Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AMD Hardware

AMD Releases Dual-Core FX-60 Processor 191

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the slipping-off-the-cutting-edge dept.
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).'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Releases Dual-Core FX-60 Processor More

AMD Releases Dual-Core FX-60 Processor

Comments Filter:

  • Other Reviews (Score:5, Informative)

    by hattig ( 47930 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @08:32AM (#14434786) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by metarox ( 883747 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @09:04AM (#14434894) Homepage
      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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by kesuki ( 321456 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @11:18AM (#14435715) Journal
        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.
        • DDR2 is coming shortly (the new socket M2), in fact the FX-60 may well be the last (highest performing) DDR processor release.

        • Re:Other Reviews (Score:3, Informative)

          by default luser ( 529332 )
          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.

          AMD
        • The latency issues between DDR and DDR2 have never been clear to me so maybe someone can explain it.

          If you check http://www.lostcircuits.com/memory/ddrii/2.shtml [lostcircuits.com] and http://www.lostcircuits.com/memory/ddrii/6.shtml [lostcircuits.com] they show DDR2 using an I/O clock at twice the frequency of the DDR I/O clock and both using same core clock. The objective here is to double the I/O bandwidth using twice the I/O clock and doubling the width of the core. Given identical core timing, DDR2 would have twice the latency IN CLOCKS

      • 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.

        Doing a search-replace on your message gives, I think, an equally valid but equally pointless form of wishful thinking / trolling:

        Yes, well I can't wait to see how well INTEL will do once it improves its design to match AMDs. Power consumption

    • Re:Other Reviews (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Stalks ( 802193 )
      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% faste
    • 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 tes
  • 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??

  • price difference (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShaneThePain ( 929627 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @08:36AM (#14434803) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sj0 ( 472011 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @08:44AM (#14434830) Journal
      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pla ( 258480 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @09:02AM (#14434889) Journal
        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.
        • This was inevitable really. Once Intel woke up and realised that they couldn't just coast along without opposition any longer, they had to trim the pork from their operation and start turning out cheaper processors. AMD didn't have any fundamental advantages over Intel, they were just trying harder. It's one of those rare occasions where the free market demonstrates actual competition that results in positive effects - or at least, it appears to be.
        • What the proper poor person does is this: find AMD's best processor (now FX-60), see what core it uses, buy the cheapest chip with that core (Toledo, X2-4400 $500), huge heatsink, overclock past FX-60 levels.

          If that's still too much, I'd recommend the X2 3800+ Manchester core, only $322 at newegg. People report getting these running cool and stable well past 2.6GHz with a good heatsink.

        • Dude... The words FX and value should never go together.. Just like Intel's EE editions.

          You most definitely do NOT get your value from the incremental extra performance the extra cache (and BUS) provides.

          The point of this line of CPU's is called sucker takers. Those that want something similar in performance to tomorrows CPU's from today's CPUs.

          It's like getting extra performance out of an economy car by putting expensive booster rockets on it.. Yes, technically it goes faster, but only by putting yester-y

      • Re:price difference (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Ruger ( 237212 )
        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.
      • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by click2005 ( 921437 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @08:53AM (#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 (Score:3, Informative)

        by InsaneGeek ( 175763 )
        Idle the Intel 955 uses 189 watts
        Idle the AMD FX 60 uses 148 watts
        Difference of 41 watts
        41/1000 = .041 watts per kWh .041 * $.078 = $0.003198 difference in cost per hour to run (7.8 cent average)
        $31 / .003198 = 9693.558 hours = Electricity break even point ~403 days

        Under load the Intel 955 uses 286 watts
        Under load the AMD FX 60 uses 225 watts
        Difference of 61 watts
        61/1000 = .061 watts per kWh .061 * $.078 = $0.004758 difference in cost per hour to run
        $31 / .004758 = 6515.34258 hours = Electricity break even
        • And since you can plug them both into identical motherboards with identical memory technologies, this is valid. Wait a minute... Sure, it's a small difference, but a difference all the same.

          Anyway, the national average rate for electricity is 8.2 cents per KW/hr [state.ne.us]. That's 245 days under load. In NY where it's 14.52 cents, that's 145 days. 110 days in 19.23 cent average Hawaii. So that's about 3.5 months to break even in Hawaii running a seti client. And that assumes you're paying the average rate - for

    • Re:price difference (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sique ( 173459 )
      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 ch
      • 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.
      • However AMD uses a cheaper motherboard system because of competition instead of Intels massively overpriced MOBO chipsets.

        Coupled with AMD's cheaper memory (DDR is still cheaper than comparable DDR2 mainly because DDR2 was supposed to be a similar performing but lower priced successor, and because there isn't much call for enthusiast ram for Intel mobos.

        If system manufacturers are "willing" to use AMD's cooler then the cost savings will be significant.

        One problem is that they have been using the grey
    • You're right, but I also think AMD needs money. They have to compete with intel's new marketing campaign somehow. So far AMD has done well with smaller ad campaigns and word of mouth. If they want to get into the business sector and my local best buy, they need to tell people they exist. Maybe AMD can drop their lawsuits with intel and compete by paying for Dell and HPs ads like intel does.
    • Not to mention it seems the AMD parts tend to retail for closer to or less than the 1000 unit price than Intel.

  • Unfortunately? or not? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @08:42AM (#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.
    • 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.

      • 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?

  • 32 dollars (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quick Sick Nick ( 822060 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @08:44AM (#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.
    • 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.
      • Yeah, CPU replacements are generally a dead-end. Unless you initially buy the absolute minimum speed CPU that the motherboard supports and later upgrade it to the maximum speed CPU that the motherboard will support. But that's a somewhat losing proposition because the upgrade is going to only be marginally worth it.

        Out of the dozen or so machines that I've built over the last 10 years, I can't think of any that managed to get just a CPU upgrade. They almost always ended up requiring new MB/RAM in addit
  • 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.
    • 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
      • 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. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ruger ( 237212 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @08:46AM (#14434835) Homepage
    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.
    • 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.
      • Virtually all games are single-threaded, but a surprising number of them released recently are multithreaded.

        Quake 4 [amdzone.com] and Call of Duty 2 [amdzone.com] are both multithreaded via patch, thanks most likely to their development on the XBOX 360.

        Serious Sam 2 [xbitlabs.com] also ships with multithreading support.

        That's a whole lotta big-name multithreaded games for winter 2005. I expect many more next year.

  • amd vs intel (Score:2, Insightful)

    by chrisranjana.com ( 630682 )
    Initially AMD's selling point was price, now they have proved quality.. price comes second

  • article way biased (Score:5, Insightful)

    by akhomerun ( 893103 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @08:48AM (#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.
    • 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
    • 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.

      • 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 i
      • It IS faster than the Intel processor! It just doesn't "completely blow away" the Intel CPU. The submitter is asking how AMD can dare to charge more than the Intel product because it's only somewhat faster.

        Well, since Intel's "branding" is worth jack more than AMD's these days, charging slightly more for slightly better performance seems to make sense.
    • 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
    • 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PowerBert ( 265553 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @08:51AM (#14434854) Homepage

    Is going out to buy a AMD64 X2 4800+.
  • Sooo many new, powerful, expensive processors. Most of which are unaffordable. I think I'm getting left behind...

  • But does it have HDCP? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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?
    • Let's hope that AMD gets real popular here when Vista comes out. If a bunch of people's AMD computers lack the TPM DRM chips and HDCP and can't play media, like hell they're going to buy a new computer just to play a song or a DVD. They just won't buy the song or DVD...and the DRM crap will abate for a while.

      Now I'm not for pirating, but a lot of the DRM crap gets in the way of legitimate use, such as making a backup copy of discs so you don't have to buy another when they get scratched, ripping CDs to pla

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

    by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @09:04AM (#14434895) Homepage
    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.

    • 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 t
    • If people want to drop $1000+ on these processors even when they don't need them, I say more power to them. Intel & AMD can take that money and use it to design more powerful chips that will benefit those that do need them (and I'll have to pay less for an FX-60 when I actually need one). :)
    • People! Nothing takes advantage of that yet! And by the time things do, the processor will cost 1/8th of what it does today. I've been running an AMD 2400+ for a few years now, a simple 100$ 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.

    • Gaming isn't the only thing that fast processors are good for. I'd love to have a fast dual-core system, just to eliminate delays and interface slowdowns when my system is compiling*, running spamassassin, etc.

      While that kind of load is easily split among multiple machines, that increases the chance of mechanical failure (fans or drives), the cost of electricity, the need for cooling in summertime, and reduces the space I have in my apartment.

      For the majority of people, a slower processor will suffice. If I

    • If you go to pricewatch.com or any other place that lets you look at a bunch of computer gear all at once, you'll see what I mean. The price goes up a dollar or two for every 100MHz or so until it hit a certain point. Then it starts to go up $10 or so per 100MHz for 3 or 4 processors...then *wham*, prices shoot through the roof. $100 to $500 per 100MHz. The graph, if you plot (roughly) dollars on the y-axis and performance on the x, will have a knee in it.

      Shop there. Best bang for your buck.

      That be

    • How much did your 2400 cost "a few years" ago though? The only reason it has stood the test of time is because you bought the top of the range a few years ago. If you had bought mid range a few years ago, youd be sitting on something which would have no chance of running a modern OS and games adequately.
  • 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?
    • 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.
    • It means that is the price for 1000 of the CPUs - bulk cost, in other words.
    • 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
    • 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 quantitie

  • Its no opteron (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @09:27AM (#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
    • 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.

      I would say you have little to gain with dual core if you're a gamer. You're never better off with single core vs. dual core.

  • PC Gamer Magazine (Score:4, Informative)

    by Neoprofin ( 871029 ) <neoprofin AT hotmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @09:35AM (#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.
    • 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.
  • ...with $0.032 per processor.

    Ok, you can mod me offtopic :D

  • 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.
    • 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?
  • 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 datac
  • How many of these apps utilize dual cores? Most games dont. So if this thing is just 2 FX55s, that means that an FX55 is beating intels newest chip.
    • Dual-core processors do help single-threaded games to a small degree. All those other tasks that are running in the background can use one CPU while your game hogs the other CPU for itself.

      Of course, as more people get dual-core systems, you can expect games to take advantage of it.
  • So the AMD chip is a dual core (Intel 955 is single core), performs just as good if not better in most benchmarks, AND runs cooler? I can totally understand the articles complaints about a 32 dollar price difference.. WTF?! Nice slant there buddy...

Slashdot Top Deals

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Close