AthlonFX-60 dare to dream?

[shocky123]

:fro:

For those of you who havent heard about it. TomsHardware has an excellent review of the new cpu. I especially recommend it for anyone who thinks they're Pentium-anything can outdue this chip. :kawaii:

linky (http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/10/amd_athlon_fx_60_dual_core_assault/)

And sadly, after the FX-60, it seems someone *tears up* will announce the end of the 939-Socket in the AMD64 line. (according to the article)

I mean hell, what a ride, from single core chips @ 1.8Ghz, all the way through to the Dual-Core champions clocked way the hell higher than any reasonable person could ever need..Dual-Core @ 2.6Ghz.. damn..

~Kyle

[clutchy]

crazy is right, although w/ how must dual core chips OC, i would wonder who would actualling invest the 1k for that chip?

[LegendKiller]

I didn't see antyhing *that* impressive, especially on a price/performance ratio.

[shocky123]

A few numbers that I look for are below, being as heat generation is a fairly important thing to consider with dual-core chips.

Power Consumption:
fx-60: 100W less than closest performing intel processor.
Keep in mind this is based on a 90nm process, whereas the EE 955 is based on a 65nm process, which is supposedly more power efficient.
Cost:
AthlonFX-60 (~$1150 @ 2.60Ghz)
Intel EE955 (~$1150 @ 3.46Ghz)
I just pricewatched them, couldnt find the intel on pricewatch because I'm blind, so I googled it.

3Dmark05 scores:
FX: 7824
EE(w/o HT): 7819
EE(w/ HT): 7723
Scores video section: (intel's 'selling point' -i.e. where it generally pulls ahead)
DivX:
FX: 6:25
EE: 6:48
Xvid:
FX: 3:54
EE: 3:48
Multitasking I:
FX: 1:28
EE: 1:48
Multitasking II:
FX: 4:24
EE: 5:00

I find these to be the (personally unbiased here..) more important/practical applications of said processors. This article compares (at least) the two top of the line gaming processors available. Oddly, they're priced at about the same price. So I'd have to disagree with the price/performance comments.

HOWEVER,
If you're comparing strictly AMD chips to AMD chips and want to run a price/performance comparison, I would tend to agree that the fx-60 doesnt make the cut when compared to the results of the AthlonX2 4600/4800's (In gaming at least).

I'd say the article helped me at least shed some light on what's becoming the more affordable chips. If you have the cash to blow on the fx-60 and realllly really want a dual-core cpu intended for raw gaming performance, then you should know you're gonna need to double/triple/quadrouple that in your system costs.
Oddly enough, for the parts they used in the whole systems, the cost of the fx-60 is right in line with what you should be spending (percentage wise) on a total system of that calliber.

Drop the GTX's, and that changes obviously.

But percentage wise, I'd argue that cost/performance of the system as a whole is comparable to cheaper, (X2-based, or non-X2 based) systems..

oh well, back to work.

~Kyle

[Bires]

I didn't see antyhing *that* impressive, especially on a price/performance ratio.

:stupid: Anyone that will buy this CPU in the next 6 months has more money than sense.

[Grimm]

:stupid: Anyone that will buy this CPU in the next 6 months has more money than sense.
Bah, in 6 months they will be reasonably priced mid-ranged CPUs.
Today, for a professional who needs speed in rendering or video editing, the faster speeds can result in more productivity. In a month of work the CPU could easily pay for itself in increased productivity.

Shocky, you might want to include some additional informationon with the benchmards, like when a low score or a high score is better.
I know that the scores with a ":" are times and lower is better, but not everyone will.


I didn't see antyhing *that* impressive, especially on a price/performance ratio.
LK, you never will on the high end. That's why it's the high end.

[LegendKiller]

Bah, in 6 months they will be reasonably priced mid-ranged CPUs.
Today, for a professional who needs speed in rendering or video editing, the faster speeds can result in more productivity. In a month of work the CPU could easily pay for itself in increased productivity.

Shocky, you might want to include some additional informationon with the benchmards, like when a low score or a high score is better.
I know that the scores with a ":" are times and lower is better, but not everyone will.


LK, you never will on the high end. That's why it's the high end.

There are several high-end products I fully endorse. However, a 3dmark improvement of 5/7819 or .06% isn't what I call impressive.


People are making this out to be this massive coup for AMD, it isn't.

[Agent Plissken]

CPU isnt the driving factor in a 3dmark score... the gpu is...

[LegendKiller]

Yes, but using identical GPU's shows the increase in power from the CPU change. To me, an increase of .06% doesn't give AMD anything more than INtel, especially when that is well within statistical error.

Even given other, only CPU based, statistics, I don't think it's a huge difference.

I guess if 1-3% makes a huge difference to you then it's important. But me? Meh...

[clutchy]

Yes, but using identical GPU's shows the increase in power from the CPU change. To me, an increase of .06% doesn't give AMD anything more than INtel, especially when that is well within statistical error.

Even given other, only CPU based, statistics, I don't think it's a huge difference.

I guess if 1-3% makes a huge difference to you then it's important. But me? Meh...


I think you're leaving out the most important part. It's dual-core, and I'd say a mojority of games don't support multicore yet or any that i'm aware of?... If you want the biggest honking benchy, you should probably look at the 2.8ghz fx57 I think?

this gives you the gaming juice people crave as well as the multi-tasking goodness of dual-core.

so no it doesn't have uber stats, although they are up there. It gives you the best of both worlds... and again you pay for that hansomely

[LegendKiller]

AFAIK there has only been one SMP game, Quake3. I don't think Q4 supports it. There were marginal improvements in Q3 with SMP.

I wouldn't purchase a 1k proc to only wait another 1-1.5 years for games to finally take advantage of the 2nd proc, and only then have marginal advantages.

Remember MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3dnow? All of those were supposed to make huge gains too. I am sure SMP will, but not for a while.

[Bires]

the future MUST take advantage of multiple processors. We're very close to the physical speed limits of room-temperature semiconductors made out of normal, cost-effective materials

[clutchy]

the future MUST take advantage of multiple processors. We're very close to the physical speed limits of room-temperature semiconductors made out of normal, cost-effective materials


only until they find away around it... won't be long.


AFAIK there has only been one SMP game, Quake3. I don't think Q4 supports it. There were marginal improvements in Q3 with SMP.

I wouldn't purchase a 1k proc to only wait another 1-1.5 years for games to finally take advantage of the 2nd proc, and only then have marginal advantages.

Remember MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3dnow? All of those were supposed to make huge gains too. I am sure SMP will, but not for a while.


excellent points.

[zero2dash]

There have been patches released for multiprocessor support in Quake4 and something else...I want to say HL2 but I'm probably confusing that with 64bit support.

I read earlier something about CoD2 having support for MP now also...but that's not the one I'm thinking about above...:confused:

[shocky123]

LK, the 5/7819 or whatever, is the improvement over an 'identicaly' priced intel chip.
The FX-57 came up about 50 pts shy of that mark. and over 100pts shy of that mark as compared to the fx60 at the same clock.

Granted, 100/7800 still isnt a whole lot. But as others have said, there will come a time when SMP -> (which is not necessarily dual-core, I believe that refers to chipsets that have seperate ram banks per processor, which dual-cores do not have by default, you'd have to have a mobo that's designed for that to work............ although, I could very well be wrong with that statement)...
but anyways, there will be a time when systems/gaming in particular will actually support the abilities offered by a multi-cpu system.

ALL HPC platforms are moving, or rather, have already moved to this now. And applications that run on these systems are slowly becoming multi-cpu designed.

But yeah, for the cash, and a relative increase in performance, this cpu does not offer an incredible performance gain over other AMD based systems... But at least you can pick your own motherboard ;) Which you will not be able to do with the intel counterpart.

~Kyle

[LegendKiller]

I am in no way denying that it's a great proc. However, I do think it's a bit dramatic to think it's a huge victory or any proof that Intel is all that far behind. I don't really care for fanboyism. I work by hard numbers in relative terms and a 5% gain, 3% of which could be eaten up by statistical errors, isn't what I call a huge victory.

Intel has shown remarkable ability to change, despite being an 800lb gorilla. The P4 line was a mistake and one which has cost them greatly. If they had dropped their pipeline lengthening, minimized the P4 line and gone with the P3+ line sooner, the better they would be. It's the perfect case of penny wise pound foolish.

SMP doesn't really refer to two processors on seperate chips. It's just the idea behind two procs working together, whether they are on the same die or not.

Don't get me wrong, I can't wait for SMP to be worked into programs more. It *IS* the future. However, now it's a waste of money (more or less) and something that only increases the measurement of the e-wang.
Sure,