an FX-57 b/c of its multi-tasking ability & future performance benefits as more & more apps & drivers become multi-threaded

Just IMAGINE if AMD had 65nm ready.
 
Eh, I just can't justify spending $1100 on a single piece of hardware. I think I'll be sticking with a X2 4800 when I get around to upgrading. :rolleyes:
 
overpriced,overrated

why would you get something like this when quad-core intels are gonna be out in a year or two
 
chrisf6969 said:
Technically the FX-57 is faster and will probably still beat the FX-60 in many games b/c of its faster single threaded performance and they usually overclock better (3Ghz+). All they did was take a 4800+ and crank up the speed 200Mhz by giving it a higher multiplier. And most of the FX-60's are hitting about 2.8Ghz when overclocked, still not bad considering its 2 cores.
Click to expand...
you might be surprised by how much the dual core really helps already ;)

also, 2.8ghz seems to be a worst case, i've seen some go over 3ghz on air :cool:
 
osalcido said:
overpriced,overrated

why would you get something like this when quad-core intels are gonna be out in a year or two
Click to expand...
why buy a quad-core if you can just wait a couple of years for octa core?.. heck, wait until the day before you die, for the best deal you are ever going to get on hardware...

:rolleyes:

While I think that FX are overpriced, I don't see waiting for quad-core to be a viable option.
 
drizzt81 said:
While I think that FX are overpriced, I don't see waiting for quad-core to be a viable option.
Click to expand...
esp not intel's, unless they drastically change how the cores talk to eachother. ;)
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
esp not intel's, unless they drastically change how the cores talk to eachother. ;)
Click to expand...

The problem is MORE how the cores talk to the memory and the rest of the system. Not as much to each other.

And the Core processors share cache so I assume they can "talk" to each other directly. But you still have both sharing the bottlenecked FSB to everything else: NB, ram, etc....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top