AMD Processors
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Is a processor like FX-60 futureproof?
Topic Summary:
Created On: 04/02/2006 09:01 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 3 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 04/02/2006 09:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Zulbat
Junior Member

Posts: 4
Joined: 04/02/2006

Iam in the process of choosing computer I think it will be one of three choices. Two local computer builders recommend systems with Intel 955 or 965 processors cause theese are fast and feature a reliable architecture.

However a cheaper OEM builder on the net recommend an AMD system. Iam although a bit feared about choosing a low Ghz AMD processor when I for just a little extra cost cen get a high Ghz INTEL system.

To my question Can the better graphic card the Fx-60 system has make it perform just as good as the more expensive regular SLI systems the recommended INTEL 955 systems has?

What happens in for example year 2008 and quake 4 is out with a recommended minimum system requirement of 3 GHz is out.

Would this game run fine on the FX-60 even though it just has 2.6 Ghz or am I better off with the 955 (3.46Ghz) and slightly slower graphic cards that the INTEL system has?
I would like well backed up guesses and maybe a link to trusted web site that back the guess up.

I would like to say that my friend says AMD sucks and bought a high end INTEL system. Would he laugh at my computer if I take the AMD system even after we tried some benchmark or some games with high setting?
Cause he right now laughs at the idea of going back to just 2.6 Ghz of power.

P.S. Hope you can pardon my English even though Iam not a native.
 04/02/2006 09:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
r3sil3
Senior Member

Posts: 4102
Joined: 10/05/2005

Do NOT buy an FX series processor unless you want the unlocked multiplier.

The reason for Lower GHz speed is the AMD does more work PER clock cycle, therefore not needing the HIGH Ghz speed.

An AMD FX-57 equals the highest Intel Processor, plus faster.

[content edited] a friend, you go with Intel, Your loss. You go with AMD, you'll never go back to Intel.

-------------------------
NO PC As Of NOW!

I'll still be on here once in a while.
 04/02/2006 09:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Zulbat
Junior Member

Posts: 4
Joined: 04/02/2006

Can someone just tells me if a game would still run in like 2008 if the package says minimum system requirements 3.0 Ghz or equiivent if I have 2.6 Ghz? Or would I need to hazzle with overclocking to get a good experience?
 04/02/2006 09:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
daRk Kon
Senior Member

Posts: 3340
Joined: 08/13/2005

quote:

Originally posted by: Unknown Nevertheless, Pentium Extreme Edition 965 is still a very fast processor, and it comes even closer to catching up to AMD devices

But even when the Intel CPU is overclocked at 4.26 GHz, the dualcore Athlon 64 FX processors still offer better results for most applications. Sure, the new Extreme Edition CPU is competitive, but it does not outperform the Athlon 64 FX-60, even at 3.73 GHz.


amd is better at 2.6ghz even beating intel at 3.73ghz

on a box of systtem requirements it says intel 2.4ghz or AMD EQUILILANT

intel is a ghz ahead of amd, but amd still beats them, so if your intel proc runs at 3.7ghz that would be an amd 2.6ghz

-------------------------
heeelp, ADMINS and MODERATORS, help i by accident put in the wrong EMAIL address and now i cant do anything.
 04/02/2006 09:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
k2aka111
Senior Member

Posts: 3321
Joined: 03/14/2006

Ok the number after AMD is how many ghz it would run if it were and Intel P4. I have been loyal to AMD since my frist computer. Intel has there strong points, I give them that. Although when you go AMD it will last a long time. Truthfully, go AMD then you choose the good route, go Intel you are just fallowing that. Intel is also alot more expensive. Ghz is like apples and oranges now-a-days.

-------------------------
Selling Asus M2N32-SLI deluxe & X2 4200+. PM me if interested
 04/02/2006 09:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
trickson
Senior Member

Posts: 6387
Joined: 12/10/2003

I would like to point out that AMD is way better than intel and that futureproof is a mith . there is NO futureproof in the tech world my friend .
as far as the FX60 being better than the conroe CPU (by Intel) who is to say that IS next gen tech and as such it will most likely be faster than the FX60 .
But the AM2 is comming out soon and then we will see what AMD has up it's sleaves !

-------------------------
EVGA 680i mobo , Q6600 @3.4GHz , Ultra Chill Tech CPU Cooler , BFG8800GT/OC , ASUS 8800GT 720/1000 video cards SLI with Tt DuOrb VGA cooler , Corsair XMS2 800MHz 4-4-4-10 2T 2GB RAM , rocketfish 700W PSU , LG Flatron L222WT monitor , Cmstacker Case , SMOKIN FAST!! .
 04/02/2006 10:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
candle_86
Case Modder

Posts: 1502
Joined: 02/20/2005

quote:

Originally posted by: trickson I would like to point out that AMD is way better than intel and that futureproof is a mith . there is NO futureproof in the tech world my friend .
as far as the FX60 being better than the conroe CPU (by Intel) who is to say that IS next gen tech and as such it will most likely be faster than the FX60 .
But the AM2 is comming out soon and then we will see what AMD has up it's sleaves !



I agree but to anwswer your question by 2008 the FX-60 will still preform I'm using an XP 2600 right now to play COD2.

-------------------------
Core I7-3930k -- MSI GTX670 Quad SLI -- ASUS Rampage Extreme IV -- 4x4gb Muskin Redline DDR3 1866 -- 128gb SSD -- Windows 7 Ultimate
Phenom II 960T -- XFX HD4870 -- ECS IC780M -- 2x2gb DDR3 1333 -- 500gb HD -- Windows 7 Home Premium
 04/02/2006 10:21 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
functional-pc
Senior Member

Posts: 1558
Joined: 01/10/2005

it will still be decent in 2008... but not much farther when dealing with cutting edge games

-------------------------
Latest workstation:
Lian li PC-A05B, KN3-SLi, 4400 Brisbane, Freezer 64 Pro, 2 gigs Super-Talent T800UX2GC4, 36 raptor system drive, Caviar RE 320 storage drive, Hiper 580, Ati 1300 Pro, running Vista Home Premium 64-bit with Symantec 10.2.224
 04/02/2006 10:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
shazaam
Senior Member

Posts: 4201
Joined: 12/24/2005

FYI an athlon 3400 for example if it's not OC'ed it's basically a P4 at 3.4Ghz. I don't know what would be = to an FX-60 on intels side or an opteron all I know is AMD clocks are lower but that doesn't mean anything seeming they handle info differently than an intel CPU

quote:

Originally posted by: Unknown What happens in for example year 2008 and quake 4 is out with a recommended minimum system requirement of 3 GHz is out.

Don't you mean like Quake 7
 04/02/2006 10:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zeppelinrox
Senior Member

Posts: 8484
Joined: 11/30/2005

 04/02/2006 10:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
shazaam
Senior Member

Posts: 4201
Joined: 12/24/2005

works for me
 04/02/2006 11:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
AthlonX2
Senior Member

Posts: 1333
Joined: 11/14/2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Zulbat
To my question Can the better graphic card the Fx-60 system has make it perform just as good as the more expensive regular SLI systems the recommended INTEL 955 systems has?


Again the Ghz myth in play ... More Ghz is generally better, but not in this case. If you look at the PR ratings provided by AMD, you'll see that an AMD running at 1.8 Ghz (AMD 64 3000+) is comparable to Intel P4 3.0. There is really no comparison for AMD FX series processors because there is no equivalent unless you massively overclock a P4 or a PD.
quote:

Originally posted by: Unknown
What happens in for example year 2008 and quake 4 is out with a recommended minimum system requirement of 3 GHz is out.


Well I bet an FX will still be able to run games even with that requirement. You can always overclock the processor to get more out it to extend it's life (pretty ironic statement).
quote:

Originally posted by: Unknown
Would this game run fine on the FX-60 even though it just has 2.6 Ghz or am I better off with the 955 (3.46Ghz) and slightly slower graphic cards that the INTEL system has?


Well, the benchmarks that Zeppelinrox posted above answers this question.
quote:

Originally posted by: Unknown
I would like to say that my friend says AMD sucks and bought a high end INTEL system. Would he laugh at my computer if I take the AMD system even after we tried some benchmark or some games with high setting?


If you got an AMD, you'd be laughing at your friend because he made such an "informed decision".



-------------------------
 04/02/2006 11:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zeppelinrox
Senior Member

Posts: 8484
Joined: 11/30/2005

dare to be different.
you will even have a smug feeling about it because you know something that don't
oh i should have posted a comparison with a wider range of cpus as well.
28 of them http://xbitlabs.com/articles/c...lay/28cpu-games_6.html


-------------------------


Overclocking Help and Links . Why DRM, BluRay and HD-DVD Blow Great tools-> OC Bible v1.52 and Guidemania v1.2
 04/03/2006 12:30 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
TheReturnOfAZ
Senior Member

Posts: 13327
Joined: 06/10/2005

haha... smug.
did you see the new south park
sorry its totally unrelated and likely a coincidence

-------------------------
The opinions expressed above exactly represent those of the Intel Corporation and all of its affiliates.
Official Intel™ Propaganda Spreader
"Bringing you the benchmarks that everyone knows are fake" ~ SINCE 2006 ~<!--
 04/03/2006 01:15 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zeppelinrox
Senior Member

Posts: 8484
Joined: 11/30/2005

 04/03/2006 03:08 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Smogsy
Senior Member

Posts: 5349
Joined: 11/15/2005

lol zep i love when you pull out benchs from anywhere Lol
 04/03/2006 05:48 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
victor_c26
Senior Member

Posts: 516
Joined: 09/27/2005

Yeah, Zulbat, your friend either probably has absolutely no idea what makes a processor work, or he just flat out lied to you.

-------------------------

Opteron 175 Denmark Core (2.2 GHz)-------------MSI RS480M2-IL
2 x 1 GB OCZ Plat. DDR400 in Dual Chan.--------eVGA 8800GT SC @ 650/1900
250 GB Seagate Barracude SATA-------------------Audigy | ES
HP Lightscribe DVD Burner--------------------------Asus DVD-ROM
 04/03/2006 06:21 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
anastasiakayy
Member

Posts: 101
Joined: 03/31/2006

intel dosent have an intergrated memory controller so even if that pentium 4 extreme edition is 6 gigs its not going to remotly compare to anything of amds offering,besides that i wouldnt recommend anything over a p4 3.0 to anybody as it runs so hot you could cook a turkey for your family on it, this is espically important if your playing computer games because it boils down to <first access>,intels have horrable benchmarks on apps and video games at the moment,they have taken the p4 of yesterday and overclocked it so much that it probably wouldnt last 5 years if you had one anyway,intels only score higher benchmarks on 4-5 apps and these were optimized for intel processers,intels are better coded on strings of 3 where as amd is 2,amd is the winners way by far as anything ran on an amd system gets first hand access to the cpu,lastly intel has to jack up their bus speed to keep up with amds intergrated memory controller and in the end its always a crash and burn for intel, marissa
 04/03/2006 09:36 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Logan[TeamX]
Senior Member

Posts: 3185
Joined: 12/07/2003

Point form - AMD is quicker at pretty much everything while running at a slower clock speed. AMDs also run a heck of a lot cooler than anything Intel has on the market for desktops right now.

When you lower the power you consume, and the heat you produce, you win. Period.

When I host LAN parties... nobody cares about the one guy that brings the Pentium D. They do, however, run me ragged with questions about the dual-core Opteron

Cheers

Logan
 04/03/2006 05:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
k2aka111
Senior Member

Posts: 3321
Joined: 03/14/2006

1) Intel people are just like apple people, they are realy into apple, and they will deny everything that says that intel is horrable.
2) the thing is ADVERTISING. They see it on TV and it must be good.

3) your frend must be putting a k6-2 450 upto a p4 640 and he is mad because it still works better than his $500 CPU lol.

-------------------------
Selling Asus M2N32-SLI deluxe & X2 4200+. PM me if interested
Statistics
112018 users are registered to the AMD Processors forum.
There are currently 0 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.



Contact AMD Terms and Conditions ©2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Privacy Trademark information