AMD processor speed question.

sharkjawz

Junior Member
Apr 20, 2006
7
0
0
Hey guys i'm pretty new at this so forgive me if this is a stupid question.
I plan on building a computer in June with the soon to be released FX-62. However when I saw the processor speed it was 2.8Ghz. My question is: If a computer game needs at least 3 Ghz to run like UT2007 does this mean that my computer won't be able to run it? Please answer my question!!!
 
Mar 19, 2003
18,289
2
71
A lot of times, published recommended CPU speeds for games (or other software) is still relative to Intel processors. A 2.8GHz A64 (FX) is going to be a lot faster than a 3GHz P4/PD. You should have no problems running anything with that CPU. (As you'd hope when you're buying one of the fastest CPU's that money can buy :p)
 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,572
3
71
Heh.. if an FX-62 can't run UT2007 that would be one helluva good looking game... that or a really crappily coded one.
 

TejTrescent

Member
Apr 20, 2006
41
0
0
Which leads me to wonder..

What happens with Conroe bringing Intel's clock speeds down to AMD style levels? I mean, if a 1.8 gHz Conroe can't handle what a 2 or 3 gHz P4 could, I'd be surprised, to say the least.

Methinks we're about to need a much better way of labeling minimum specs, but I don't see that ending well for the average consumer.
 

TheRyuu

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2005
5,479
14
81
AMD ditched the 3000+ meaning 3ghz P4 along time ago. Now, they just seem to be model #'s just like the Opteron 165's and 170's, there just #'s and don't mean a think.

I think we can use a little common sense here and say the 3ghz minimum thing is for a netburst CPU.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
heh, thats 3.0 netburst equivilent, or an Athlon 3000+, a FX-62 is supposed to be like a 5200 equivilent, in other words you processor will be WAY over spec for the game, and the 2 cores should help in UE3. However you might want to conisder your options other than AMD, that FX62 is likely worse than the 2.66G Conroe which is less than half its price. So maybe if you can wait another couple months you could save 500$
 

sharkjawz

Junior Member
Apr 20, 2006
7
0
0
I think ill go with the FX-62 As I don't think ill be able to wait the couple of months because I really wanna start some great gaming for the summer. Believe me right now I have an XPS T-600 (600 MHZ) so you could understand my eagerness to update. The only games I can play is like Sims, Need for speed porsche unleased, can't even play underground good. Plus my booth up times is like 3Mins Minimum. I have a question though what would you say the speed of an FX-62 will be if it was an Intel?
 

996GT2

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2005
5,212
0
76
Well, I think you should buy a lower-level AMD processor now (i.e. X2 800+), and then OC it to FX60+ speeds. It will offer the SAME performance at those speeds. Then you can spend all that extra $$ on SLi'd 7900GTXs or X-Fired X1900XTXs and you'll be able to play ANY game to come for quite a while. ;)

But I REALLY, REALLY think you should wait for Conroe for your major build. Perhaps spend like $400 (Sempron, 6600, etc) right now and build a comp that can play games OK right now w/o too many visual effects? Then you can sell it later when you buy your parts for the big build.
 

sharkjawz

Junior Member
Apr 20, 2006
7
0
0
What kind of Video Card should I get to run games at the greatest levels right now? An can someone please answer my FX-62 Question about the speed of it if it was an intel? By the way i'm looking to spend like 3-4hundread on a Video Card
 

Cipherfaction

Member
Nov 17, 2005
146
0
0
well i think it would HAVE to beable to hold a 3ghz cause i don't think its like a fx-62 a really new processer not beable to run something a p4 or amd 64 can run... why would they even make the freaken fx62... why not just uberfy the p4s and amds
 

sharkjawz

Junior Member
Apr 20, 2006
7
0
0
Quick Question!!! I just checked some benchmarks and it showed that a stock FX-60 outperformed an Intel Pentium Extreme 965 3.7 Ghz processor. Can I safely say that an FX-62 will be somewhere around 4Ghz+ ?
 

Marmion

Member
Dec 1, 2005
110
0
0
Yes, the AMD FX-60 and upcoming FX-62 are superior to the current Netburst Intel Pentium EEs. Safe to say the FX-60 performs at the equivelant of an Intel P4 EE of around 4Ghz (just guessing here).
However, if you wait untill the new "Core" processors come out from Intel, it is more than likely that for ~US$530 you will have a much faster performing CPU, which economically speaking is a much better move than wasting $1k on a CPU.
As 996GT2 sugested, buy a cheap AMD Sempron or Athlon 64 now, a half decent graphics card, and then when Conroe (Core) comes out from Intel, splash out on that, and by then you would be able to get a way better graphics card which by then would probably be DX10 compatable etc.
 

TheStu

Moderator<br>Mobile Devices & Gadgets
Moderator
Sep 15, 2004
12,089
45
91
As for your video-card question... the best preformer right now is the X1900XTX, and an even better performer is that same card in Crossfire.

I personally prefer SLI over CrossFire but that is just my opinion... i feel that SLI is a more mature implementation and slightly more stable... but i could just be talking out of my a$$ since i have neither and only have reviews, articles and benchmarks to go off of. All of which say that the X1900XTX is the reigning king.. but i just like SLI's implementation so if i were in your shoes i would get a pair of 7900GTXs just becuase i am a little biased.

Here is my $.02... why are you planning on spending $1000 on a processor but not investing at least that much in video cards? Seriously, if i were in your shoes the situation would be pretty much reversed. I would get something like an opty 165 and OC the crap out of it... at which point it may not be as great as the FX-62 but would be $600+ cheaper. Then take that saved money and get a pair of $500 cards and SLI/CrossFire them and ba-zam you are cooking