AMD FX-60's Imminent

Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
edited January 2006 in Science & Tech
The Inquirer reports that AMD has sent samples of the AMD FX-60 (Dual Core - 2x1MB cache - 2.60 GHz) to select reviewers.
AMD has been sending out the FX-60 chips, dual cores that clock at 2.6GHz.

They are in the hands of at least one INQ friendly box slinger now, so it is only a short period of time before they are in the hands of users.
AMD is keeping up the pressure on Intel. Intel may have the 65nm process but AMD still holds the performance crown.

Source: The Inquirer

Comments

  • djstubbsdjstubbs NJ
    edited November 2005
    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???
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    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.
  • djstubbsdjstubbs NJ
    edited November 2005
    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???
  • BlackHawkBlackHawk
    felt lost after 64bit came out.

    /me looks at his 2400+ tbred A and sighs :bawling:
     Bible music connoisseur There's no place like 127.0.0.1 Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    felt lost after 64bit came out.

    /me looks at his 2400+ tbred A and sighs :bawling:
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    yeah, i know how you feel

    * 2600+ :(
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    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 ;)
  • QCHQCH Ancient Guru Chicago Area - USA Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    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...
  • QCHQCH Ancient Guru Chicago Area - USA Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    I just found this nice comparision from Tom's Hardware... HERE
  • QeldromaQeldroma Arid ZoneAh Member
    edited November 2005
    I hope the 60 comes out soon and takes some of the bite off X2 prices :rolleyes:

    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).
  • BuddyJBuddyJ
    rocks the XP 1600+ on his KT266A Shuttle AK-31.

    Old School sucka. :ninja:
     Dept. of Propaganda OKC Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    rocks the XP 1600+ on his KT266A Shuttle AK-31.

    Old School sucka. :ninja:
  • diminiondiminion
    edited November 2005
    wow, 1600+? and i was making fun of my friend because he had a 2200+. ha.
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited November 2005
    Until January of this year, I was using a T-Bird 1200... :wtf:
  • airbornflghtairbornflght Houston, TX Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    well, until last december. i was using a p3 600. not to mention it was about as stable as a crack adict.
  • ArmoArmo Mr. Nice Guy Is Dead,Only Aqua Remains Member
    edited November 2005
    are they still going to make Opertons on the S939 interface?
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited November 2005
    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.
  • NightwolfNightwolf Afghanistan Member
    edited November 2005
    Wish i had the money for one of these fx-60's.... :bawling:
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited November 2005
    Fx-60 > $1k

    Ouch!
  • Tito
    edited January 2006
    The FX-57 is still $1k
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited January 2006
    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.
  • jradminjradmin North Kackalaki
    edited January 2006
    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.