• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

AMD Athlon 64 FX-60: Dual-Core FX Has Arrived

TechZ

TechZ

Captain Internet
STAFF MEMBER
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,344
Location
Singapore (Ex-Bahrain)
Car(s)
Audi TT '08 (Sold) S8 '02 (Sold)
The Register reports that AMD has begun shipping its first dual-core Athlon 64 FX gaming processor, the FX-60, hot on the heels of Intel's Pentium Extreme Edition 955.

The FX-60 is clocked at 2.6GHz, less than the 2.8GHz FX-57. Both are fabbed at 90nm and connect using AMD's Socket 939 pin-out. Both support up to 400MHz DDR SDRAM in dual-channel configuration. The FX-60 comprises 233m transistors to the FX-57's 113m. Each of the FX-60's two cores has 1MB of L2 cache.

t-break: With dual core enhancements to graphics drivers, the FX-60 comes out on top in most of the tests falling right in line with AMDs positioning of the FX series as the fastest desktop CPU. The FX-57s slightly higher clock speeds help it get past the FX-60 in a few benchmarks while all of the Pentium4 based CPUs are left in the cold.

HEXUS: Gaming wise, yes, currently the FX-60 is a minor step down from an FX-57, both at their default clocks. But the step is a small one, and the benefits of the extra core in system that's being used by other applications while you game are what the FX-60, and all performance dual-core processors, are about. The FX-60 is a gamer's chip, make no mistake.

FiringSquad: On the other hand, if you're living for today's games (a majority of which are not threaded), then the extra stock frequency is preferred. The threaded game infrastructure just isn't there yet and this has been marketed as a gaming CPU since its inception. You'll probably have a better chance at hitting 3 GHz with the FX-57, anyway.

TechReport: One wouldn't expect to have to make any compromises if one were paying $1031 for a microprocessor, which is what AMD intends to charge for the Athlon 64 FX-60. Personally, I'd be content with an overclocked Athlon 64 X2 3800+, but if you want to have the fastest desktop CPU money can buy, the FX-60 is undoubtedly it.

AnandTech: Then there's the issue of AMD's upcoming Socket-AM2; due out in another few months, you obviously won't be able to use any Socket-939 processors in the new motherboards and there will be no upgrade path beyond the FX-60 for current 939 owners, so our recommendation would be to stay away from the FX-60 unless you absolutely have to build the world's fastest system today.
 
Dayum, wouldn't mind getting my hands on one of em.
 
Wonder what those gamers will think of the latest FX being dual-core. I think dual-core is no better than single-core unless the program supports it, though more programs should support it as it becomes more common.

Either way, I could probably make a regular X2 beat the new FX-60 with enough OC-ing.
 
Vette Boss said:
Wonder what those gamers will think of the latest FX being dual-core. I think dual-core is no better than single-core unless the program supports it, though more programs should support it as it becomes more common.

Either way, I could probably make a regular X2 beat the new FX-60 with enough OC-ing.
Click to expand...

I unlike most gamers though would think a dual core system, that is higher in speed would be MUCH better for gaming. When you are running a game, more software than just your game have to run (such as explorer.exe, and some other random windows systems). With the system services running on one core, you have an almost dedicated core just for the game. You'll see a performance increase, but if each core is faster, I don't really see the gaming advantage with single core.

but then again, I have no real desire to upgrade my computer now, as my A64 3000+ plays games just fine, and for more taxing games I have an xbox360, and i'd only buy an FX-60 for development purposes.
 
I'm sorry if this is a stupid question but does dual core means the speed is doubled? For example, does a dual core 2.6ghz CPU has 2x2.6ghz cores in it? Or does it only have 2x1.3ghz cores in it? Thanks.
 
awdrifter said:
does a dual core 2.6ghz CPU has 2x2.6ghz cores in it? Or does it only have 2x1.3ghz cores in it?
Click to expand...

a dualcore 2,6ghz cpu has 2 2,6ghz cores 8)
 
Wow, that's really fast then. Thank for the info.
 
TechZ said:
Having 2 cores doesnt mean 2x the performance awdrifter, but as games/apps are being optimized for it, tis getting there. Right now, its more multi-tasking oriented, as each core can handle a piece of work itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for some reason no one understands symmetric multi-processing. I guess its because SMP before now was limited to workstations and expensive computers. Its such an easy concept to understand, but even the people in my parallel programming class (a senior level CS elective) couldn't figure out SMP... I can't wait until I can actually afford a CPU that costs that much (which won't be soon, I can't justify $1320 for just the processor).
 
Even if you don't get 2x the speed, it would be close right? How much would a dual core 2.6ghz cpu faster than a single core 2.6? Thanks.
 
awdrifter said:
How much would a dual core 2.6ghz cpu faster than a single core 2.6? Thanks.
Click to expand...

between 0-99.9% faster
as TechZ and Hokie said it depends on the application
most actual programms are not designed for multicore cpus so they won't run faster on a 2x2.6ghz cpu than on a single 2.6ghz cpu, but you can run one on each core ;)
 
So if a program is designed to run on a dual core CPU, it can be 2x faster right?
 
I have a feeling since this is coming out the FX-55, will be renamed the AMD 64 4200 which is a CPU with just 1 core.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top