AMD decision...X2 or FX

chari

Senior member
Oct 14, 2004
265
0
76
Alright here's the deal
I have enough money to buy the new fx60 dual core processor. But im looking and I can snag the 4800+ dual core for about 400 dollars cheaper. My question is, is the fx60 worht the extra 400? Both are very nice processors..
I don't want to upgrade for a while so please let me know what would be the best idea..money is not an issue here...just wondering if it is worth the extra cash!
Thanks
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,897
12,957
136
No, the FX60 isn't worth the extra $400 seeing as how you can just overclock the 4800+ about as far as the FX-60 will go. usually.

You can do even better with an Opteron 170.

Are you planning on overclocking at all?
 

chari

Senior member
Oct 14, 2004
265
0
76
I don't want to overclock...I know nothing about it at all..
I know how to change it in cmos or bios thats about it. I wouldn't wanna be overclocking something that expensive..
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Will you pay 90% more money for 5% more performance? Answer that and your choice is made.
 

chari

Senior member
Oct 14, 2004
265
0
76
I'm looking for a gaming machine...
WHat processor do you recommend for me. I am not planning on overclocking due to the fact that I know nothing about it. I want something that will run the best in games but also give me solid performance outside games. I see that most games don't take advantage of dual core, So i am confused now. Please help me out
 

buzzsaw13

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2004
3,814
0
76
Originally posted by: chari
I'm looking for a gaming machine...
WHat processor do you recommend for me. I am not planning on overclocking due to the fact that I know nothing about it. I want something that will run the best in games but also give me solid performance outside games. I see that most games don't take advantage of dual core, So i am confused now. Please help me out

If you're looking just to play games and some solid performance, just get a 3800X2.
 

Link

Golden Member
Jan 10, 2000
1,330
0
0
Go with a dual. Graphic card companies are alreading making drivers to take advantage of dual core processor in games, and future games will take advantage of muti-core processors:)

p.s. not overclocking an FX is a crime..
 

chari

Senior member
Oct 14, 2004
265
0
76
Ok
I have narrowed it down to the
AMD Opteron 170 dual core
OR
AMD Athlon FX60 dual core
Like i have said before, money is not an issue here...I just don't want to overpay.
I don't see how that are getting 1000 for the fx60 when this 170 is running almost identical.
The thing is...I want to be able to have the processor for 3-4 years without having to upgrade...If i spent the 1000 would i regret it...
 

Link

Golden Member
Jan 10, 2000
1,330
0
0
well.... Opteron 170 runs at 2.0ghz and FX60 runs at 2.6ghz.
so 170 will never be the same as the FX60 since you won't be overclocking it.
 

Link

Golden Member
Jan 10, 2000
1,330
0
0
Get either x2 4800 or Opteron 180. Both run at 2.4ghz
Also, don't forget to get 2x 1mb memories, and a raptor(raid with two is better, of course)
 

Effect

Member
Jan 31, 2006
185
0
0
Originally posted by: Link
Get either x2 4800 or Opteron 180. Both run at 2.4ghz ...

Agreed, the money you save could be spent on getting an addition video card (in SLI or xFire), which will make a world of difference compared to the 200mhz extra speed on the fx60 when it comes to games.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,897
12,957
136
Don't get an FX if you're not going to overclock. One of the selling points of FX processors is that they are the only ones sold by AMD that are built for overclocking(i.e. no locked CPU multiplier).

In your position, you should get the X2 4800+ or Opteron 180. The Opteron 170 is only good if you plan to overclock(not for the same reasons as the FX60, but in the end, both the Opteron 170 and FX60 are out there so you can overclock them).
 

RealTime

Member
Dec 25, 2005
64
0
61
From what I hear the best CPU for gaming is the FX-57. If I was Daddy Warbucks I would get that one. From what I hear the FX-60 is scary fast. A true multitasking chip. The only down side though is that it is dual core. Games just haven't been made yet for dual core. For a gaming rig you are better off going with a FX-57.
 

Kakumba

Senior member
Mar 13, 2006
610
0
0
Uhhh, since when was dualcore a DISadvantage? and also, have you heard of Oblivion? so, while an FX-57 may be better for the next few months, FX60 is MUCH better in the long run.
 

Aries64

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2004
1,030
0
0
Originally posted by: chari
Alright here's the deal
I have enough money to buy the new fx60 dual core processor. But im looking and I can snag the 4800+ dual core for about 400 dollars cheaper. My question is, is the fx60 worht the extra 400? Both are very nice processors..
I don't want to upgrade for a while so please let me know what would be the best idea..money is not an issue here...just wondering if it is worth the extra cash!
Thanks
Most people on this forum OC to save money. Some OC for fun. Personally, I've never cared about overclocking, as I don't have a lot of time to spend tweaking a CPU to get the performance out of a lower-end chip. Some people think that is foolish, but that is their opinion, and its' not their money. What free time I do have I like to spend doing things with my family and friends.

That said, the 4800+ is a great choice for gaming and other uses where you will be multi-tasking - its plenty fast for most of todays games, as many games such as Battlefield 2 and F.E.A.R. are "GPU bound". You can even game without worrying about a big system slowdown when Norton starts to defrag your hardisk(s) in the middle of a 64-player map in Battlefield 2. However, if you're like me, you can never have enough power (and of course your PC can never be fast enough).

As far as the FX-60 being "worth" the extra $400.00 "NO". The extra 200MHz won't really help you in games. The strengths of the FX-60 over the 4800+ are the 200MHz clock (again, won't really help in games too much, if at all), the fully unlocked (multipliers are unlocked both up and down. Really only useful if you plan on overclocking), and the power and speed you get without having to overclock, preserving your warranty and peace of mind. This is why I buy the FXs'. They cost too way much for what they are but I don't have to fiddle with overclocking them.

The truth of the matter is, right now, the FX-57 is still the fastest CPU you can get for single-threaded performance in games, but barely. If the FX-57 and FX-60 were the same price right now I would give up the 200MHz advantage of the FX-57 and go with the FX-60. Like I said, 200Mhz really does make much if any difference for gaming (I went from an FX-53 Clawhammer core with SSE/SSE2 instructions to an FX-57 with SSE/SSE2/SSE3 and the San Diego core with the improved memory controller and it was good for only about 7-8 FPS). Definitely not worth the performance, but runs a lot cooler and but a second core will pretty soon. I think dual core is the way to go now.

You are probably best served by getting the 4800+ and spending the extra cash on a better videocard, or if you are already getting a top-of-the-line card i.e. X1900XT/X or 7900GTX maybe you should consider a second videocard (ATI=Crossfire, Nvidia=SLI). As an owner of an X1900XT-X the price premium the XT-X commands over the XT is definitely not worth the money either, but I was an early adopter and wanted a lifetime warranty from a vendor I had used before. VisionTek was my choice but they only offer the X1900XT-X - no XT version.

Still, if that cash is buring a hole in your pocket and you have to spend that cash on a high-end processor WTF - you can always get a (Socket 939) Opteron 185. Its' basically an FX-60 with the "up" multipliers locked. The Opterons are server/workstation chips, and as such they are typically more tolerant of higher temperatures and voltage fluctuation/changes. This makes the Opterons more stable. If you ever do want to try a little overclocking you are ready. The 185 is one bad ass chip! Link to AMD Opteron 185:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us%2Den/opteron/Default.aspx
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
You won't notice all that much of a difference for the outrageous extra money you'll pay for the FX chip. Quite frankly, an X2 3800+ is more than enough for pretty much anything nowadays, and it'll certainly last you for a very long time.

But if you must, the 4800+ is a better choice than the FX.

 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
Originally posted by: Link
Go with a dual. Graphic card companies are alreading making drivers to take advantage of dual core processor in games, and future games will take advantage of muti-core processors:)

p.s. not overclocking an FX is a crime..

There are actually laws in Arizona agains that.
 

chilled

Senior member
Jun 2, 2002
709
0
0
Originally posted by: Aries64
You are probably best served by getting the 4800+ and spending the extra cash on a better videocard, or if you are already getting a top-of-the-line card i.e. X1900XT/X or 7900GTX maybe you should consider a second videocard (ATI=Crossfire, Nvidia=SLI). As an owner of an X1900XT-X the price premium the XT-X commands over the XT is definitely not worth the money either, but I was an early adopter and wanted a lifetime warranty from a vendor I had used before. VisionTek was my choice but they only offer the X1900XT-X - no XT version.

Still, if that cash is buring a hole in your pocket and you have to spend that cash on a high-end processor WTF - you can always get a (Socket 939) Opteron 185. Its' basically an FX-60 with the "up" multipliers locked. The Opterons are server/workstation chips, and as such they are typically more tolerant of higher temperatures and voltage fluctuation/changes. This makes the Opterons more stable. If you ever do want to try a little overclocking you are ready. The 185 is one bad ass chip! Link to AMD Opteron 185:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us%2Den/opteron/Default.aspx

QFT - Spot on!