Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › FX60 more hype than performance?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FX60 more hype than performance? - Page 3

post #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrixMII300
ok i cannot get 4.0GHz on AMD. i understand that but can some1 answer the most important question that i asked about the difference between the FX and the 4800+? our we only paying a premium ONLY for the best wafer and unlocked multiplier? which in this case has been tested to only go as far as 2.9GHz on air even with increased voltage?

i am very inquisitive and have been asking this question to myself the whole day. if only someone can tell me.

ok since no one is answering this i want to ask this question in hypothesis; if FX is the best on Dual core AMD has to offer and so far it can only be clocked reliably upto 2.9GHz does that mean whichever dual core u buy it can only be oced to the limit of the FX?
2.9 on air is pretty impressive for ANY amd dual core. I think there is probably higher clocks on air out there for the FX60's...there's ALOT that comes into play.

Any dual core AMD on the market right now "maxes out" at around 2.8 and 2.9 on air...even the best aircooling can't handle the heat the dual cores put out. A better question would be: "what has the best price/performance ratio, the FX60 or the X2 4800?" and then you can ask "What has the most potential overclocking wise, the FX60 or the X2 4800"...
Raven
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 950 EVGA FTW3 XFX Double Dissipation R9-290X-EDFD Radeon R9 290X 6x2GB Geil Black Dragon 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Corsair Force F120 HD/BD Combo CORSAIR Hydro H70 CWCH70 120mm High Performance... Win7 Pro x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Hanns G 27.5 Logitech G somethin Zalman 850 Silverstone Raven 
MouseAudio
Steel Series Diablo III Razer Barracuda AC-1 
  hide details  
Reply
Raven
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 950 EVGA FTW3 XFX Double Dissipation R9-290X-EDFD Radeon R9 290X 6x2GB Geil Black Dragon 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Corsair Force F120 HD/BD Combo CORSAIR Hydro H70 CWCH70 120mm High Performance... Win7 Pro x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Hanns G 27.5 Logitech G somethin Zalman 850 Silverstone Raven 
MouseAudio
Steel Series Diablo III Razer Barracuda AC-1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 36
well the difference between the FX and the regular A64's is more than just an unlocked multi. the FX processors are made from the very best silicon from the center of the die. These chips are the best there are and are thus low yeild. So in paying extra for a FX cpu you are paying for the unlocked multi, the best silicon and the bragging rights to be able to say you have a FX.

as far as the difference between Intel and AMD... I'm sure you've noticed that AMD processors operate at much lower frequencies than Intels, but are rated at similar speeds and are even faster at some things (mainly games) The reason is that AMD cpus do can do more processes per clock cycle than Intels. The ratio is roughly 1.5x so a 2.0Ghz AMD is roughly equivalent to a 3-3.2Ghz Intel. I'm not trying to get into an aruement here as to what you can compare or what is better... I'm just using this to explain my point.

So, it seems that for overclocks the best AMD chips are going to 3.0Ghz (some have gotten higher with water and phase cooling... but the max would probably be about 3.4 for a single core and about 3.0 for dual core) So AMD's just won't go to 4.0Ghz. you may be able to get one there on a suicide run, but it will not be stable and you'll most likely fry something in the process.

The important thing to remember is that different cpu's will OC to different limits. Since you are looking at AMD dual cores you would be best to set your sights on about 2.8-3.0Ghz... and you will need a good chip and some good cooling to get there. but if you do get to 3.0Ghz that would be similar to a 4.5Ghz dual core Intel... which would be much faster than you currently have and if you think of it that way... in a way you would be achieving your original goal of 4.0Ghz
Darkness
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 Gigabye GA-EP45-UD3P EVGA GTX660 8GB G.Skill PK 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640GB & Samsung F1 750Gb LG BD & HD Windows 8 Pro x64 HP w2207 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
FILCO FKBN87M/NPEK Enermax Modu82+ 525w CM 690 Logitech G9x 
Mouse PadAudio
Razor Destructor ODAC 
  hide details  
Reply
Darkness
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 Gigabye GA-EP45-UD3P EVGA GTX660 8GB G.Skill PK 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640GB & Samsung F1 750Gb LG BD & HD Windows 8 Pro x64 HP w2207 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
FILCO FKBN87M/NPEK Enermax Modu82+ 525w CM 690 Logitech G9x 
Mouse PadAudio
Razor Destructor ODAC 
  hide details  
Reply
post #23 of 36
Get an Opteron 165 or 170. My 165 is clocked to 2610 and that's 10Mhz faster than the fx-60. Once I get memory to run 1:1 with it at 290Mhz it'll rock socks. Don't waste your money on either, and go for the Opterons!
Desktop
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8120 Gigabyte XA990-UD3 Gigabyte GTX670 Windforce III G. Skill RipJaws 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Crucial M4 Western Digital Blue LG Dual Layer Sata Antec Kuhler 920 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8 Dell 2007wfp 20.1" Logitech G710+ Corsair Professional HX650 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Coolermaster Silencio Steelseries Sensei [RAW] Func F10.s 
  hide details  
Reply
Desktop
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8120 Gigabyte XA990-UD3 Gigabyte GTX670 Windforce III G. Skill RipJaws 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Crucial M4 Western Digital Blue LG Dual Layer Sata Antec Kuhler 920 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8 Dell 2007wfp 20.1" Logitech G710+ Corsair Professional HX650 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Coolermaster Silencio Steelseries Sensei [RAW] Func F10.s 
  hide details  
Reply
post #24 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by soloz2
well the difference between the FX and the regular A64's is more than just an unlocked multi. the FX processors are made from the very best silicon from the center of the die. These chips are the best there are and are thus low yeild. So in paying extra for a FX cpu you are paying for the unlocked multi, the best silicon and the bragging rights to be able to say you have a FX.

as far as the difference between Intel and AMD... I'm sure you've noticed that AMD processors operate at much lower frequencies than Intels, but are rated at similar speeds and are even faster at some things (mainly games) The reason is that AMD cpus do can do more processes per clock cycle than Intels. The ratio is roughly 1.5x so a 2.0Ghz AMD is roughly equivalent to a 3-3.2Ghz Intel. I'm not trying to get into an aruement here as to what you can compare or what is better... I'm just using this to explain my point.

So, it seems that for overclocks the best AMD chips are going to 3.0Ghz (some have gotten higher with water and phase cooling... but the max would probably be about 3.4 for a single core and about 3.0 for dual core) So AMD's just won't go to 4.0Ghz. you may be able to get one there on a suicide run, but it will not be stable and you'll most likely fry something in the process.

The important thing to remember is that different cpu's will OC to different limits. Since you are looking at AMD dual cores you would be best to set your sights on about 2.8-3.0Ghz... and you will need a good chip and some good cooling to get there. but if you do get to 3.0Ghz that would be similar to a 4.5Ghz dual core Intel... which would be much faster than you currently have and if you think of it that way... in a way you would be achieving your original goal of 4.0Ghz
The center of a wafer has next to zero yield as well as the outer perimeter. I worked in a fabrication lab for a Summer at National Semiconductor and have seen this firsthand on every wafer run and also across many different chips. Anyways, you can't say that the FX series has any different silicon or binning as fact because AMD won't state it as such. Their fear in doing so leads me to believe it's not always true and that would be false advertising. I do believe, however, that they do some binning when demands make it necessary to fill large FX supply.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
post #25 of 36
Thread Starter 
now thats what i have been wanting to hear. i am basically from manufacturing field and am a project manager now therefore i have had the feeling for the last couple of days and especially today after extensive reading that the FX60 is just a name that AMD is pulling out but it doesnt necessarily mean that IT IS the best. there is a distinct possiblity in my opinion that the 4800+ if u get the correct chip and u treat it well (meaning the right matching components and proper cooling) you can get equal performance to the FX60.

and i am thinking based on what Xavier has pointed out, that the 4800+ would probably be the best bang for bucks (again if u get the right one) compared to FX. meaning if u can get 2.9GHz on air with FX then u could probably get 2.8GHz on air with 4800+

and i do sincerely agree with sccr64472 saying that AMD is probably doing some binning. the fact simply remains that AMD is marketing FX as the best out there but there is simply no guarantee that every single FX is better than every single 4800+ otherwise AMD would come out and say so. there is every single chance that u will get a bad FX as you would get a good 4800+. but this is not the same as comparing totally different cores or makes.

am i right?
2012 Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 2.40Ghz @ 3.6GHz VID 1.2375 Lapped Asus Maximus Formula SE MSI Geforce 8800GTS Crucial Ballistix Tracer 2x1GB PC8500 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OS - Raptor 74GB, 2xSeagate 80GB SATA DVD Drive, CDRW XP Professional SP 2 24" Dell WFP LCD Screen 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech PS2 750watt Silverstone OP750 Cooler Master 830 Logitech Optical 
  hide details  
Reply
2012 Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 2.40Ghz @ 3.6GHz VID 1.2375 Lapped Asus Maximus Formula SE MSI Geforce 8800GTS Crucial Ballistix Tracer 2x1GB PC8500 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OS - Raptor 74GB, 2xSeagate 80GB SATA DVD Drive, CDRW XP Professional SP 2 24" Dell WFP LCD Screen 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech PS2 750watt Silverstone OP750 Cooler Master 830 Logitech Optical 
  hide details  
Reply
post #26 of 36
Bingo. You're laying down money for an increased chance at a better overclocker and no locked multipliers.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrixMII300
i dont think so. the two processors are identical wafers and build and therefore should possess the same resistance to electricity which means the resistance, R should theoratically be the same. Therefore when supply higher voltage it means when the R is constant and V is different for two instances, the amount of Amp, A is higher and this is essentially what runs any electrical component. V=IR conversely V/R=I, whereby V is voltage applied, R is resistance and I is induction or Amps.

therefore if two processors are identical and supplied two different voltages then the amount of energy available for the higher voltaged processor is more. this is why we increase voltage to overcome resistance and give more power to a cpu, ram or some other electrical component.
Well I was told that Intels did not perform as many functions per cycle as AMDs which is why they have higher clock speeds (and higher temps). I don't really know where that comes into your scientific calculations. I really dont think 4GHz is possible with an AMD, and if so would be extremely unstable not to mention considerably reduce the life of the processor. It would definitely need phase, watercooling wouldnt come close.

The FX processors are the cream of the crop, they are supposedly the highest quality and lowest yield (which explains their price) AMD processors produced. One important feature is the unlocked multipliers, but then again you need to justify the price of buying one, the massive premium you have to pay, to me, dosent seem worth it.

Let me leave you with these words: "A fool and his money are soon parted." As me mam tells me on a regular basis. There isnt really any real reason to blow that much money on an FX. Use the money you save to buy a monitor or something you'll really appreciate. Or better yet, save it!

Well that poorman's rant was really unncessary you seem to have it sorted, good for you! Still what I said is worth bearing in mind...
post #28 of 36
Thread Starter 
thank u very much for all the help.

and unless some other contradictory information with proof surfaces, i hope as many people would read this and realize the truth instead of splurging the money on something that is not necessarily guaranteed.

as for me i am going to weigh between the FX & another graphic card to complete the SLi system we'll see in a very short while which one wins.
2012 Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 2.40Ghz @ 3.6GHz VID 1.2375 Lapped Asus Maximus Formula SE MSI Geforce 8800GTS Crucial Ballistix Tracer 2x1GB PC8500 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OS - Raptor 74GB, 2xSeagate 80GB SATA DVD Drive, CDRW XP Professional SP 2 24" Dell WFP LCD Screen 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech PS2 750watt Silverstone OP750 Cooler Master 830 Logitech Optical 
  hide details  
Reply
2012 Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 2.40Ghz @ 3.6GHz VID 1.2375 Lapped Asus Maximus Formula SE MSI Geforce 8800GTS Crucial Ballistix Tracer 2x1GB PC8500 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OS - Raptor 74GB, 2xSeagate 80GB SATA DVD Drive, CDRW XP Professional SP 2 24" Dell WFP LCD Screen 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech PS2 750watt Silverstone OP750 Cooler Master 830 Logitech Optical 
  hide details  
Reply
post #29 of 36
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=Xeijin]Well I was told that Intels did not perform as many functions per cycle as AMDs which is why they have higher clock speeds (and higher temps). I don't really know where that comes into your scientific calculations. I really dont think 4GHz is possible with an AMD, and if so would be extremely unstable not to mention considerably reduce the life of the processor. It would definitely need phase, watercooling wouldnt come close.[QUOTE=Xeijin]

ok just to clarify this particular point. an intel runs at a much higher oscillation per cycle to compensate the amount of clocks it can perform per cycle meaning Intel decided that instead of trying to do more clocks per cycle which it couldnt find how to do as succesfully as AMD earlier. Intel decided its better of by running at higher and higher cycle oscillations therefore more power was required to produce this high oscillation. this higher oscillation produced more heat. AMD on the other hand were able to make cooler processors simply due to the fact that it decided to be more efficient in producing more clocks per cycle and not waste time to produce more cycles. and so what u r saying about the cycles is true. more cycles = more energy = more heat if thats what u meant.

as for the 4.0GHz limitation it is primarily due to the very limitation of the construction of the processor. the AMDs so far are made on the 90nm process the same as the intel 775 just for instance. but where intel tried to pack more cycle operation AMD packed more cycles and it doesnt want to back off this because it is the right way to proceed in any case. so they have to compact more stuff into the wafer if they were to increase the cycle speed which can only be done by moving onto 65nm fabrication process whereby u can cram more transistors into the wafer.

if i am not being clear here some1 knock my head and i will clarify
2012 Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 2.40Ghz @ 3.6GHz VID 1.2375 Lapped Asus Maximus Formula SE MSI Geforce 8800GTS Crucial Ballistix Tracer 2x1GB PC8500 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OS - Raptor 74GB, 2xSeagate 80GB SATA DVD Drive, CDRW XP Professional SP 2 24" Dell WFP LCD Screen 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech PS2 750watt Silverstone OP750 Cooler Master 830 Logitech Optical 
  hide details  
Reply
2012 Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 2.40Ghz @ 3.6GHz VID 1.2375 Lapped Asus Maximus Formula SE MSI Geforce 8800GTS Crucial Ballistix Tracer 2x1GB PC8500 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OS - Raptor 74GB, 2xSeagate 80GB SATA DVD Drive, CDRW XP Professional SP 2 24" Dell WFP LCD Screen 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech PS2 750watt Silverstone OP750 Cooler Master 830 Logitech Optical 
  hide details  
Reply
post #30 of 36
I personally am very pleased with the stability and cost effectiveness of my gaming machine (see sig).

I see absolutely no use in moving to an FX series processor. I also think that how one fab plant and die manufacturer follows chip design procedure can not relate to how another follows their design procedure.

Personally I do not know what procedural techniques AMD follows. I test the chips I get and I research well. This gives me a better opinion but still an opinion.

R
Roped In
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2600k P8P67 Pro Rev (3.1) @ B3 XFX Radeon HD 6950 XXX 16GB G.SKILL Ripjaws 9-11-9-28 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 X Callisto Deluxe 25nm 60GB Plextor PX-B910SA 4x Blu-ray DVD-RW Win7 64 2 x Samsung 275T+ 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Corsair HX10000 Antec 1200 Logitech G7 
Mouse Pad
Splatter Game Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
Roped In
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2600k P8P67 Pro Rev (3.1) @ B3 XFX Radeon HD 6950 XXX 16GB G.SKILL Ripjaws 9-11-9-28 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 X Callisto Deluxe 25nm 60GB Plextor PX-B910SA 4x Blu-ray DVD-RW Win7 64 2 x Samsung 275T+ 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Corsair HX10000 Antec 1200 Logitech G7 
Mouse Pad
Splatter Game Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › FX60 more hype than performance?