• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FX - 60 In Stock

Originally posted by: porsche928
thats not gouging, its...deep mining
Click to expand...
Good first post.

IMHO, anyone who'd pay that for it can either, readily afford it, or is the ultimate newblet.

Being able to approximate 90%+ of its performance with a overclocked X2 or Opteron that cost less than even the MSRP on the FX60, makes this the "I am overcompensating for something!" pick of the year.
 
Havent we already determined that Monarch has no darn clue what things are worth?
I swear we've had several threads on this issue over the past year.
Of course, if they get what they're asking then they really arent doing anything wrong from a bussiness standpoint.
As was already pointed out, people who buy this are newbs or compensating for something.
 
Originally posted by: Peter D
$2500USD... odd, Premier (Canadian) has it for $1214.99CDN here.
Click to expand...

Pwned.

There you go guys.

You can drive up to Canada, & even with the cost of gas, still spend far less on it :laugh:

ROFL @ $2500!

 
perhaps you guys can answer my question and i wont have to start a new thread

what are the big difference between the FX and other chips like the X2

i know the X2 is a dual core but i've heard a few diff things about the FX (AMD's web site only talks about performance and what not with out any specs)

i've been told that the FX has more cache, and possibly a faster FSB, which makes the chip some what faster as a whole compared to others like the regualar AMD 64

but i was also told that it is an "unlocked" chip, so it is better for over clockers

are both of these things true?

if one were to buy and FX and not over clock would there be any benefit?
 
Originally posted by: BriGy86
perhaps you guys can answer my question and i wont have to start a new thread

what are the big difference between the FX and other chips like the X2

i know the X2 is a dual core but i've heard a few diff things about the FX (AMD's web site only talks about performance and what not with out any specs)

i've been told that the FX has more cache, and possibly a faster FSB, which makes the chip some what faster as a whole compared to others like the regualar AMD 64

but i was also told that it is an "unlocked" chip, so it is better for over clockers

are both of these things true?

if one were to buy and FX and not over clock would there be any benefit?
Click to expand...

FX60 is 2.6GHz dual core.
The fastest X2 is 2.4GHz dual core.
An FX60 would be slightly faster at stock than a 4800+ at stock.

FX60 has multipliers unlocked up and down (higher and lower mults), X2's just have lower mults.
 
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Originally posted by: BriGy86
perhaps you guys can answer my question and i wont have to start a new thread

what are the big difference between the FX and other chips like the X2

i know the X2 is a dual core but i've heard a few diff things about the FX (AMD's web site only talks about performance and what not with out any specs)

i've been told that the FX has more cache, and possibly a faster FSB, which makes the chip some what faster as a whole compared to others like the regualar AMD 64

but i was also told that it is an "unlocked" chip, so it is better for over clockers

are both of these things true?

if one were to buy and FX and not over clock would there be any benefit?
Click to expand...

FX60 is 2.6GHz dual core.
The fastest X2 is 2.4GHz dual core.
An FX60 would be slightly faster at stock than a 4800+ at stock.

FX60 has multipliers unlocked up and down (higher and lower mults), X2's just have lower mults.
Click to expand...

what about cache and FSB? are they the same?

and the FX 60 would be better if you bought it stock and didn't overclock?
 
Originally posted by: BriGy86
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Originally posted by: BriGy86
perhaps you guys can answer my question and i wont have to start a new thread

what are the big difference between the FX and other chips like the X2

i know the X2 is a dual core but i've heard a few diff things about the FX (AMD's web site only talks about performance and what not with out any specs)

i've been told that the FX has more cache, and possibly a faster FSB, which makes the chip some what faster as a whole compared to others like the regualar AMD 64

but i was also told that it is an "unlocked" chip, so it is better for over clockers

are both of these things true?

if one were to buy and FX and not over clock would there be any benefit?
Click to expand...

FX60 is 2.6GHz dual core.
The fastest X2 is 2.4GHz dual core.
An FX60 would be slightly faster at stock than a 4800+ at stock.

FX60 has multipliers unlocked up and down (higher and lower mults), X2's just have lower mults.
Click to expand...

what about cache and FSB? are they the same?

and the FX 60 would be better if you bought it stock and didn't overclock?
Click to expand...

AMD CPU's do not have a FSB
 
Originally posted by: Cooler
Originally posted by: BriGy86
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Originally posted by: BriGy86
perhaps you guys can answer my question and i wont have to start a new thread

what are the big difference between the FX and other chips like the X2

i know the X2 is a dual core but i've heard a few diff things about the FX (AMD's web site only talks about performance and what not with out any specs)

i've been told that the FX has more cache, and possibly a faster FSB, which makes the chip some what faster as a whole compared to others like the regualar AMD 64

but i was also told that it is an "unlocked" chip, so it is better for over clockers

are both of these things true?

if one were to buy and FX and not over clock would there be any benefit?
Click to expand...

FX60 is 2.6GHz dual core.
The fastest X2 is 2.4GHz dual core.
An FX60 would be slightly faster at stock than a 4800+ at stock.

FX60 has multipliers unlocked up and down (higher and lower mults), X2's just have lower mults.
Click to expand...

what about cache and FSB? are they the same?

and the FX 60 would be better if you bought it stock and didn't overclock?
Click to expand...

AMD CPU's do not have a FSB
Click to expand...

they always say it's integrated into the chip, i assumed it was still there though
 
I'm cutting the FX-60s for the following:
BOX: 1062.00 inc. free shipping
TRAY: 1083.00 inc. free shipping

prolly against the rules, but whatever...

still wicked expensive and mind you, i have no explanation for the cheaper cost of the box.

dave
 
Originally posted by: BriGy86

they always say it's integrated into the chip, i assumed it was still there though
Click to expand...

The Frontside bus is the link from the CPU to the northbridge, while the Backside bus is the link from the CPU to the L2 cache. The Backside bus went away when L2 was integrated into the CPU die and the FSB went away when the northbridge was integrated into the CPU.

Before someone says "there's still northbridges on A64 motherboards" let me explain. The northbridge normally had (before the A64) three main parts: A memory controller, an AGP (video) tunnel, a system crossbar switch and any other arbitration logic that was needed. A64s integrated all of these onto the core except the video tunnel (and it sounds like they'll integrate it soon enough) so the equivalent of the FSB on these chips is the link between the execution core and the crossbar. So basically your FSB is running at 2.6GHz. Not that this matters since its not even close to a bottleneck.
 
Originally posted by: Furen
Originally posted by: BriGy86

they always say it's integrated into the chip, i assumed it was still there though
Click to expand...

The Frontside bus is the link from the CPU to the northbridge, while the Backside bus is the link from the CPU to the L2 cache. The Backside bus went away when L2 was integrated into the CPU die and the FSB went away when the northbridge was integrated into the CPU.

Before someone says "there's still northbridges on A64 motherboards" let me explain. The northbridge normally had (before the A64) three main parts: A memory controller, an AGP (video) tunnel, a system crossbar switch and any other arbitration logic that was needed. A64s integrated all of these onto the core except the video tunnel (and it sounds like they'll integrate it soon enough) so the equivalent of the FSB on these chips is the link between the execution core and the crossbar. So basically your FSB is running at 2.6GHz. Not that this matters since its not even close to a bottleneck.
Click to expand...

this is what i was more along the lines thinkin of (that connection still HAS to be there)

its just on the chip now and going insanely fast compared to before

thanks for clearing that up

anyway, about the cache, does the FX have more than the regular athlon 64's?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top