FX60 is getting cheap.

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: lamere
While conroe is a step up for intel and has made an awesome chip, AMD *always has* come out with a superior chip eventually, and just because conroe exists doesn't mean its the "be all to end all" of CPU's.

Denial is always the first step.

This seems to be the mentality of the conroe supporters.
It's just a matter of time before AMD is ahead of the pack, again.

Fanboy or fanboi is a term used to describe an individual (usually male, though the feminine version fangirl may be used for females) who is utterly devoted to a single fannish subject, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession.

A fitting definition for anyone who says they'll stick with a chip that performs worse just because they don't approve of certain "business practices" of a competitor.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: lamere
Some people dont want/need the latest and greatest. And you're still not adding in the potential problems that come along with this new technology.
Just look at the numerous threads started here about how many people are having problems with thier new conroe builds. I would personally go the other route and save a potential headache of a new build that will be buggy, picky, and with an immature chipset.
If I myself was to go with a conroe build, i would def. wait a few months if not almost a year and let the chipset mature some, IMNVHO.
At the cost vs. performance factor of these CPU's, the fx-60 is still quite expensive unfortunatly.

"Some people dont want/need the latest and greatest." Then why exactly would they be purchasing an FX chip? It's the latest, greatest and most expensive from AMD.


Your other post just makes you reek of fanboism. AMD will come out with something better, sure 1 - 1 1/2 years down the road. Do you think Intel is sitting on it's hands? Shortly after AMD hits the market with their answer to Conroe, Intel will release a quad core processor and higher ghz versions of the C2D.

No one says its the be all of chips. But vs what you can purchase now, it's the best option. Period.

 

[lamere]

Originally posted by: LikeLinusYour other post just makes you reek of fanboism. AMD will come out with something better, sure 1 - 1 1/2 years down the road. Do you think Intel is sitting on it's hands? Shortly after AMD hits the market with their answer to Conroe, Intel will release a quad core processor and higher ghz versions of the C2D.

1 1/2 years down the road? AMD quad cores are just about to start or have alerady started production.
I have always used AMD, not because I dislike intel per say, but because AMD has always had the better chip, and for less money. That's what you guys are preaching here, and I can agree with that. I already gave the conroe props, its a pretty awesome chip, I cant argue. But the chipset is way too immature right now with too many problems, everyone knows that.

The FX2 may be AMD's "latest and greatest" but the difference is that is that it drops into existing mature boards, not a whole new buggy mobo/chipset/complete system rebuild. The abit board I had was FX2 ready long before the chip even came out. I never thought of going dual core, but when the prices dropped, I was able to drop one in, no hassles or problems.
Those of you who call me a "fanboI" or whatever 3rd grade name/misspelling comes to mind....i guess i'm supposed to feel insulted? Well, i'm not......
And how many of you IBM's instead of macs, and prefer IBM's over a mac why?

Hello pot, meet kettle.......:laugh:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: lamere
The FX2 may be AMD's "latest and greatest" but the difference is that is that it drops into existing mature boards, not a whole new buggy mobo/chipset/complete system rebuild.

I know AMD fanboys like yourself would love to believe all C2D mobos and chipsets are unstable, unreliable junk (VIA still leaving a sore spot on your tongues), but the truth belittles you. I've built several C2D rigs now with 965 and 975 boards of various flavors and they're solid as rock. Sure, there are various quirks with each (mostly BIOS issues), but that can be said for the AMD boards as well. And the Intel logic on these boards is ROCK SOLID.

So keep letting that wool cover your eyes, while the rest of us enjoy Conroe

 

[LikeLinus]

According to AMD's own roadmap, you won't see Quad Core chips until atleast 2007. Note I also said a year. C2D chips have been on the market for several months now and you probably won't see AMD quad core chips out until 2Q of 2007. Intel has announced that the upcoming quad-core Kentsfield chip will come out at 2.67ghz around 2Q of next year.

It may not be a full year, but it's not that far off. That's a sizeable lead for Intel. It gives them more than enough pad time to work on quad cores.

What different does it make? You said most people don't want the latest and greatest, so they wouldn't want conroe. I pointed out that FX was their latest and greatest. so now you want to spin the argument that you feel conroe is not a mature platform?

I can show you as many post with people having problems with AMD as conroe. I have a E6600 myself and I've had no problems at all. Most people have their E6300-E6400 overclocked past 3Ghz!

Bottom line, you see post about conroe because everyone is picking them up over AMD right now. If AMD takes over the performance lead...you will see the post swing back in their favor. But for such a small amount of money difference, Conroe is the way to go. If you research what you are doing, you'll know what Ram and Motherboard to buy. The majority of post are because of RAM compatability problems. That's changing with new BIOS revisions.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Trinitron

Originally posted by: akshayt
E6600 > FX 62 at stock

E6300 > FX 62 after overclock

what's the point?

It's an upgrade path for people still on 939.

People act like because Conroe is out and outperforms the FX60 all of a sudden the FX60 is a 386 or something.

FX60 is still a hell of a CPU reguardless of what brand new CPUs are doing.

Around this forum, the FX-60 might as well be a 386. That's all the attention it's going to get, now that Intel has used their Conroe to blast a hole in AMD.

 

[lamere]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: lamere
The FX2 may be AMD's "latest and greatest" but the difference is that is that it drops into existing mature boards, not a whole new buggy mobo/chipset/complete system rebuild.

I know AMD fanboys like yourself would love to believe all C2D mobos and chipsets are unstable, unreliable junk (VIA still leaving a sore spot on your tongues), but the truth belittles you. I've built several C2D rigs now with 965 and 975 boards of various flavors and they're solid as rock. Sure, there are various quirks with each (mostly BIOS issues), but that can be said for the AMD boards as well. And the Intel logic on these boards is ROCK SOLID.

So keep letting that wool cover your eyes, while the rest of us enjoy Conroe

That last statement alone screams "fanboy" itself. Like I said, pot, meet kettle :laugh:
Thats funny how you think i'm so misled, hardly. You ever use AMD or are you one of those that jumps on the bandwagon after each company comes out with something better than the other?
And, I was going by from what i previously stated, the endless "my new CONROE issue/build wont boot" threads.

 

[Makaveli]

Originally posted by: xtreme26

Originally posted by: akshayt
E6600 > FX 62 at stock

E6300 > FX 62 after overclock

what's the point?

1900xtx>u
what's the point?

I see your also getting sick of people and the conroe ******, everytime someone post they want to get a athlon cpu. Some Asshat has to come in and post Get conroe. Everyone knows Conroe is faster, some people just don't care, maybe cause they don't want to have to replace their whole setup. STFU already!

 

[LikeLinus]

"that jumps on the bandwagon after each company comes out with something better than the other?"

WTF are you talking about. There IS no bandwagon. It's about owning the best CPU on the market. If you want to spend $600 on a CPU that performs less than a $230 CPU, be my guest. I'm coming from an 3200+, before that I had two other AMD chips. It's not about being loyal to a company. That in itself is completely idiotic.

Me? i'm going to jump on the bandwagon and buy the best chip out! I'd rather pay for performance than be a sucker and support a company that is only after one thing.... my money. They are all alike. The sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be.

You're using Crossfire!! You jumped on the dual GPU bandwagon!! OMG you elitist you.

What BS. You'll be able to buy a clue someday.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: Blain
Around this forum, the FX-60 might as well be a 386. That's all the attention it's going to get, now that Intel has used their Conroe to blast a hole in AMD.

Then AMD repairs and blasts a hole in intel. Then Intel repairs and blasts a hole in AMD. Repeat x1000000.........
Always is going to happen, it isn't going to stop. No surprise there, one is always going to one-up the other and repeat.

Originally posted by: Pabster
A fitting definition for anyone who says they'll stick with a chip that performs worse just because they don't approve of certain "business practices" of a competitor.

Yes I prefer AMD but don't most people prefer one or the other? If I had reason and money to upgrade now - like say I was running a s754 system - then I probably would upgrade to C2D (business practices aside). But looking at intel's business practices I simply will not buy from them. What I am referring to is threatening other companies to use intel and intel exclusively or else financial punishments or shutdowns. This was to the point that, for example, HP didn't dare even touch FREE AMD CPUs for fear of intel's wrath. I'm not against big businesses, but I am against big businesses using their size to forcefully control others. I don't think it is right and I won't support it.

 

[Rubycon]

Intel's quad core is going to be called Core 2 Quadro.

nVidia probably has the sharks' teeth getting honed.

:laugh:

< FX60 user (3.0GHz)

I want to replace this POS with a quad socket conroe based Xeon sooner than later. Sorry, the CPU is great but the mobo and chipset is not so good. (Asus A8N32 SLI Deluxe)

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: lamere
Thats funny how you think i'm so misled, hardly. You ever use AMD or are you one of those that jumps on the bandwagon after each company comes out with something better than the other?

ROFL. I own several AMD powered rigs still. I upgraded both of my X2 rigs to Conroe in the last month, and I couldn't be more pleased. (Both were 4400+ chips doing 2.5+). Conroe is markedly faster across the board.

And, I was going by from what i previously stated, the endless "my new CONROE issue/build wont boot" threads.

Which are pretty similar to the endless problems people had with various AM2 boards upon initial release not all that long ago. Most of the issues are RAM related and easily remedied.

I'm a performance fanboy... the name on the heatspreader makes no difference to me. Right now Intel has the advantage, looks to be that way for some time, but if something better should come along I'll be all over it.

 

[MrUniq]

I'm responding to earlier points....the FX60 isn't worth the price because the 4800+ and below cores can clock up to it's speed. As a matter of fact the 4800+ is as good as it gets except for the high pricetag of the fx60. Even my 4600+ can clock to 2.6 of the FX60 without even increasing voltage...and it is noticeable.

 

[*kjm]

Originally posted by: Boyo
There was a point when I was waiting to get the FX60, but with all the new changes in hardware I feel that it is pointless. It's still way over priced and I overclocked my 4400+, and I know that I can still get at least 2.7 out of it, so it's not worth the upgrade to me. When I make my next upgrade it will be from leaving the 939 and moving up. AMD Quad cores aren't that far away either. Not that I'm going to run out and buy one right away, but with things changing so fast, I don't see the point in upgrading my 939 to an FX60 from a 4400+.

I'm ready to jump on a new setup but I'm going to wait this one out. I think your right in thinking there will be a lot of people wishing they would have waited for the Quads... It's almost looking like the 6month upgrades have went from video to cpu's

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Originally posted by: lamere
While conroe is a step up for intel and has made an awesome chip, AMD *always has* come out with a superior chip eventually, and just because conroe exists doesn't mean its the "be all to end all" of CPU's.

Originally posted by: lamere
Those of you who call me a "fanboI" or whatever 3rd grade name/misspelling comes to mind....i guess i'm supposed to feel insulted? Well, i'm not......
And how many of you IBM's instead of macs, and prefer IBM's over a mac why?

Hello pot, meet kettle.......:laugh:

The difference is that most rational people have examined the relative merits/demerits of an IBM-compatible x86 PC vs a Mac OSX powered machine and made their preference.

You speaketh of something you only see in your magical crystal ball. People here are talking about purchasing decisions/choices available today - you seem to be doing a bad impression of Conan O Brien's "In the Year 2000" bit.

You ever use AMD or are you one of those that jumps on the bandwagon after each company comes out with something better than the other?

What the hell is that supposed to mean? We are all supposed to swear allegiance to consumer goods manufacturers now? Ignore better options because of loyalty we sold to some billionaire capitalists?

 

[Makaveli]

Ya i'm looking at a 4800+ aswell much better value, but I might be in luck think I found a 4400+ for $100 cheaper!

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Makaveli
I see your also getting sick of people and the conroe ******, everytime someone post they want to get a athlon cpu. Some Asshat has to come in and post Get conroe. Everyone knows Conroe is faster, some people just don't care, maybe cause they don't want to have to replace their whole setup. STFU already!

Lol?

Werent you the same AMD fanboi that would come in and post get an X2 everytime someone wanted a Pentium/Pentium-D system?

 

[Makaveli]

First of all, u got the wrong person. Second of all i'm above all the children in these forums and your name calling. I buy what fits my budget, and I don't give a flying fuk what logo is on it. I don't have the time to come in here defending products of companies that only want my money.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: lamere

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
IMO there isn't really a reason to upgrade to either FX60 or C2D. If you want dual core now just get a 3800+ and OC it, wait until AM2 is matured and K8L comes around and compare between C2D and K8L.

I'm waiting for K8L, heck until then I plan to use my single core which really is plenty fast and at 2.86GHz cooks a slower X2 at most games (since most don't support dual core). For gaming, upgrading to C2D is pretty much a waste right now because it isn't really going to make that much of a difference. By the time enough games support multithreading K8L will be out and then we can see who wins, AMD or intel. If you do other stuff like video editing then maybe a 939 X2 would be a good idea because it would upgrade without spending too much for the time being.

I see both AM2 and C2D as being too new right now. I don't like fresh buggy stuff usually.

as a side note I hate intel, not for their chips - the C2D does seem fast - but because of their business practices. I plan to stick with AMD, and since most of the stuff I do is more GPU dependent I'm not going to suffer much if any performance loss.

Another QFT. It is a good day.

While conroe is a step up for intel and has made an awesome chip, AMD *always has* come out with a superior chip eventually, and just because conroe exists doesn't mean its the "be all to end all" of CPU's.
This seems to be the mentality of the conroe supporters.
It's just a matter of time before AMD is ahead of the pack, again.

It's been said before...Intel and AMD play leapfrog from time to time.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
According to AMD's own roadmap, you won't see Quad Core chips until atleast 2007. Note I also said a year. C2D chips have been on the market for several months now and you probably won't see AMD quad core chips out until 2Q of 2007. Intel has announced that the upcoming quad-core Kentsfield chip will come out at 2.67ghz around 2Q of next year.

It may not be a full year, but it's not that far off. That's a sizeable lead for Intel. It gives them more than enough pad time to work on quad cores.

What different does it make? You said most people don't want the latest and greatest, so they wouldn't want conroe. I pointed out that FX was their latest and greatest. so now you want to spin the argument that you feel conroe is not a mature platform?

I can show you as many post with people having problems with AMD as conroe. I have a E6600 myself and I've had no problems at all. Most people have their E6300-E6400 overclocked past 3Ghz!

Bottom line, you see post about conroe because everyone is picking them up over AMD right now. If AMD takes over the performance lead...you will see the post swing back in their favor. But for such a small amount of money difference, Conroe is the way to go. If you research what you are doing, you'll know what Ram and Motherboard to buy. The majority of post are because of RAM compatability problems. That's changing with new BIOS revisions.

Along with that there's thousands of people buying Conroe motherboards and CPUs who don't try to overclock and everything works out of the box fine. The "issues" you read about comes from running out of spec and people not understanding the settings. AMD chipsets have the exact same flaws (if you can even call it flaws).

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: *kjm

Originally posted by: Boyo
There was a point when I was waiting to get the FX60, but with all the new changes in hardware I feel that it is pointless. It's still way over priced and I overclocked my 4400+, and I know that I can still get at least 2.7 out of it, so it's not worth the upgrade to me. When I make my next upgrade it will be from leaving the 939 and moving up. AMD Quad cores aren't that far away either. Not that I'm going to run out and buy one right away, but with things changing so fast, I don't see the point in upgrading my 939 to an FX60 from a 4400+.

I'm ready to jump on a new setup but I'm going to wait this one out. I think your right in thinking there will be a lot of people wishing they would have waited for the Quads... It's almost looking like the 6month upgrades have went from video to cpu's

There's almost no real world usage for quad core for a home user or gamer.

 

[fire400]

did I hear conroe...

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: Blain
Around this forum, the FX-60 might as well be a 386. That's all the attention it's going to get, now that Intel has used their Conroe to blast a hole in AMD.

Then AMD repairs and blasts a hole in intel. Then Intel repairs and blasts a hole in AMD. Repeat x1000000.........
Always is going to happen, it isn't going to stop. No surprise there, one is always going to one-up the other and repeat.

It will only happen enough times for Intel to finally crush AMD in a blinding flash of light...
then glowing vapor.
Long live, Truth, Justice and the American Way!

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: *kjm

Originally posted by: Boyo
There was a point when I was waiting to get the FX60, but with all the new changes in hardware I feel that it is pointless. It's still way over priced and I overclocked my 4400+, and I know that I can still get at least 2.7 out of it, so it's not worth the upgrade to me. When I make my next upgrade it will be from leaving the 939 and moving up. AMD Quad cores aren't that far away either. Not that I'm going to run out and buy one right away, but with things changing so fast, I don't see the point in upgrading my 939 to an FX60 from a 4400+.

I'm ready to jump on a new setup but I'm going to wait this one out. I think your right in thinking there will be a lot of people wishing they would have waited for the Quads... It's almost looking like the 6month upgrades have went from video to cpu's

There's almost no real world usage for quad core for a home user or gamer.

meh, as we get into vista and fancy o/s graphics and pc's filled with widgets and lots of multitasking it'll eventually become useful. people are still trained on single core usage all these years.