Intel extreme edition vs. fx60

holyjunk · 05-29-2006, 07:19 AM

Just like it says. What do you think. Becuase doesn't it make sense the extreme edition will be better being of the dual processor and the hyper threading enabled on both of those cpus? Thus acting as 4 cpus in the intel extreme edition. Vs the fx60 which only has 2 cpus. Voice your opinion.

palmmann · 05-29-2006, 07:48 AM

fx60 for dual core games, fx55 for single core games, intel EE for multitasking

**apj101** · 05-29-2006, 12:12 PM

most games still struggle to use dual core optimially, so 4 logical cores will show little improvement in the games.

[-0MEGA-] · 06-05-2006, 05:06 AM

One area where there may be a significant improvement would be the 3DMark06 CPU test. But as for games, i really dont think those extra 2 logical cores are going to help out much.

holyjunk · 06-05-2006, 05:20 AM

Yes, but the intel would be better yes?

[-0MEGA-] · 06-05-2006, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holyjunk125

Yes, but the intel would be better yes?

Most likely at multi-tasking, but i think the FX-60 would be the best option to get, especially since it's a great overclocker.

fade2green514 · 06-05-2006, 05:29 AM

its like comparing a P4 with HT and an AMD single core. the difference is that the AMD is better in gaming, and the intel EE is better at multitasking. of course, some games, like quake 4, would utilize P4's HT making the comparison between athlon64 single core and the P4 with HT different from the comparison between the athlon 64 dual core and Pentium EE.
basically, the Pentium EE has the most cpu resources... but the FX-60 performs faster if the cpu resources don't go over its two cores... which isn't likely.
personally i prefer AMD but either will be a really good CPU. AMD uses a lot less watts, netburst consumes too much energy. personally though, i wouldnt get either of those CPU's.. a lower priced CPU will still more than meet system requirements for any application.. still faster is nicer

yea, the FX-60 would be worse at say... converting video. but the FX-60 would also be better in any game out there probably.

lol know what would be funny... is if they made a system that had 32 or more processors.. and it processed a video conversion faster than the hard drive could read the videos. WEIRD

Burgerbob · 06-05-2006, 06:09 AM

Acutally, in MaximumPC they OCed an FX60 from stock to 2.9ghz for each core, and it beat the crap out of the EE in almost evey test.

fade2green514 · 06-05-2006, 06:27 AM

2.9ghz is extremely high for an AMD processor. i'd definitely expect an FX-60 to beat the Pentium EE in almost any test with those clocks. did they overclock the EE at all? tomshardware got it to 4.26ghz if i remember correctly.

Quote:

2.9ghz for each core

lol wut they couldnt just overclock one? haha

btw can you link us to this review?

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/...e_edition_965/
check out their benchmarks... they're very close. the Pentium EE performs better in some areas worse in others.
of course, Intels procs still use up a LOT more power.. most likely resulting in cooling difficulties... and less ability to overclock successfully.

Burgerbob · 06-05-2006, 06:28 AM

I relaly dont know- they might have OCed it to 4ghz, im not sure. They were using some insane cooling on the poor FX too.

05-29-2006, 07:19 AM	#1 (permalink)
holyjunk Diamond Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Age: 18 Posts: 1,622	Intel extreme edition vs. fx60 Just like it says. What do you think. Becuase doesn't it make sense the extreme edition will be better being of the dual processor and the hyper threading enabled on both of those cpus? Thus acting as 4 cpus in the intel extreme edition. Vs the fx60 which only has 2 cpus. Voice your opinion. __________________ pentium 4 1.5GHz 512mb pc133 19inch crt monitor Radeon 9200se X-Fi Extreme Music LOGITECH Z-5300E!! *family pc, hope to get mine in a year or so.

06-05-2006, 05:06 AM	#4 (permalink)
[-0MEGA-] VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Goffstown, NH Age: 21 Posts: 28,943	One area where there may be a significant improvement would be the 3DMark06 CPU test. But as for games, i really dont think those extra 2 logical cores are going to help out much. __________________ Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.1GHz Asus Rampage Formula X48 ATI 4870 X2 2GB GDDR5 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 960 300GB Raptor // 2x 750GB Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty SilverStone 750W +12V@60A 3DMark06: 22605 www.photosbygeoff.com Last edited by [-0MEGA-]; 06-05-2006 at 05:25 AM.

06-05-2006, 05:20 AM	#5 (permalink)
holyjunk Diamond Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Age: 18 Posts: 1,622	Yes, but the intel would be better yes? __________________ pentium 4 1.5GHz 512mb pc133 19inch crt monitor Radeon 9200se X-Fi Extreme Music LOGITECH Z-5300E!! *family pc, hope to get mine in a year or so.

06-05-2006, 05:29 AM	#7 (permalink)
fade2green514 Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: buffalo ny Age: 20 Posts: 3,651	its like comparing a P4 with HT and an AMD single core. the difference is that the AMD is better in gaming, and the intel EE is better at multitasking. of course, some games, like quake 4, would utilize P4's HT making the comparison between athlon64 single core and the P4 with HT different from the comparison between the athlon 64 dual core and Pentium EE. basically, the Pentium EE has the most cpu resources... but the FX-60 performs faster if the cpu resources don't go over its two cores... which isn't likely. personally i prefer AMD but either will be a really good CPU. AMD uses a lot less watts, netburst consumes too much energy. personally though, i wouldnt get either of those CPU's.. a lower priced CPU will still more than meet system requirements for any application.. still faster is nicer yea, the FX-60 would be worse at say... converting video. but the FX-60 would also be better in any game out there probably. lol know what would be funny... is if they made a system that had 32 or more processors.. and it processed a video conversion faster than the hard drive could read the videos. WEIRD __________________ Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3ghz HD 4850 512mb (750/2350mhz) 2x2gb G.Skill ddr2-835 (5-4-4-10) 2x320gb sata2 in RAID 0 system drive 250gb sata2 storage drive 13,574 - 3dmark06 score Last edited by fade2green514; 06-05-2006 at 05:32 AM.

06-05-2006, 06:09 AM	#8 (permalink)
Burgerbob Diamond Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Private Island Age: 19 Posts: 2,532	Acutally, in MaximumPC they OCed an FX60 from stock to 2.9ghz for each core, and it beat the crap out of the EE in almost evey test. __________________ MY Computer AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+ Black Edition, Zalman 9700 4096Mb Patriot Viper, ASUS M3N78 Pro 750GB Seagate, 500GB WD, eVGA 8800GT Antec Three Hundred Logitech MX Revolution, UltraX Media Hanns-G 19in 5ms EEEPC 4G Dell Inspiron 6000 Windows 7!

05-29-2006, 07:48 AM	#2 (permalink)
palmmann banned Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 979	fx60 for dual core games, fx55 for single core games, intel EE for multitasking

05-29-2006, 12:12 PM	#3 (permalink)
apj101 Administrator Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Age: 27 Posts: 10,119	most games still struggle to use dual core optimially, so 4 logical cores will show little improvement in the games.

06-05-2006, 06:28 AM	#10 (permalink)
Burgerbob Diamond Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Private Island Age: 19 Posts: 2,532	I relaly dont know- they might have OCed it to 4ghz, im not sure. They were using some insane cooling on the poor FX too. __________________ MY Computer AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+ Black Edition, Zalman 9700 4096Mb Patriot Viper, ASUS M3N78 Pro 750GB Seagate, 500GB WD, eVGA 8800GT Antec Three Hundred Logitech MX Revolution, UltraX Media Hanns-G 19in 5ms EEEPC 4G Dell Inspiron 6000 Windows 7!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode