1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

    Dismiss Notice

FX60 worth it?

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by Cyanide, 2 May 2006.

  1. Cyanide

    Mobster

    Joined: 5 Mar 2006

    Posts: 3,971

    Location: Nottingham

    Is the FX60 worth the price tag if I can manage to afford one? I know they have the unlocked multiplier and 1Mb cache on each core and a really high stock clock (for a dual core)... but how high do they clock? I've also heard a lot of the new ones are cold buged... so does this mean the lack of a phase option means I'd be better off sticking with what I've got?
     
  2. Mikey1280

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 1 Jan 2006

    Posts: 1,526

    Location: South East London

    Unless you have large amounts of cash to throw around then personally I wouldnt bother. Spend the money on a new monitor or speakers or something else that takes your fancy.
     
  3. TaKeN

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Aug 2005

    Posts: 13,149

    Location: Shropshire

    Keep what you have buddy :)

    Dont waste your money...

    Buying Something With FX at the start of it , is purely for bragging rights imo..
     
  4. JoyPadJedi

    Gangster

    Joined: 8 Jan 2006

    Posts: 341

    Location: Leicestershire

    You should be able to get an X2 4400 for around £300 and just OC it to FX60 specs on stock cooling, though results vary.
     
  5. TaKeN

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Aug 2005

    Posts: 13,149

    Location: Shropshire

    His current cpu is 2.8 per core.

    So wouldnt an FX 60 be slower lol :p
     
  6. Mul

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 26 Aug 2004

    Posts: 1,842

    probably about the same if the extra L2 cache counts for the missing 200mhz

    Mul
     
  7. JoyPadJedi

    Gangster

    Joined: 8 Jan 2006

    Posts: 341

    Location: Leicestershire

    That'll learn me to skim posts :D
     
  8. turbotoaster

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 29 Dec 2005

    Posts: 1,194

    dont bother, its not worth it
     
  9. Cyanide

    Mobster

    Joined: 5 Mar 2006

    Posts: 3,971

    Location: Nottingham

    But that's with the FX60 at stock... which I can assure you it wouldn't be! :D
     
  10. Delvis

    Caporegime

    Joined: 7 Nov 2004

    Posts: 28,612

    Location: Buckinghamshire

    The FX range are almost pointless...unless you 100% against overclocking in all fairness...and if you have the money of course :p

    I just want my X2 4400!!! Or something equivalent :p
     
  11. Dutch Guy

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 24,563

    Location: Amsterdam,The Netherlands

    IMO there is little point and they are not worth it, if I was a millionaire then yes.

    They advantages are that they are prolly handpicked or from the best clocking batches and have a unlocked multiplier.

    It's the best of the best and as always you have to pay for that.

    I also think that if you can afford a FX60 you need to overclock it with a Vapo to get the most out of it.
     
  12. Agent WD40

    Hitman

    Joined: 2 Jul 2005

    Posts: 710

    IMO I really don't think they are worth it, but by the sounds of things Cyanide is going to get it anyway.

    They really don't clock that much better than a good stepping 170 or X2 4400+.

    Speak to Ted34, Turbotoaster, Jockster, jemz - they will all say that it wasn't worth the cash.

    Admittedly Jemz put about 240v through his and jacked it upto 3.5ghz or so, but that was on phase and he ran into some issues.

    But in all honesty, they really aren't worth the cash if you after OCing goodness.

    Grab an opty 170 or X2 4400+ and hope for the best.

    Agent.
     
  13. turbotoaster

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 29 Dec 2005

    Posts: 1,194

    all i can say is ive seen alot of 170 clock higher with less volts, people assume that the fx60 is handpicked core, but i dont believe they are, thy are just dual cores that will run 2.6ghz at 1.350v because they know most people who buy them will get them in a sysytem and not overclock them, they just want the best, e.g 2.8ghz needs 1.392, then it does not scale well at all, they run hotter than opterons and need more juice, which in turn limits there clocking potental the only reason you should ever look at a fx60 is if your going on phase because you can use a higher multi to get over the coldbug, but remember alot of fx60 are coldbugged as well, e.g CCB2E chips
     
  14. Cyanide

    Mobster

    Joined: 5 Mar 2006

    Posts: 3,971

    Location: Nottingham

    The thing is it's not my money I'll be spending, and it needs to be spent so a top processor and phase is on the table, I was just debating if I should go all the way with the FX or get a top Opty (which I know to be highly clockable, I just didn't know if they were as good as the FX) :D
     
  15. ted34

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 5 Jul 2005

    Posts: 1,738

    Location: Edinburgh

    If you can get a 0550 170 then id go for that over a fx60. The 0550 are almost 99%certain to get 2.8 and most hit 3ghz no probs. At the moment the fx60's seem to top out at 2.9 or run at 3ghz with high volts (170's seem to crash at high temps). Mine will run at 2.9ghz with 1.392v but for 2.95v it needed 1.456v. I want my comp to be quiet and to get 3ghz i would need higher cfm fans and so more noise. Im happy with my fx60 but i did get it free but theres no way id spend £700 on one. 170's nearly all hit 2.6ghz and better ones 2.8ghz. If you dont have to pay for it then get the fx60 - auction it to some muppet and with the money get your good stepping 170 and a lot of beers
     
  16. joeyjojo

    Soldato

    Joined: 2 Dec 2005

    Posts: 5,519

    Location: Herts

    What the hell?! Howd you manage that? :eek: :p
     
  17. Cyanide

    Mobster

    Joined: 5 Mar 2006

    Posts: 3,971

    Location: Nottingham

    Mine practically will be too, that's why I was asking if they clock well :D
     
  18. Nelly

    Soldato

    Joined: 19 Dec 2003

    Posts: 6,985

    Location: Grimsby, UK

    I dont understand why you need something that fast, your spec shows you having a 4200 running at 2.8ghz! :eek: You cant tell me that isnt fast enough to run any game or application! Not a criticism to you but I dont see why people need such fast speeds right now! i.e buying an FX-60 which doesnt seem like an upgrade to what you have!
     
  19. Cyanide

    Mobster

    Joined: 5 Mar 2006

    Posts: 3,971

    Location: Nottingham

    If I get an FX for free then my parents can have to 4200+ to replace their old (and I mean old!) XP2000+ and I might be able to help the CPU bottleneck that my SLI cards are causing :p

    Plus if it's on Phase it should clock quite well (if I manage to avoid the cold bug!) and it has the extra cache (supposed to be worth around 200mhz) so I'd be going up another 5-600mhz at least

    Not saying I'll do it... I might use the money for more storage, save it for DX10 cards etc... but it was just a thought :D
     
    Last edited: 3 May 2006
  20. Nelly

    Soldato

    Joined: 19 Dec 2003

    Posts: 6,985

    Location: Grimsby, UK

    Heh sorry m8 not moaning, but hell I would of thought 2.8ghz on what you have would own! any application/game any home user would run? Maybe I'm wrong but Ive been contemplating going for the FX-60 myself in the past infact you can get them from the states for £200 cheaper if you look carefully. ;)