Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD Releases Dual-Core FX-60 Processor

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the slipping-off-the-cutting-edge dept.

AMD 191

mikemuch writes "AMD just released their new Dual-Core FX-60 processor which is basically two FX-55s strapped together. Unfortunately, the FX-60 doesn't blow away Intel's recently announced Pentium 955 Extreme Edition, and it's actually slightly more pricey. It gets a slight edge in games and runs cooler, as Loyd Case found when he put the FX-60 through ExtremeTech's battery of benchmarks. From the review: 'AMD now ships a dual-core CPU that's essentially the equal of Presler, while generating far less heat. In terms of performance, however, this means that AMD no longer commands the same type of lead it once did when Intel only had the somewhat anemic 840 Extreme Edition. In fact, AMD is now more expensive, at $1,031 (quantity 1,000), versus the 955 Extreme Edition at $999 (quantity 1000).'"

cancel ×

191 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Other Reviews (5, Informative)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434786)

Tech Report [techreport.com] (FX60 beats out 955 in most of the benchmarks, if not by a large margin then at least consistently).

Also check out AMDZone, AnandTech, Björn3D, FiringSquad, HEXUS, HotHardware, LostCircuits,
PC Perspective, t-break, and TrustedReviews who all have reviews as well.

Re:Other Reviews (5, Insightful)

metarox (883747) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434894)

I just can't wait to see how well AMD will do once it goes 65nm and changes to DDR2. Power consumption will probably drop by a significant amount proving once again that the AMD design is better. They actually are better with 90nm and DDR memory in most benchmarks.

Re:Other Reviews (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435185)

AMD has peaked, it is downhill from here for them. The new Intel line will start to dominate.

Re:Other Reviews (2, Interesting)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435384)

AMD has peaked, it is downhill from here for them. The new Intel line will start to dominate.

You mean when it actually ships? Intel's desktop lineup (such as the EE processor mentioned) is still Netburst architecture, just at 65 nm.

AMD should still have a great story to tell when it hits 65 nm. and supports newer memory architectures.

Intel still doesn't have an integrated memory controller, or an answer to Coherent Hypertransport [zdnet.com] . Even in its upcoming new architecture.

Competition is a great thing, and Intel has a long way to go before it stops losing marketshare to AMD.

Re:Other Reviews (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435460)

It takes a year or two for these things to filter through to end users buying machines. Notice how long it took AMD to start regaining market share with the K8.

The goodness that is Conroe won't factor into peoples perceptions until late 2007. The best thing that Intel can hope for is that they are far enough ahead of AMD for enough time that they'll change people's perceptions.

At the worst, AMD will have a competitively fast processor when they move to 65nm that has roughly the same power consumption figures and cost.

In the shorter term, AMD's F Stepping on 90nm is meant to reduce power consumption further (or increase clock speed), and adds in DDR2 (667MHz and 800MHz) which some people say will increase performance by between 5% and 15%. However Socket AM2 is a good reason to not buy any high-performance AMD processor at the moment, because better is coming relatively soon (and what games coming out this quarter will really benefit from a brand new rig anyway?).

Re:Other Reviews (4, Informative)

kesuki (321456) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435715)

DDr2 ram isn't being used because of it's abysmal timings. http://www.ocztechnology.com/aboutocz/press/2005/1 48 [ocztechnology.com]
compare that to the 2-3-2-2 timings one can get on DDR modules.

The reason why there is such a huge discrepency between performance between some review sites and others is that some sites are using abysmal 3-3-3-3 timings DDR memory for the FX-60 while others are using the better timed DDR chips. For gaming there is a HUGE advantage to having 2-3-2-2 timings because the entire content of the ram can be dumped almost twice as often as 4-4-4 timed DDR2, which because of it's better frequencies can pump more data at a slower rate.

Mind you AMD will need DDR2 support in the future, unless they somehow decided GDDR3 was better, because in about a few years DDR2 modules will be coming down to the 2-2-2 timings level, and will blow away the standard ddr modules. i mean technically if you look at video cards with ddr2 and ddr3 memory there is no engineering reason why someone couldn't make a ddr2 or ddr3 memory that worked awesome today, but there is plenty of 'marketing' reasons why they nead to have a 'clear' roadmap into the future.

DDR memory still has a lot of years of life left in it if you get the good timings stuff, like ocz or patriot. too bad ddr2 is 240 pin and ddr1 is 184 pin, so one can't make them pin compatable.. and no doubht ddr3 and ddr4 won't be pin compatable when they come out either.

ah well, tought to say, but if i was at AMD and trying to think of a way to 'counter' the DDR2 solution intel is using i'd instead opt for the simplified GDDR3 as main system memory. At least i'd consider the viability of doing so. the high end memory card market overnight decided to drop agp support and ddr2 support and go all pci-e with gddr3, because they were simpler more elgeant and properly working designs. agp is, was and remains a kludge to work around a problem that a better solution hadn't been thought of and ddr2 is full of legacy design needs from it's legacy heritage too.

Anyways, I'd rather see an AMD system (on 65 nm core) with GDDR3 modules than DDR-II modules.

Re:Other Reviews (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14434960)

Unfortunately, the FX-60 doesn't blow away Intel's recently announced Pentium 955 Extreme Edition

Yeah, too bad for you AMD-fanbois that Intel still produces the only industry-strength processors, whil you play with your underpowered toys.

Re:Other Reviews (-1, Flamebait)

Tekzel (593039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434991)

Yeah, too bad for you AMD-fanbois that Intel still produces the only industry-strength processors, whil you play with your underpowered toys.


Sorry to break it to you son, but a fanboi is a loser that keeps believing that a particular product or service is better even when overwelming proof to the contrary is right in front of their eyes. Like you, for instance. You actually believe that Intel makes a better processor than AMD. You really believe it. Now thats funny.

Re:Other Reviews (2, Interesting)

Stalks (802193) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434981)

Something is wrong about the reviews that are out at the moment. Perhaps individual chips vary a lot in performance, because I just checked out the article, your linked review, AmdZone and AnandTech's reviews and they all have cross references for the same benchmarks yet the results show a varying difference between the 2 processors. What is the underlying factor that can make one review look like a benchmark is similar on both architectures, and then a different review and same benchmark, AMD is 60% faster? It makes me wonder if the reviewer tweaks the results to show his/her biased view. Whether it be Intel or AMD.

Re:Other Reviews (1)

ReaperEB-Moo (628237) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435132)

I've also seen other reviews that show that the FX-60 out performs the 955 in most of the marks. Yeah the 955 does come out on top in a few. It's pretty impressive that a FX-60 non-overclocked at stock 2.6Ghz can beat the 955 EE that's overclocked to 4+Ghz. Go figure.. There are a few review sources that I trust, because they have no bias towards the products or vendors. Along with the sites mention by hattig, check out the last two issues of MaximumPC, they usually beat the hell out of machines when testing, and even if they love something, they'll still have something bad to say about, but usually in a positive way.

Re:Other Reviews (1)

Vigile (99919) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435754)

Kinda INtel Biased (2, Insightful)

Unixfreak31 (634088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434791)

Maybe I am an amd Droid but the last i read the 4800+ and the 955 were almost identical in most benchmarks expcept those that intel always does well in (Specproof etc) and from the article the fx-60 does slightly better than the 4800+ which makes sense granted the fx is slightly faster so I would say AMD has a slight edge here but any who wants to spend 4 digits on cpu period INTEL or AMD??

Re:Kinda INtel Biased (4, Funny)

gol (635335) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434877)

whoa! no more caffeine for you

Re:Kinda INtel Biased (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435390)

please try to use some comma's or dots in your sentences because otherwise people will think it's one big flow of words and will stop reading even if you have something interesting to say like you obviously did however i did not catch it entirely because when i was reading your one sentence i forgot the start of it.

price difference (5, Insightful)

ShaneThePain (929627) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434803)

you really think 32 bucks is going to make a difference to me if im going to buy a THOUSAND dollar processor?

Re:price difference (4, Insightful)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434830)

It's a condition I call being "Pathologically poor".

You'll see it in people nitpicking and haggling and generally making an ass of themselves as if they're a step away from the poor house, even though they're doing things which obviously don't qualify them as poor.

This is to be discerned from "Smart shopping" from the desperate nature of it. "Those AMD bastards are so EXPENSIVE!!" for 32 bucks on a 1000 dollar processor is a goof example. However, keep in mind that some people using AMD processors these days were the pathologically poor people of yesteryear who wanted to save a buck at any cost. :P

Re:price difference (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434889)

However, keep in mind that some people using AMD processors these days were the pathologically poor people of yesteryear who wanted to save a buck at any cost.

I agreed with you right up to that...

In the "old days", AMD chips cost a LOT less than Intel (like a third to half the price), for 80% of the performance. When you can pay $150 or $400 for basically comparable chips, you can't accuse someone of acting "pathologically poor" for going with the AMD chip.

Recently, AMD has held a small but steady lead over Intel. And they still sold for less, for comparably performing chips... Not half the price, but more than 10% less.

And now... The Athlon 64 has a real competitor. I would tend to call the FP just a tad biased (since another test found the Presler inferior to the 4800, which one might expect the FX-60 to beat). And AMD charges a small premium for it. Not acting as an apologist, just observing a trend... Personally, I think AMD may have made a mistake in judgement there, because it will push away some of their underdog-loving fans.

As for me... I've made the switch to Athlon 64s, primarily for their power and heat edge over Intel, but also because (at least until now) they do perform significantly better, dollar-for-dollar. Very little chance I'll rush out and buy an FX-60... This may very well drop the 4800 to a price at which I will buy it, however.

Re:price difference (2, Insightful)

Ruger (237212) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434903)

Well, it's $32 more, but the delta we're typially used to (AMDvsIntel) is negative...AMD being considerably less. So being $32 more isn't really the issue. If you expect the AMD to be $100 less, it's really overpriced by $132.

Pathologically indeed (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434954)

Someone who worries about 32 bucks on a 1000 dollar processor probably should not buy either the Pentium EE or the AMD FX-60. The 4400+ would be a much smarter choice, maybe 15% slower but much cheaper.
The last 20% of performance are always disproportionally expensive. Unless you really need them or are really rich, buy a bit smaller.

Re:price difference (5, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434859)

Especially when you'd probably save about $32 in electricity costs from running the AMD over the Intel for 3 months.

Re:price difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435464)

But you'd save $50 in heating bills with the Pentium!

Re:price difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435743)

Ah, but your heating costs would go down if you went with Intel!

Re:price difference (2, Informative)

Sique (173459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434883)

It might make a difference for assemblers who try to put out machines priced under a certain limit. If they are trying to build something like a $1599 machine, they have $30 more headroom for the other components, leading maybe to the next better graphic card or a an additional 512 MByte of RAM.
In a market where specs for the components are everything, the prices are made to fit unter certain arbitrary limits, and the balanced choice of components takes a backseat, such $30 may be the deciding factor for choosing the processor architecture.

Re:price difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14434958)

assemblers are not likely to buy a 0-day cpu. they're pricy couse of exclisiveness, and not price-balanced between AMD and Intel.

Re:price difference (1)

wild_berry (448019) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435206)

I agree with your concept but not the specifics: someone building $1599 system couldn't throw $999 on the processor, what with their markup having the parts cost somewhere between $900-1300. I'd believe it for a $2500 or $3500 system.

Re:price difference (1)

Jesapoo (929240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435190)

When you're making your own system? No. When you're buying units in the thousands to make a whole set of them? Yup :)

Re:price difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435435)

It's $1,031 per processor if you buy 1,000 processors. I am sure the price would be much higher if you bought just one.

Fifth Post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14434818)

Pages want to be wide. Widen me!

Unfortunately? or not? (2, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434824)

Unfortunately, the FX-60 doesn't blow away Intel's recently announced Pentium 955 Extreme Edition, and it's actually slightly more pricey.

Althought I understand that some people do not like Intel, I think that this will just make AMD work harder to make a faster processor. The competition between these two chip makers will ultimately benefit everyone by creating better/faster technology. That being said, $995 is a bit pricey.

Re:Unfortunately? or not? (1)

astralbat (828541) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434913)

AMD have done well in the past to catch up and even get further ahead than Intel, but I think Intel's future looks bright - particularly in the mobile market with the current dual core Yonah processor and the future Merom processor which is a complete redesign and extremely power efficient. It looks like its AMD who have to play catch up now.

The bottom line is that I think Intel are right when they say it's now about performance per watt.

Re:Unfortunately? or not? (1)

dubiousx99 (857639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435162)

So now Intel is still right when they change their tune to say performance per watt? Was AMD wrong when Intel was touting clock speeds and they were saying its not about clock speeds, it's about performance?

Re:Unfortunately? or not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435565)

I don't like the way Intel are now touting "performance per watt", because although power efficiency is important, these figures aren't very meaningful if you don't know (and understand) how they are being measured since performance does not increase linearly with power consumption. I personally think this is more a marketing gimmick than anything else.

I'm not saying Intels new processors won't be better or more powerful than AMDs, they may well be, we'll have to wait and see when they come out. Competition is a good thing we don't want AMD to become complacent in their superiority.

32 dollars (5, Insightful)

Quick Sick Nick (822060) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434829)

It may be a whopping $32 dollars more expensive, but that's better than replacing your motherboard and memory which would be necessary to switch from intel to AMD or vice versa.

It isn't always a matter of, "this is the slightly better processor," unless you're building a new system.

Pedantry (0, Offtopic)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434956)

okay: 32 dollars
okay: $32
makes no sense: $32 dollars
consider: 5" inches, 40% per cent

Re:32 dollars (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435102)

Since most people don't upgrade $1000 CPU's every year, it really doesn't matter much considering sockets change all the time.
Every single CPU upgrade I've done (once every 2 or 3 years) also demanded new motherboard and memory, and I've always used AMD CPU's. I think Intel switches sockets even more than AMD does.

Price isn't really going to matter (1)

njvic (614279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434831)

I don't think price is going to make that much difference.. Let's face it, AMD now has a pretty keen fanbase. I know I feel far more loyal to AMD than I ever did to Intel.

Re:Price isn't really going to matter (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435168)

I'm not loyal to either of 'em. I just buy the best processor in each generation in the budget I can afford.

I.e. mostly non Intel upto the Celeron 300, then Athlon XP, and probably a Merom next. But if Merom ends up sucking badly benchmark wise, I'll get a Athlon 64.

I honestly don't understand the whole fan boy thing. Processor companies aren't sports teams, and it doesn't matter to you who wins the battle. Hell, most of the people I know don't even get that way about sports teams.

As far as the article goes, this is significant because the AMD brand has strengthened to the point where they don't need to underprice. Which they deserve actually, the design choices they made with the Athlon and '64 were much better than on the P4. With a bit of luck, Intel will make the right choices with Next Generation Microarchitecture, and get back on track with their manufacturing processes, and produce something that leapfrogs the AMD 64. If they manage that, I'll buy it and if they don't I won't.

Oh screw it

<fanboy>
Woohoo, Intel are gonna put the Megahurts on AMD with Merom. Squeel piggy, Squeal. Yeeehaw!!!!
</fanboy>

Re:Price isn't really going to matter (1)

kypper (446750) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435418)

I agree with you.
I love AMD as the underdog, but when it comes down to it, I buy the processor for my needs. I needed hyperthreading when the dual cores weren't out, and the Prescotts overclocked nicely (contrary to what some people say about heating, if you do a proper cooling system, you can overclock about a gig). AMD was also not significantly cheaper for my target system.

Better for games, still. (4, Insightful)

Ruger (237212) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434835)

AMD usually out performs Intel in game tests...which is the only reason to own one of these bleeding edge processors, right? It was interesting how much cooler the FX-60 ran compared to intel's 955 Extreme Edition. 15C less is huge. Cooler case, less power required for fans...so quiter too. AMD has always been the better value too, but in this case it's MORE than the intel. AMD should do it's best to avoid this becoming a trend.

Re:Better for games, still. (1)

Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435034)

My understanding is that virtually all current games are single-threaded. Having a dual-core processor only allows other software to run on the second core, it would be rather amazing if it allowed a game to run faster. There is actually a negative here - the processor only goes into power-save mode if both cores are idle.

This processor is designed for use in a server, not for games.

Re:Better for games, still. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435086)

At the moment Quake 4 and Age of Empires 4 both take advantage of dual core cpus and new games are being developed with dual-cores in mind. In current single-threaded games the exta core means the user can do things like burn a DVD while gaming without the slowdown the would be present on single-core cpus

FX-XX processors are for high-performance desktops, Opterons are for servers.

Re:Better for games, still. (1)

wild_berry (448019) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435285)

Th Ahtlon64 FX line is AMD's enthusiast chip. It's clock multiplier is unlocked for overclockers; the FX-60 is intended for gamers as patches arrive for games enabling them to make use of multi-threading capabilities of a dual-core processor. I understand that the games may be little more than hacks to offload some of the work to the second core and to make sure that the primary game thread has a core to itself, but this wouldn't be possible with only a single processing engine in your computer.

amd vs intel (4, Insightful)

chrisranjana.com (630682) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434839)

Initially AMD's selling point was price, now they have proved quality.. price comes second

article way biased (4, Insightful)

akhomerun (893103) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434843)

this summary is so biased, it's rediculous. by being a cooler processor and faster in practically every benchmark, doesn't the FX-60 deserve to cost $30

like that's going to matter when you are buying a $1000 processor. i'd gladly pay the extra 3% for a cooler processor that performs, then my cooling solution could cost $30 less.

I'd also be interested in what the retail prices will be. Yeah, the 1000 quantity intels are cheaper, but what if the markups on the intels are higher once they hit retail? I mean it's not to say that the Intel will be more expensive or the AMD will be more expensive at retail prices, I don't know, but I'd say that there's a good chance that those prices will even out a little when you are buying 1 processor from a retailer.

Re:article way biased (1)

akhomerun (893103) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434855)

oh crap...corrections

subject should be "summary way biased" ..."doesn't the FX-60 deserve to cost $30 more" - forgot the word "more"

yeah...i know
should have hit the preview button

Re:article way biased (1)

Tango42 (662363) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435722)

Why preview? Just re-read what you typed in the text box. Preview is for formatting errors, not typos.

Re:article way biased (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14434897)

You will probably save the $30 in a year or two in power costs alone.

If Intel would get off their ass and replace the power-sucking fry-an-egg Prescott core then I would be running Intel right now (better motherboard chipsets). Until then I'm going to keep running my Opterons with ass crappy motherboard.

Re:article way biased (1, Funny)

cgenman (325138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434907)

like that's going to matter when you are buying a $1000 processor. i'd gladly pay the extra 3% for a cooler processor that performs, then my cooling solution could cost $30 less.

Or, as the processor is unlocked, overclock it until it runs at the same temperature. At that point it will be faster than the Intel.

Re:article way biased (1)

professionalfurryele (877225) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435283)

That would be the case except the AMD chip doesn't overclock so well, they tend to throw up error even running a dash over their usual clock speed. The Intel one can (if you can supply the juice) be seriously overclocked on the other hand. However I don't believe the article when it says the Intel Chip is faster. I've read what I would consider a much more reliable review which had the AMD chip either infront, or way infront for most benchmarks (especially when it came to multithreaded tasks). Maybe there is some variation in the chip qualities, me no know. However, for the time being at least, I more willing to believe results which give AMD the nose ahead than Intel. Granted I'm bias.

Re:article way biased (1)

Bodrius (191265) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435140)

Did you read TFA? I'm all for criticizing slashdot summaries for the sake of AMD fanboy-ness, but how exactly is this 'so biased, it's rediculous'?

The summary makes three points regarding the results from the article, or rather, rephrases the single point in 3 ways:

- The FX-60 has a slight edge over Intel's equivalent and runs cooler
- It doesn't 'blow away' Intel's equivalent anymore
- 'AMD no longer commands the same kind of lead'

IOW: yes, AMD still wins, but it doesn't have the obvious price+perf advantage that it often had. You may actually have to think for a sec before choosing where to spend 1K in CPU bucks. Imagine that.

I'm not sure how exactly you read the article, but I found the summary surprisingly accurate for /.

Re:article way biased (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435217)

The processor costs $30 more. The writeup says "slightly more pricey." If you somehow find that false, I suggest you're a fanboy. If you want to justify the slightly higher price, such as reduced power or cooling costs, fine. But don't slam the writeup for being factually correct, or engage in speculation about how the street price of the AMD might actually be less when the opposite could just as well be true.

anyone with any sense (2, Insightful)

PowerBert (265553) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434854)


Is going out to buy a AMD64 X2 4800+.

Re:anyone with any sense (1)

Bobsledboy (836872) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435089)

Anyone with any sense is going out to buy any of the X2 range.

One-thousand dollars! (1)

wetfeetl33t (935949) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434873)

Sooo many new, powerful, expensive processors. Most of which are unaffordable. I think I'm getting left behind...

Re:One-thousand dollars! (1)

Neuroelectronic (643221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435247)

you can get something with 80% of the power of this for %20 of the price

But does it have HDCP? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14434875)

This has got me worried, with all the shift going to high definition in PC's and Intel chips having DRMs like HDCP, makes me wonder if AMD has this as well?

As you know Intel created HDCP, so is AMD licensed to use it? Will AMD PC's not be able to view HDCP High Def?

Bias? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14434891)

Article seemed somewhat biased towards intel - it read more like an intel press release at first, then sort of died as they realized that it was getting hammered. It was less of a comparison between CPUs and more of a "look, intel is coming along, kinda, we hope, please don't stop buying advertising intel waaa" - or so it seemed to me.

But I'm an AMD fanboi :)

One thing of note - HyperThreading does NOT give performance gains like actual other CPUs offer. Reviewers keep going "where's my HyperThreading gain?" They've been saying this for the last few years, too. AT MOST, you'll net a 15-20% gain on a poorly written application (one that doesn't handle priorities correctly) that interfaces with the OS heavily.

Of course, eventually intel will come out with a faster proc (when they realize that their FSB and branch prediction errors on the netburst are KILLING them), but until then, I'm buying AMD.

- Anonymous Coward

1,000 dollar processor perfect for gaming? (3, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434895)

No offense, but when did people start spending 1,000 dollars for just the processors in their gaming rigs?

People! Nothing takes advantage of that yet! And by the time things do, the processor will cost 1/8th of what it does today. I've been running an AMD 2400+ for a few years now, a simple 100$ processor, and I STILL haven't found a game that it can't run solidly.

Yeah, if you need a mission-critical server that you desperately need to be as fast as possible... distribute the load.

Basically the top end is for bragging rights and pure-profit silicon. Neither AMD nor Intel can claim bragging rights at the moment. And that's fine, they both should be working hard to push processor design further and further along, and a leadership question will only help that.

But no matter which is the faster processor, please don't buy one. If you really want the ultimate gaming experience, buy three gaming rigs for that price and invite some friends over. You'll be glad you did.

What kind of video card? (-1, Offtopic)

LordJezo (596587) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434943)

What kind of video card are you running in that 2400?

Re:What kind of video card? (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434997)

Parent was modder down for being offtopic but his first thought was the same as mine. Even if you get a cheap processor like the 2400+ for $100 you're still going to blow another $100 atleast to get a videocard capable of running the latest batch of games, if not closer to $200 if you want the latest eye candy.

This isn't the first time I've seen the latest processot priced around $1000, the same thing happened when the first AMD64 FXs came out. If you want to see a real batch of money and powerhogs look at videocards. Only $2200 for cards in you new quad SLI rig!

Re:What kind of video card? (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435126)

I agree that it is a valid question. The CPU is just one part of a computer, and depending on what you do it may not even be the most important.

I have a ATI 9600 / 128. It was about $120 dollars when I bought it, which seemed reasonable at the time. High-end graphics cards go for $400 dollars, and can be doubled up [tomshardware.com] for an $800 gaming graphics system. I haven't seen quads, but they must be right around the corner.

Oddly enough the one bottleneck that kept coming up during developing the one PC game I've worked on was RAM. If you ever ran out of RAM, your system went through the floor. If you could speed up your RAM bus, your game performance went up in almost direct proportion. There is just so much data in modern games (real or superfluous), that faster and better can be really helpful, and if you ever fall below a certain threshold (my game was about 512MB) your performance is screwed.

YMMV, but my gaming rig came in at about 700 dollars with specs that most people would be quite pleased with... 1GB RAM, 200GB silent HDD, a motherboard that didn't crap out in the first week, a 300W psu / "silent" antec sonata case, video capture card, 3.5" and 5.25" floppy disk drives, a DVD+-RW dual layer drive... Basically, there is no need to spend more than 1,000 dollars to get a really solid home computer, including monitor. (If you're in the market for a server, you have special needs which may not be covered here)

Re:What kind of video card? (1)

QMO (836285) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435450)

"I haven't seen quads"

Wasn't some of the Voodoo series quad capable, about 10 years ago?

I don't remember clearly since I generally run on hand-me-down video cards.

Re:What kind of video card? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435495)

3.5" and 5.25" floppy disk drives

And I thought I was bad for keeping mine until 2003...

Re:What kind of video card? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435617)

I was also looking for an 8" drive [pdp8.net] for my one 8" floppy (which probably no longer has useful data anyway), but they seem to have all disappeared / broken.

I wanted a cassette deck [plusdeck.com] , but couldn't justify the cost.

Re:1,000 dollar processor perfect for gaming? (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434983)

Some things you have to pay more if you have certain performance requirements. If you need a fast jet, you buy a fast jet. You cannot just buy two slower jets and "stack" them. Computers, for high end purposes anyway, can usually be paralelled. At a grand a processor, I can see that CPU getting whupped by a cluster of 4 CPUs running at 1/2 the speed, at less than 1/4 the cost each, yielding better performance at about 1/2 the cost. If you can parallel it for cheaper, I see very little point in buying the heavy guns.

Re:1,000 dollar processor perfect for gaming? (1)

Ziviyr (95582) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435085)

You gotta power those extra whole-systems, that costs money over time.

Re:1,000 dollar processor perfect for gaming? (2, Insightful)

NewbieProgrammerMan (558327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434984)

If people want to drop $1000+ on these processors even when they don't need them, I say more power to them. Intel & AMD can take that money and use it to design more powerful chips that will benefit those that do need them (and I'll have to pay less for an FX-60 when I actually need one). :)

Re:1,000 dollar processor perfect for gaming? (1)

Churla (936633) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434987)

I'll have to agree with the above comment on this. The normal "law" of such things is that by the time we have software that will really take advantage of this on a desktop level the price will have dropped because there will be a tier or two better processors released by that time.

That being said I tend to buy Intel processors for few reasons beyond "I've never had problems with them and I like things I never have problems with".

Re:1,000 dollar processor perfect for gaming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435626)

"...software that will really take advantage of this on a desktop level..."

Isn't it easier just to say, "bloat."

Re:1,000 dollar processor perfect for gaming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435068)

You should try running Halflife2 at max settings playing Lost Coast. Thats the first time I ever had a game tell me my 3000+ wasn't meeting specs for a game.

Re:1,000 dollar processor perfect for gaming? (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435084)

People! Nothing takes advantage of that yet! And by the time things do, the processor will cost 1/8th of what it does today. I've been running an AMD 2400+ for a few years now, a simple 100$ processor, and I STILL haven't found a game that it can't run solidly.

See how long your end-of-turn wait is 3/4 of the way through a civ 4 game. I'm on civ 3 on my 2600+ and the wait is annoying. Not enough to make it unplayable by any means, but annoying.

Re:1,000 dollar processor perfect for gaming? (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435180)

I have an Asus laptop, 1.86GHz Pentium M (Dothan? The one with 2MB cache). I play Civ IV with all civs, on large maps, and even come 1500AD I'm only waiting 2-3 seconds.

Perhaps the kicker here is that I also have 2GB of RAM?

Re:1,000 dollar processor perfect for gaming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435453)

I never played the game, but I can imagine that it is memory intensive, performing many memory operations, hence the significantly bigger cache should give you quite a boost; the Athlon XP 2400 appears to have only 256k, so 8 times the cache will definitely make a difference.

not a bad price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14434927)

Considering around 1991, I paid around $1800 for my first 486 with 2 meg of ram and an 80 MEG hard drive.

You can get a 939 board, fx-55, ddr400 dual channel ram, cpu cooler, 250 gig hd, combo burner, ghetto case, 400w ps and 7800 gt video card and still be right around $1800.

fx55: $800
gigabyte k8nf4: $70
ocx dc ram: $250
antec sp400: $60
seagate 250G: $100 ?
7800gt: $350
case: $40
freezer 64: $40 (or use the fx-55 oem wich is nice)

Intel's going to own the next gen of processors... (0)

wvitXpert (769356) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434964)

I think we're going to see Intel own the next generation of processors the way AMD owned this one.

Re:Intel's going to own the next gen of processors (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435258)

Not until Intel gets the memory controller on the CPU, which isn't until 2007.

Re:Intel's going to own the next gen of processors (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435461)

Not until Intel gets the memory controller on the CPU, which isn't until 2007.

Huh? http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/200506152 32538.html [xbitlabs.com]

But Intel still charges $2,000 to $3,000 for the things. Currently, AMD Opterons are the best all around chips in terms of price, performance, and power consumption. I can't wait until massive multi-core processors are commonplace, x86 finally dies with disco, and BIOS goes away with Reagonomics.

Only $32 more? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14434974)

Well, I read that if I am throwing in $1000 for a processor I don't care spending $32 more...

Not sure. Those prices are for 1000 units. That means manufacturers.

Now suppose they sell the whole computer for exactly the same price. No matter which processor they use. If they sell 10K units (not a big deal) they generate $320,000 more revenue. Not exactly 32 buck saving, right?

Manufactures try to save to the cent.

Post is... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14434979)

slightly repetetive.

Clarification (1)

rellix (888535) | more than 8 years ago | (#14434995)

I'm in need of a bit of clarification - I've seen the term used before but ignored it until now. At the end of this article:

In fact, AMD is now more expensive, at $1,031 (quantity 1,000), versus the 955 Extreme Edition at $999 (quantity 1000).

What exactly is "quantity 1000" referring to? Is that the number they've produced? Should I completely ignore this term?

Re:Clarification (1)

c0l0 (826165) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435014)

These numbers refer to the per-unit price you're going to pay when shopping for at least 1000 (one thousand) units directly at the manufacturer.

Re:Clarification (1)

TheCowardofAnonymous (944653) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435015)

It means that is the price for 1000 of the CPUs - bulk cost, in other words.

Re:Clarification (1)

neochubbz (937091) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435026)

This simply means that that is the price when you purchase 1000 processors. This is not necessarily the retail price you would find at newegg, best buy, etc.

-Chubbz

Re:Clarification (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435139)

It means that if you buy 1000 processors at once, you get that price.

If you buy a single unit, it will cost (usually significantly) more. I'm not sure if AMD or Intel will sell quantities less than 1000 directly to anyone. If you buy from someone who bought 1k units from AMD or Intel, you're definately going to pay more than that price.

Expect these to be available to consumers at a 10% markup or more.

If you buy more than 1000 units, you may get a lower price.

I've seen some ICs go for $5+ each in quantities below 100, drop to less than half that for order quantities over 100, and then go sub-$1 for quantities over 1000.

Its no opteron (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435004)

According to toms, in most cases the 955 couldn't even wax the X2 4800 in most benches.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/05/the_65_nm_p entium_d_900s_coming_out_party/page20.html [tomshardware.com]

Even though it is 65 nm it still can't even beat the X2 for power consumption either.

And to the person who said go out and buy an X2 you've got it all wrong (well somewhat). The most cost effective cpu right now is the 939 dual core opteron for its legendary overclockability. My 170 was installed yesterday and I had no problems bringing it up to 2.4ghz running cool. X2 4800 performance for half the price and I'm not even pushing it at all. I've got no doubts that 2.6 is easily attainable. All for maybe quarter the price of an fx-60.

Those of you looking for a $1000 cpu might be wise to look into the 940 dualcore opterons that can be dualed on a board for 4 cores. Whilst you might pay a few more hundred dollars nobody can deny that 4 core is going to beat the pants off anything 2 core.

Oh but of course most games don't support threading so you're better off with a single core still if you are a gamer.

Hope that helps

PC Gamer Magazine (4, Informative)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435045)

PC Gamer reviewed the EE955 and the FX-60 in their Febuary issue and stated:

"The FX-60 trounced the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 in test spins with Quake and F.E.A.R. Even more humiliating in F.E.A.R. the FX-60 came out ahead of the PEE 955 overclocked to 4ghz by 25FPS." ExtremeTech ran plenty of benchmark programs, but in real application tests there was no competition, The FX-60 showing to be around 30% faster in every benchmark.

Re:PC Gamer Magazine (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435092)

So I missed the page where they test 5 games, the results are still in AMDs favor but not by the same margins found in PC Gamer.

PC Gamer also tested F.E.A.R. with Nero transcoding a DVD in the background and it still defeated the PEE running only the game.

More Benchmarks Here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435143)

In contrast, there are also more benchmarks and tests here at HotHardware [hothardware.com] , that show a more significant lead for the new AMD dual-core chip.

more expensive... (1)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435179)

...with $0.032 per processor.

Ok, you can mod me offtopic :D

Only $32 more? (1)

Dsm0nd (866962) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435225)

REPOST:

Well, I read that if I am throwing in $1000 for a processor I don't care spending $32 more...

Not sure. Those prices are for 1000 units. That means manufacturers.

Now suppose they sell the whole computer for exactly the same price. No matter which processor they use. If they sell 10K units (not a big deal) they generate $320,000 more revenue. Not exactly 32 buck saving, right?

Manufactures try to save to the cent.

Re:Only $32 more? (1)

corngrower (738661) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435612)

Ah, but suppose that board for the intel chip requires some support chips for the processor that are more expensive than those for the AMD chip, say $15 more, that would be only $170,000 more revenue if they sold 10K units of intel based computers. But supposing also that you used the AMD chip, and got more units in sales, because most gamers know that the AMD is a better chip for them and a $20 price difference when you're paying $2000 for the machine is squat. How much potential revenue are you losing? By my reasoning they'ld only need to sell less than 100 more units of the AMD to make that additional revenue, which I'm sure they would do.

Re:Only $32 more? (1)

Dsm0nd (866962) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435728)

Completely agree.

It's just a task for correct marketing. And in any case, the article clearly states that Application performance benchmarks showed better performance for the AMD, so anyway gamers would buy the AMD option.

Headline is misleading (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435253)

Sure, it might cost slightly more, however, if you look at the long-term cost of ownership compared to the Intel, the AMD is far cheaper. Why? ELECTRICITY. If the AMD uses 30 fewer watts than the Intel (didn't feel like digging up an actual number), assuming it's 70% utilized over its lifetime, that's 21W less on average. 24/7 for a year, that's almost 184kWh less per year, which is about $40 worth of electricity at commercial rates (Philadelphia area).

Also, there is a cost associated with cooling the datacenter, which will probably increase those annual electricity savings by about 50%.

I'd pay $30 more to save $60/year. If the lifetime is 5 years, then that's $270 less over the lifetime of the CPU.

Re:Headline is misleading (0, Flamebait)

walshy007 (906710) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435334)

and congratulations, you've just saved the same amount as what you would have if you'd *gasp* turned off a light bulb for the same length of time, really, I'm perplexed at amd fanboys at times.

Re:Headline is misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435480)

and congratulations, you've just pointed out that you know piss all about datacenter costs, try multiplying that 21w savings over ~10k boxes. *gasp* you're a fucking idiot.

Re:Headline is misleading (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435603)

What if you buy the lower power processor AND turn off that 60W lightbulb that you leave on all the time for no reason at all? What if the cost of electricity goes up (which with all those oil and gas power stations it will inevitably do)?

That's if you have any old-style lightbulbs still, except in rooms where the on-off frequency is quite high (bathrooms).

And to the parent's parent poster, the FX60 system used 60W less than Intel system fairly consistently - idle and under load. If you overclock the Intel system to gain comparable performance then it was more like 100W difference at load though.

I do think that taking running costs into account when buying something is sensible.

Will this mean other X2 prices will go down? (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14435400)

When a new "top of the line" CPU is introduced, older ones are supposed to decrease in price, right? I really how the price for the 4400+ drops - I plan to purchase one within the month for a new system, and it's been at $497 on newegg for what seems like an eternity now.

Where is the Dual core Turion, please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14435741)

I am waiting since long to buy a light weight dual core laptop and Intel seems to have beaten AMD by a large margin this time - with Yonah. Looks like I will have to buy an Intel processor based machine, first time after year 2000.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>