AMD FX-60 Question

[Stangs55]

I've seen the rumors floating around the net everywhere concerning the FX-60 in general; but I've yet to see anything stating whether or not the FX-60 is going to be a dual core chip. Does anyone know?

 

[Viditor]

I believe that the FX-60 will be the last of the single cores...3.0 GHz if the rumours are true.

 

[videoclone]

>> the last of the mohicans ... ??

 

[mrkun]

What happened to FX-59? Also, FX-62 is going to be dual core, so it would seem likely this is the last single core. Here's the M2 product lineup.

I'm curious as to how the FX-62 is going to differ from the X2 5000 and 5200. Assuming the current clock speed increases, 5000 will be 2.6 Ghz and 5200 will be 2.8 Ghz. FX-62 is a 3 Ghz dual core perhaps? :Q

 

[Vegitto]

I think the only difference is the unlocked multi.

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: mrkun
Assuming the current clock speed increases, 5000 will be 2.6 Ghz and 5200 will be 2.8 Ghz. FX-62 is a 3 Ghz dual core perhaps? :Q

Assuming the current clock-speed increases the 5000 would be a 2.6GHz, 512K L2 part, while the 5200+ would be a 2.6GHz, 1M L2 cache part. Of course the current naming scheme will probably not translate very well to socket M2 since it is supposed to use DDR2-667, which implies that the HTT will be set at 333MHz, so the clocks for that socket are anyone's guess.

Now, back to the topic at hand. According to Anandtech's recently released roadmap (before it was edited), the FX 60 was supposed to be a dual-core part. Of course, the data from which the roadmap was compiled also claimed that it would be a Manchester core, which I find doubtful--unless the clock speeds are very high (as in 3GHz-high). I think it's much more probable that the FX-60 will be either a 3GHz San Diego or a 2.6GHz Toledo, with unlocked multipliers, of course.

 

[Skott]

Since the 3800 X2 and the 4400 X2 are considered the sweet spots for OCing wont the 4800 X2 also become the ideal for overclocking once the 5000 and 5200 come out? Following the advice of people saying instead of getting a 4200 get a 3800 and overclock it and instead of getting a 4800 get a 4400 and overclock it. So instead of getting the 5000 or 5200 get a 4800 and overclock it would be best cost vs performance?

The reason I ask this is because if you buy a 4800 now you could overclock it and have something nearly as good if not as good as the 5000 or 5200. Or are these newer chips more powerful than that? I do realize the 4800 X2 is still overly expensive cost vs performance wise but if one is trying to retain some kind of future proofing their new rig it may be something to think about.

Or is my logic concerning this wrong? Trying to figure it out in my head and wanted some input from others that know more about it than I.

 

[mrkun]

I think the Opteron 165 just blows all of these away in terms of bang for the buck: dual core, 1.8 Ghz, 1MB L2 cache, $300.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: mrkun
I think the Opteron 165 just blows all of these away in terms of bang for the buck: dual core, 1.8 Ghz, 1MB L2 cache, $300.

Me too. Have you seen what these guys are doing with them? 2.8-3.0!!
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=77857

I would easily hit 2.8 if I had a real motherboard. 9x is a problem...seemingly not for DFI (since everyone in that thread uses DFI) but 9x is a problem for every board I've tried.

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: Skott
Since the 3800 X2 and the 4400 X2 are considered the sweet spots for OCing wont the 4800 X2 also become the ideal for overclocking once the 5000 and 5200 come out? Following the advice of people saying instead of getting a 4200 get a 3800 and overclock it and instead of getting a 4800 get a 4400 and overclock it. So instead of getting the 5000 or 5200 get a 4800 and overclock it would be best cost vs performance?

The reason I ask this is because if you buy a 4800 now you could overclock it and have something nearly as good if not as good as the 5000 or 5200. Or are these newer chips more powerful than that? I do realize the 4800 X2 is still overly expensive cost vs performance wise but if one is trying to retain some kind of future proofing their new rig it may be something to think about.

Or is my logic concerning this wrong? Trying to figure it out in my head and wanted some input from others that know more about it than I.

Well, you have to understand that the 3800+ and the 4400+ were the ideals because they were the cheapest X2 and the cheapest X2 with 1MB L2 (per core). Most of the time, when overclocking, whole families of CPUs have basically the same upper frequency limits. So normally the ideal is the lowest-clocked (and cheapest) CPU that is not crippled artificially (like the Semprons).

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: mrkun
I think the Opteron 165 just blows all of these away in terms of bang for the buck: dual core, 1.8 Ghz, 1MB L2 cache, $300.

Me too. Have you seen what these guys are doing with them? 2.8-3.0!!
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=77857

I would easily hit 2.8 if I had a real motherboard. 9x is a problem...seemingly not for DFI (since everyone in that thread uses DFI) but 9x is a problem for every board I've tried.

Wow. I just might have to upgrade...