Entered CNET Catalog: 12/16/2005
SKU: ADAFX60CDBOX
Manufacturer: AMD (Advanced Micro Devices)
Manufacturer description
The AMD Athlon 64 FX processor features innovative technology to provide extraordinary performance and a computing experience without parallel. The AMD Athlon 64 FX processor runs on AMD64, a revolutionary technology that allows the processor to run 32-bit applications at full speed while enabling the coming wave of powerful, 64-bit software applications. AMD64 technology shatters barriers to new and advanced software that requires 64-bit technology and blazing processor performance. Power-hungry enthusiasts, gamers, and prosumers can explore the full potential of AMD64 technology while enjoying outstanding performance on today's PC software. The next generation of games and digital content creation applications will demand unprecedented performance to provide an extraordinary level of realism and awesome 3D graphics. Systems based on the AMD Athlon 64 FX processor are able to deliver leading-edge performance for the most demanding entertainment and content creation software today and in the future. With AMD64, life-like games with cinema-quality graphics and pro-level video editing are within PC users' reach. Advanced 64-bit operating systems for the AMD64 platform from Microsoft, Red Hat, SuSE, and TurboLinux have already been announced, and they only run on processors with AMD64 technology.CNET editors' review
- Editors' Choice: No
- Reviewed on: 01/09/2006
Hot on the heels of Intel's second-generation dual-core Extreme Edition 955 chip comes AMD's Athlon 64 FX-60. More than just a speed bump to AMD's ultra-high-end FX line, the Athlon 64 FX-60 features two processing cores, bringing the FX series into the modern multicore era. Expect to see the chip available for $1,031.
Upside: Now that AMD's highest-end processor is dual core, we can paint a more straightforward desktop CPU picture. It was previously hard to explain that the Athlon 64 FX-57 was only a single-core CPU yet cost $200 more than AMD's top-of-the-line dual-core Athlon 64 X2 4800+. Now gamers and enthusiasts that invest in an ultra-high-end FX-60 chip can take advantage of all the forthcoming games and applications due to incorporate multicore optimizations. But the FX-60 is not merely an insurance policy for the future; our early tests show the FX-60 is lightning-fast on today's apps, as well.
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
 |
BAPCo SysMark 2004 rating | |
BAPCo SysMark 2004 Internet-content-creation rating | |
BAPCo SysMark 2004 office-productivity rating |
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
|
Half-Life 2 1,024x768, no AA no AF |
On our current suite of single-core and multithreaded benchmarks, the Athlon 64 FX-60 beats all other desktop chips on almost every test, including Intel's new Pentium Processor Extreme Edition 955 introduced at the end of December (the lone exception is a statistical tie with the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ on Half-Life 2). Of particular note are our DivX 6.1 tests. The recent update to that application saw the introduction of multithreaded code. While Intel's Extreme Edition 955 chip did well on the straight video encoding, it couldn't compete with the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ on multitasking. The Athlon 64 FX-60 not only beat Intel's chip by a larger margin on the multitasking, it also trumped the Extreme Edition 955 on the encode portion. We're curious to see how both of the new chips will perform on upcoming multithreaded games designed to take advantage of dual-core CPUs processing threads, but the early results favor AMD as strongly now as they did a few months back in our dual-core CPU prizefight.
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
|
Sorenson Squeeze 4 | |
Apple iTunes 4.7.1.30 | |
Adobe Photoshop CS |
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
|
Multitasking--McAfee VirusScan and DivX 6.1 encoding | |
DivX 6.1 encoding |
Downside: As is often the case with new hardware introductions, the FX-60 is not immune to quirks. We received a number of FX-60 PCs in the weeks leading up to the end of the press embargo. All of them were overclocked, some more aggressively than others, but they all had trouble getting through our tests. Some vendors claim the troubles have to do with Nvidia's graphics drivers, others point to conflicts with Windows. We have faith things will sort themselves out eventually, but since the Athlon 64 FX-60 is ostensibly a gamer's chip, those problems will likely give pause to the early adopting gamers most likely to purchase it at launch.
Outlook: Assuming the Athlon 64 FX-60 will soon learn to play nice in the larger computing ecosystem, our early take is that AMD's desktop performance dominance continues. That said, we're only now starting to see the true proliferation of multithreaded apps that can take advantage of a dual-core CPU. We'll revisit our benchmarks accordingly soon, at which point we can present the full dual-core CPU picture.
AMD test bed:
Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard; Nvidia Nforce-4 SLI chipset; Crucial 1,024MB DDR SDRAM 400MHz; 256MB Nvidia GeForce 7800GTX (PCIe); WDC WD740GD-00FLA2 74GB 10,000rpm SATA; Windows XP Professional SP2; Antec 550w power supply
Intel test bed:
Intel 975X Express chipset motherboard; Intel 975X Express chipset; Crucial 1,024MB DDR2 SDRAM 667MHz; 256MB Nvidia GeForce 7800GTX (PCIe); WDC WD740GD-00FLA2 74GB 10,000rpm SATA; Windows XP Professional SP2; Antec 550w power supply
User opinions
Select a User Opinion to view: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User Rating: 
10/10
This chip kills intel
Pros: No need to overclock, Dual Core = Lots of opportunities
Cons: Quite expensive (what isn't?)
User Rating: 
8/10
Simply better then any Intel right now.
Pros: Performance, Low Noise, Zero-Troubles
Cons: Price, Might need Reg. tweak for 3D Gaming
These new AMD CPUs are better then anything else right now, take this from someone that has installed 100s of Intel based PCs... $ for $ this AMD CPU delivers, but yes the price seems high at first and could be better.
Last word on stability... the Athlon 64 FX-60s I have been installing immediately turned out to be faster, more stable and less noisy then all the Intel PCs I work on.
Note that you need to tweak the Reg. for OpenGL and DirectX to avoid some snags according to Nvidia (read online stuff on their website.)
If you need a fast new PC right now, be it for whatever (CAD, Games, Server) the FX-60 is a great pick.
Now when Intel will have something, less noisy, faster and better priced... well then I will re-evaluate and buy what's best then!
User Rating: 
4/10
Powerful but expensive
Pros: Best gaming CPU, faster then comparive intels.
Cons: Overpriced, cannot run other applications well.
Also unless you can afford amazing EXTEMELY low latancy RAM then you will be wasting your money.
User Rating: 
5/10
If its unstable, whats the point?
Pros: You can beat Intel if you overclock it?
Cons: Overpriced, unstable and none are made in the USA.
Then there is the little issue of where the chips are made.
AMD used to make CPU's in Austin, Texas; but they sent their jobs to Germany. NOT A SINGLE MICROPROCESSOR FROM AMD IS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES. Intel has fabs in AZ, NM, CA, CO, MA and OR that make CPU's, flash, network chips, etc. Intel signed a joint venture with Micron and will soon be making flash memory chips in Idaho.
Fast, stable and made in the USA; Intel is the smart choice.
User Rating: 
9/10
Intel give me more
Pros: SPEED AND POWER TO KILL INTEL
Cons: Initial quirks
User Rating: 8/10
Why AMD is better than intel
Pros: two cores, 2MB of caché (1MB for each core), 2,6Ghz each core.
Cons: Price not up to what AMD lovers are used to.
Why I say AMD is better than intel?
Last real good thing Intel invented was hyper threading. Was Prescott a good invention? yea, for some who wanted their computer to act as a heater in winter I would say yes. have you ever "touched" a 3.6Ghz Prescott processor running? Oh god... I don't recommend anyone going h***.
For those who don't know, Hyper threading enables the processor to execute two processes at the same time at the cost of performance hit (let's say in English, the processor divides itself in two but will never be as good as two cores or dual processor). Also you need an operative system compatible with multiprocessor. Well, that's windows 2000, XP, Linux, Windows NT, etc (not windows 3.11/95/98/Me)
What did AMD invented or (innovated) that makes it much better for me? Why AMD is better to me?
1)
AMD loves the customer. The customer demands and AMD gives (or at least tries). Intel gives and customers have to take it. But in this world, techno heads aren't very common, they just buy a grey box that has an Intel inside sticker on it. Who of those cares anyway? Intel boxes run very well after all, for office and even gaming. And with such huge deals that Intel has with Dell and others, price is also normal to good. Despite that, AMD wins in price performance Ratio. And almost every time by a medium to big margin. A cause Intel prices went down was thanks to AMD. Anyone knows that.
2) Hyper transport, an open technology that interconnects two pieces of electronic.
OPEN = anyone can implement it. Open, as in Linux when you say open source, means anyone can see how it works. Remember the first PC? Who invented it? IBM and it was an open technology, anyone sine then could start manufacturing an IBM PC compatible. Thatâ??s the difference between PCs and macs.
If NVIDIA (or ATI) wanted their video cards processor to be connected in between each other they can use hyper transport if they want to. Today, Hyper transport is used for connecting two or more AMD processors together without using a chip in between, connecting AMD processor with Northbridge, or even connecting Southbridge to Northbridge as NVIDIA did with their motherboard chipsets, even those for Intel motherboards. Intel doesn't have any way of interconnecting 2 processors together, that's why an Intel 915 motherboard doesn't work with Intel dual core processor, and made anyone who bought an *BRAND NEW* 915 motherboard to change it. How many years old is the AMD socket A? 5 years? And still doing well... Now, for its technological limit, we have to move from socket A to another one. That reminds me to the first Pentium 4 disaster, the 423 socket that didn't last too long.
3)On Die memory controller. The memory controller resides *inside* the processor core. Each AMD processor controls its own RAM memory. In traditional PCs, the Northbridge controls the RAM memory, and the Northbridge connects that RAM to the processor. AMD multiprocessor is more effective than Intel ones because each processor has its own RAM memory attached. Intel multiprocessor have to rely on the Northbridge. The only bad thing about the on die mem controller thing is that AMD will have to change socket every time the memory technology is changed. Letâ??s say, AMD will release a new socket called M2 in Quarter 2 of 2006. The only difference between M2 and 939 will be that the new socket will support processors for DDR2 memory instead of normal DDR. AMD will surely still sell old socket 939 "as market demands". But if you think that this somehow is like AMD has taken the intel path of making customer change their motherboard every time, I would say that it was a sacrifice made for a life of advantages. Starting by the fact that this technology made the AMD Opteron to surpass Xeon. And don't tell me you didn't know that because we all saw it a few months ago on CNN.
4)64Bit
When AMD announced and released the 64 bit technology, plus the points 2 and 3, Intel spokesman said that AMD wasn't going the right path. Today all pentiums are 64 bit, and I'm not mentioning the "Itanic" disaster. And of course, Intel owners had to change its motherboard if they wanted to have 64bit. Would be too long to describe 64bit benefits but just keep in mind that a 32 bit machine canâ??t assign more than 4gigs of RAM, and servers need more than that. Also, 64 bit calculations could be necessary for high precision tasks as could be 3D design or science applications. A 32 bit machine can do 64 bit calculations in 9 cycles or so, and a 64 bit machine can do the same job in less time, lets say 3 cycles I think.
5)NXBit,
No Execute bit, another of the AMD steps, allows a Nxbit enabled operative system (like windows XP SP2) to use it and somewhat have indirect protection in the PC from worms or programs that would want to run without owners knowledge. Well, not the best thing on earth but its good to know that its there.
6) Cool n Quiet.
AMD Processors Slows down when is not in use, eating less power juice. Actually, any processor will eat less power juice when is not in use, but this time it has a much wider impact with cool n quiet. From 75 watts(full throttle) to 22 watts(idle). Of course you will need a cool and quiet motherboard, and you will have to Install the driver in windows.
Well enough said, go for what you think is the best. I already made my decision.
User Rating: 10/10
Intel=great, try the "Itanic" versions.
Pros: AMD "performs" and "works" better than Intel
Cons: AMD has begun to charge prices approaching Intel
I used Intel Pentium 4's until I began using an entry level AMD. It just "worked better", and so has every AMD system built by me since.
Intel is not a bad processor, but AMD performs better on my desktops.
User Rating: 9/10
AMD rocks intels socks
Pros: Its AMD baby
Cons: its price for now
the fx 60 doesnt strain until pushed as you can see on the website below....when the game is ran low the 60 does not perform but once maxed out it slaughters all.
when it comes to runing programs other than games and encoding music it still performs dam good....almost slaghtering intel in ever aspect.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/01/10/amd_athlon_64_fx-60/1.html
User Rating: 
7/10
good for a while
Pros: Fastest dual core out there
Cons: limited future usage
User Rating: 9/10
Value+Power=AMD
Pros: Dual Core 64bit - 2mb cache
Cons: "Pioneer" of what's to come - Socket 939??
User Rating: 9/10
AMD is better prepared for when Windows Vista comes out..
Pros: AMD's chips are better than Intel
Cons: none that I can think of.
User Rating: 9/10
Why AMD is Better Than INTEL
Pros: Power Consuption, Dual Core not an after thought, Overclocking Potential
Cons: Why didn't they make it 3.0 Ghz?
This is however not the case anymore, as now Intel plays catchup with AMD... funny how the tables have turned.
Intel recently released it's dual core extreme addition chip and briefly held the fastest chip title (about 2 weeks) and no sooner had they done that before AMD reclaimed it again.
Some people may ask, well, why can't Intel just use their 3.8 ghz chip and make that dual core? Well the answer is, Intel does not want to become a heating company so they won't do that. In fact that is why they borrowed most of the Pentium III technology for their mobile chips, they just run cooler. The new Intel chip is no HEAT slouch either. It definately runners about 40% hotter than the AMD chip and uses about 40-60 % more energy to run.
AMD on the other hand is able to release faster chips NOW if Intel ups the competition. In fact they could have easily made the current FX-60 a 2.8 Ghz chip or 3.0 Ghz chip if they had chosen to, but that would have been over kill and they may actually do that AFTER Intel releases a faster product, which won't be anytime soon.
Dell, is also expected to start using AMD chips by fall of this year. They can no longer ignore the more superior AMD chip.
For those who don't know why AMD has begun to make more superior products than Intel... the answer lies in the alliance AMD has with IBM. IBM has the most patents of any company in the US, and they inject this knowledge into AMD chips.
The much anticipated Play Station 3 also will feature IBM/AMD know how and critics already say it is a way better system than the XBOX 360.
It utilises a chip called the cell and is supposed to offer close to supercomputer performance and can easily be used in a mulicore environment.
User Rating: 9/10
INTEL fragged one more time
Pros: The fastest 64 bit x86 chip on earth
Cons: INTEL so far behind,mkaing this chip expensive
http://sharikou.blogspot.com
User Rating: 9/10
We have an Intel Fan Girl
Pros: Well its fast for gaming and everything else
Cons: Price is too high, not that much difference from 4800 x2
User Rating: 9/10
We have an Intel Fan Girl
Pros: Well its fast for gaming and everything else
Cons: Price is too high, not that much difference from 4800 x2
User Rating: 
2/10
AMD vs INTEL
Pros: dual core :)
Cons: amd..... lol
alright first of all........about the "amd vs intel".... the amd "fan girl" is basically saying you have to be rich to own a intel cpu or an apple computer..... rofl... ok go try buying a dual core 4200+ amd and tell me if u can afford it....and about the value.... who has over 80% of the processor market? who has been making processors for like 999999 years? why do the majority of computers have intel processors? 1 anwser.... INTEL........... amd is basically intel..... they basically branched off to make thier own processor and they dont seem to sucessfull.... oh and anwser this! if amd is sooooooooooo good why do they have like 5 % market share? lol??????? if amd was good they would be in evrey computer....... it almost seems like amd hired a million people to just say amd owns intel sucks! as u know intel doesnt bother compeeting with amd because if they did amd would go down in history.....but they reason why that cant happen is that the goverment will penalize intel for unfair business....so in other words amd is surviving by the goverment. amd isnt a big company by the way..... the reason why i dont like amd is the way it processes....it doesnt respond like a intel cpu...... i sit infront of a comp like 3-7 hours a day and i know how it feels using a amd vs intel.... oh btw the amd was a 3700+ so its not a lower end cpu. from what i see in amd's processor numbers..... 3700+ is said to be equivalent to a 3.7ghz... which is COMPLETE BS no amd chip has even beat the 3.0GHz mark..... and no im not saying clock speed is the only feature i look for..... so basically anwser this..... if amd is "sooo good" why isnt it own more than about 5% of the market"..... u cant anwser this, then basically it shows amd isnt the best!
