Athlon 64 X2 4800 Vs Athlon 64 FX60

well i find the FX a very sexy processor... very attractive... i would have a go on it anyday... oh, wait wut? wus i saying something? oh i must have been day dreaming, anyway the FX-60 is better then the X2 4800+ (a very nice one also tho...)
 
[-0MEGA-] said:
It's still not better than an FX-60.
Click to expand...

is that because of the FX's unlocked multiplier? i havent looked in depth into the two, but from what i've seen the specs seem pretty similar...
 
Cerebrum D said:
He says that he heard that the FX 60 was better than the opteron, so he's gonna go for it. Thanks for the help.
Click to expand...
It's better than the opteron because of the unlocked multipliers. If he was running it at stock, i would tell him to save some money and get an opteron or X2 4800+.
 
FX = the best. otherwise it wouldn't be named FX.
but, with a little elbow grease (for the cooling part at least), some patience, and some knowledge about overclocking, one can come dangerously close to FX speeds.
i don't know if any of you picked up on it, but all of AMD's architectures are the same, since they stopped producing Athlon XP's.
the only difference EVER is cache size, thats what sets the sempron's apart, and the fact that they dont support socket 939.
basically, opteron's are underclocked FX chips (or FX chips are overclocked opterons) and athlon 64's have a little less overclockability... for whatever reason.
either way, they all perform just as good... and when i say opterons are the same as FX's, i only mean they're similar.
the FX's simply guarantee a certain speed :)

if i were building a new computer, i'd go with the cheapest (dual core) opteron.
i'm waiting at least 2 years before i do any big upgrading though.
 
Last edited:
i'll agree somewhat with clutch, at least in logical terms. it seems weird for a company to have a standard cpu and just have overclocked versions of it without any change at all. does that mean with a venice core at 2.4Ghz (not sure if there even is one) you could clock to the 'max' of a 1.8 or 2Ghz venice cpu only?
 
Clutch said:
So, the Venice, Newcastle and Winchester are the same because they all have 512k or L2 Cache?

Come on, now.
Click to expand...
ok cache size and 130nm vs. 90nm.
NOTE THESE DONT EFFECT PERFORMANCE!
only changes it if you're overclocking.
N00B
but yes, an athlon 64 chip at 2.4ghz with 1mb L2 cache does perform virtually the same as any other 2.4ghz with 1mb L2 cache size, regardless of the nanometer technology used in the chip.

btw i was talking architecture, performance per clock + per cache size.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103533
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103483
note, ones a 3200+, ones a 3500+
they're the same chip made for a different socket... but if they could be put in the same system, they would perform extremely similarly.
note, socket 939 has an advantage though, dual channel ram, pci-express, and other such new technologies including nforce 4 chipset

basically, if the specs of the chip are the same... or you can overclock a chip to the same speed's and they have the same cache... then the processor is virtually the same.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top