AMD ships dual-core gaming CPU

By Derek Sooman on January 10, 2006, 7:08 PM
Not long after the release of Intel's Pentium Extreme Edition 955, AMD has begun shipping its first dual-core Athlon 64 FX gaming processor. Clocked at 2.6GHz, the FX-60 is fabricated at 90nm and uses AMD's Socket 939 pin-out. It supports 400MHz DDR SDRAM in dual-channel configuration, and has 233m transistors.

Having to date maintained that dual-core CPUs brought no special benefit to gamers, AMD said it now believes there are sufficient multi-threaded titles coming to warrant the upgrade. It also pointed to better dual-core support in key driver software, such as that supporting the latest graphics cards.

User Comments: 22

Got something to say? Post a comment
PanicX said:
Eeek.. I squeeked with anticipation. After reading the [url=
]Yonah review at Anandtech[/url] I was seriously impressed with Intels new dual core processors. Which is a change because I thought their Pentium D line was rather pathetic in the performance area. While I'm still going to get a laptop with a Yonah processor, I'm hoping that AMD will give it a run for the money in a desktop application.
nathanskywalker said:
There's a little intel vs. pentium for you. Wow, while dual core would be nice, jus plain costs to much right now, though it would be nice in that it would take a load off the cpu while playing music. Music always seems to be a major drain on a computer for some reason.
asphix said:
yeah, that was my initial thoughts as well. What will this sucker cost me?? It does sound exciting though and I'm sure its cheaper than Intels comparable offering.nathanskywalker, if you are using on-board audio you will see a performance hit, but if you have a soundcard that will usually aleviate the majority of the processing load for audio off the CPU. My guess is you are using onboard sound.
iluvnug said:
This is another plus for AMD. I, personally, love my dove my dual core Athlon X2. Multi-tasking has never been so easy. I am sure I won't ever own one of these new cpu's though considering the price range of the current FX processors. Still I can always dream. ;)
mtyson8 said:
Its a plus, but to tell you the truth I think most of a game performance comes from a GPU, not necessarily a CPU. Although it helps.
Race said:
I've found that some gaming titles are definitely more CPU intensive than others.With top-of-the-line processors, the cost, in my opinion, is definitely not worth the few extra FPS's (see link below), but the initial benchmarks on the FX-60 look impressive from what I've seen. This one also has the option for overclocking the processor with the device's free 'multiplier selection capability'.As mentioned, with upcoming games taking advantage of it......sweet! (but that will only have me wishing for a new system)[url]
PUTALE said:
the review is all over the web. It's a great cpu. man, how I wish to have that little baby in my system:)>
exscind said:
The FX-60 is retailed to be a tad over $1,000, as have all the previous FX series when it first came out. Dual core really makes everyday multitasking so much easier; and while the FX-60 may seem good right now, it is advisable to not jump on the bandwagon (sites like Anandtech seem to say this too). The reason is that FX-60 will be the last Socket 939 CPU produced by AMD. Any other new product will be on Socket 940, which will feature DDR2. So really, unless money is not an issue, it is probably better to wait for Socket 940.And as for gaming, I don't think the single-threaded statement will hold any truth in perhaps as early as 6 months from now. Games like Quake 4 and Call of Duty 2 (although COD2's SMP have been known to lack) are already utilizing dual core technology. And many review sites have validated the increase in performance - mainly in FPS - of dual core over single core. For certain dual core systems, it is very possible for FPS in Quake 4 to jump by 40 points, which is nothing less than pure astonishment. And therefore, even a "lowly" AMD X2 3800 contains the potential to (and in many instances, have) beat even the mighty FX-57 in gaming performance.[Edited by exscind on 2006-01-11 02:29:32]
exscind said:
Edit: Double posted for some reason... I blame my slow connection.
zachig said:
AMD this it again. WOW!!! The first Dual-Cored FX CPU!!!It is probably the fastest Socket 939 CPU that can be bought nowadays. Too bad it will cost a fortune!!! And the benefits from having it are not that high compared to the price you pay for it. I think it is still budget wise to buy a X2 4400 or X2 4800 Dual-Core CPUs, which cost a lot less but give you almost the same performance.Anyway, still great news from AMD!!!
Masque said:
Well, I'm going to start saving my pennies now and maybe in a year or so, I'll have enough for a rock-hard system of dual-core AMD, dual graphics (in SLI mode, of course) and a couple gig of fast ram. Time to Ebay some stuff again. :)
Kaleid said:
Pentium Extreme Edition 955 versus Athlon 64 FX-60Deathmatch at $1K:[url]
xe/index.x?pg=1[/url]Both way too expensive for me.
barfarf said:
You get can a AMD cpu for a 1/3 of the cost and same speed. THe new Opteron 165 has 1mb L2 cache like the FX (X2 only have 512Kb) and its clocked at 1.8Gmz. Many users in the anandtech forums say they can over clock to 2.6-2.7Ghz on a stock fan. I am hoping to win the contest to get me one.
Cartz said:
Wow, I must say I'm very impressed with AMD's performance over the last few years. They have consistently bested Intel in the high end performance market for longer then I can remember.Someday I will own this chip, but not today. It seems like the premium for performance computing hardware is increasing every day. You could buy 2 cheap dell desktop computers for the price of this single processor. Still the performance of this chip could probably outperform both of those dell machines put together. And yet, so few major manufacturers pick up AMD hardware when building their systems. It's sad really, their product is worthy of being an option to every potential computer purchaser, but as is, you pretty much need to ask for it.
MonkeyMan said:
This is great, this is just one of many AMD processor's that are going to be made this year. As processor's and computers gain more and more speed, it won't be long, until programs on your PC load up instantaneously. I'm guessing that a 6 or 7 gig processor could perform these actions flawlessly, but for now, this is still a fast processor, great job AMD!!!!!!!!!!!
Mictlantecuhtli said:
[b]Originally posted by nathanskywalker:[/b][quote]Wow, while dual core would be nice, jus plain costs to much right now, though it would be nice in that it would take a load off the cpu while playing music. Music always seems to be a major drain on a computer for some reason.[/quote]What kind of music do you listen to? I've never seen CPU usage go above a few percent with my 2.4 GHz A64.
fury said:
All this talk of the Intel 65nm process giving AMD a run for their money neglects to mention that the 65nm processor is giving AMD's 90nm processor a run for its money (in terms of power usage, performance, etc). There is no doubt in my mind that AMD will once again raise the bar when they switch to 65nm - even lower power usage, higher clock speeds, and all that good stuff.It's good to see AMD finally gaining market share against impossible odds.
Didou said:
[b]Originally posted by barfarf:[/b][quote]THe new Opteron 165 has 1mb L2 cache like the FX (X2 only have 512Kb).[/quote]X2 -> 3800+, 4200+ & 4600+ have 512KB of L2 cache.X2 -> 4400+ & 4800+ have 1024KB of L2 cache.
DragonMaster said:
X2's not a gaming dual-core CPU?
dr_roman said:
As a strictly AMD user for the past 7 years (give or take a year), I am proud to see that AMD are finally the benchmark for todays power pc's. Intel's reign of terror has finally ended. P4 alone, has had what, 3 or 4 sockets this far & it's prices were always way to steep. AMD's 32bit platform had only one socket in the last generation. You could go from a 600MHz cpu to a 3200MHZ cpu on the same motherboard. The cpu's were better & cheaper, but had a slight dissadvantage compared to P4 in the heat dissepitation area. All of this is over now. The venice core & all the X2 cores are faster, better, use less power & produce less heat. The king is dead. Long live the king.
Mictlantecuhtli said:
[b]Originally posted by DragonMaster:[/b][quote]X2's not a gaming dual-core CPU?[/quote]Apparently a gaming CPU is one with multipliers unlocked.
mentaljedi said:
Duel-core is the way to go and is definatly kicking ass these days. Well done AMD.
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.