AMD FX-60’s Imminent

13 Nov, 2005 at 6:31am ET Article published in Tech

Comments

1. 
   13 Nov 2005 ~ 8:51pm djstubbs I'm confused as to how they chose the name...
   
   The Fx-57 is a 2.8 ghz single core processor.
   
   The Fx-60 is a 2.6 x2???
2. 
   13 Nov 2005 ~ 9:09pm primesuspect You are relying on clock speed as a measure of performance, which is inaccurate. It's relative:
   
   The "60" is higher than the "57" meaning that this is a faster processor.
3. 
   13 Nov 2005 ~ 9:14pm djstubbs

   primesuspect wrote:

   You are relying on clock speed as a measure of performance, which is inaccurate. It's relative:
   
   The "60" is higher than the "57" meaning that this is a faster processor.

   
   Maybe so but it doesn't follow their traditional naming scheme.
   
   Shouldn't this be called the FX-55 X2???
4. 
   13 Nov 2005 ~ 9:37pm BlackHawk /me felt lost after 64bit came out.
   
   /me looks at his 2400+ tbred A and sighs :bawling:
5. 
   13 Nov 2005 ~ 10:24pm primesuspect yeah, i know how you feel
   
   * 2600+
6. 
   14 Nov 2005 ~ 3:43am Shorty I feel for you guys but the money this kit is at the moment, sit it out and wait till it's a little more consumer friendly
7. 
   14 Nov 2005 ~ 10:17am QCH The key here is that CPU speed does not directly correlate to performance. Someone needs to come up with benchmark program that takes several measurements and generates an unbiased score (similar to 3DMark & Sandra). But just like video card benchmarking, there is a difference between 3d cards and 2D cards. A outstanding 2D may be the worst 3D, and vice versa. A CPU Benchmark needs to separate out the key real world requirements (drafting, normal office products, video editing, compiling code...)
   
   It's similar to horsepower. The greater the number of cylinders in a vehicle does not indicate horsepower and higher horsepower does not infer greater speed. Torque influences initial power off the start but not top speed... all these number can confuse people.
   
   I have a V6 mini van with 170HP, and 165 Torque... I also have a VW Jetta Turbo Diesel with 100HP, and 177 Torque... the Jetta weighs a lot less and kicks the crap out of the van for 0-60...
8. 
   14 Nov 2005 ~ 10:19am QCH I just found this nice comparision from Tom's Hardware... HERE
9. 
   14 Nov 2005 ~ 5:43pm Qeldroma I hope the 60 comes out soon and takes some of the bite off X2 prices
   
   But with TOL prices being $1100US, it may not be much. This one is a little weird too- usually the next "thing" in CPUs happens by 2s (like there would be a 2.8GHz offering too).
10. 
    14 Nov 2005 ~ 5:44pm BuddyJ /me rocks the XP 1600+ on his KT266A Shuttle AK-31.
    
    Old School sucka.
11. 
    14 Nov 2005 ~ 11:28pm diminion wow, 1600+? and i was making fun of my friend because he had a 2200+. ha.
12. 
    15 Nov 2005 ~ 12:33am profdlp Until January of this year, I was using a T-Bird 1200...
13. 
    15 Nov 2005 ~ 9:30am airbornflght well, until last december. i was using a p3 600. not to mention it was about as stable as a crack adict.
14. 
    15 Nov 2005 ~ 3:34pm Armo are they still going to make Opertons on the S939 interface?
15. 
    15 Nov 2005 ~ 5:22pm Omega65

    Armo wrote:

    are they still going to make Opertons on the S939 interface?

    YUP! And they are out and about. Many of the S939 1xx series are cheaper than their A64 eqivalents. Also the S939 Opteron 165 (Dual 1MB Core 1.8ghz) can be had for ~300. Many are doing 2.5ghz+. You can consider it the 3000+ of the Dual core world.
16. 
    15 Nov 2005 ~ 10:27pm Nightwolf Wish i had the money for one of these fx-60's.... :bawling:
17. 
    17 Nov 2005 ~ 12:39pm Omega65 Fx-60 > $1k
    
    Ouch!
18. 
    3 Jan 2006 ~ 7:06pm Tito The FX-57 is still $1k
19. 
    3 Jan 2006 ~ 7:51pm Leonardo It is good to see that AMD CPUs are now valued enough as performance leaders that the market will pay high prices. AMD needs the dough for RDT&E. As soon as Intel gets out of their funk and starts producing performance again and not just hype, you'll see AMD prices fall.
20. 
    4 Jan 2006 ~ 3:53pm jradmin

    QCH2002 wrote:

    The key here is that CPU speed does not directly correlate to performance. Someone needs to come up with benchmark program that takes several measurements and generates an unbiased score (similar to 3DMark & Sandra). But just like video card benchmarking, there is a difference between 3d cards and 2D cards. A outstanding 2D may be the worst 3D, and vice versa. A CPU Benchmark needs to separate out the key real world requirements (drafting, normal office products, video editing, compiling code...)
    
    It's similar to horsepower. The greater the number of cylinders in a vehicle does not indicate horsepower and higher horsepower does not infer greater speed. Torque influences initial power off the start but not top speed... all these number can confuse people.
    
    I have a V6 mini van with 170HP, and 165 Torque... I also have a VW Jetta Turbo Diesel with 100HP, and 177 Torque... the Jetta weighs a lot less and kicks the crap out of the van for 0-60...

    
    
    However, most realworld use of CPU's have little to do with the CPU. I don't think my company is going to buy a CPU because it scored higher on the Microsoft Office benchmark then another chip. Benchmarks are for enthusiasts more then anyone else honestly, and the enthusiast in turn shapes the core R&D of virtually all the CPU makers. How many times do you see the big drum roll come out for the ho-hum CPU's like Celeron's ect?