WHY IS THE AMD FX-60 SO DAMN SLOW?

[pip_seeker]

Why is it slow??? DUH man, cuz it's not INTEL!

Oh really then why can't intel beat it with a "production cpu" right now???

By the time it gets out the gate it won't be nearly as fast as you think it is.

 

[pip_seeker]

The problem with the test is they are comparing a Production cpu to a Non-Production cpu.

Amd chooses to be quiet for a reason... they have the lead. Until Intel gets out the gate nothing has changed other than the PR guys are yacking.

Certainly Amd stock has taken a hit, down graded due to this news. So now it's obvious why intel did it...no?

 

[AmdMELTDOWN]

who has the fx-60, here? $1000??? I thought Amd was the cheap alternative for their hardcore fans, why Amd let you guys down?

 

[AmdMELTDOWN]

The problem with the test is they are comparing a Production cpu to a Non-Production cpu.

Amd chooses to be quiet for a reason... they have the lead. Until Intel gets out the gate nothing has changed other than the PR guys are yacking.

Certainly Amd stock has taken a hit, down graded due to this news. So now it's obvious why intel did it...no?

you know I can understand this if, 7 years ago you were about 8 or 9 years old, so I'll give you a pass.

 

[RichPLS]

Why is it slow??? DUH man, cuz it's not INTEL!

Oh really then why can't Intel beat it with a "production cpu" right now???

By the time it gets out the gate it won't be nearly as fast as you think it is.

Define beat it? I know of no AMD 939 chip or current Intel comparable chip that beats the other one if you mean in every benchmark. If you think that you need to look at the benchmark data again.
Conroe does look promising when/if it arrive in early July as per preliminary results showing it should beat AMD's fastest in every benchmark area, with moderately low power consumption too.

 

[doomturkey]

I don't think that these benchmarks should be trustworthy of what is to come between the performance of conroe/FX-60. It's around what like 6 months till conroe is actually released? And besides, weren't these the same benchmarks put on by intel that were posted on anand? What I'm trying to say here is don't make any conclusions about conroe until actual retail samples are obtainable by everyone and someone like THG can benchmark for themselves. I wouldn't trust benchmarks that intel did themselves, they will do anything to gain back what they lost from AMD including releasing of false benchmarks. I'm not trying to say that these benchmarks were rigged or anything, just that it's hard to trust someone like intel doing this way before their product even has come out.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[Defcon0]

The never ending nerd wars continue. Pathetic. The AMD Fx-60 is currently the fastest processor on the market. It can process more millions of instructions per second than any other processor blah blah. Bottom line is it's better than anything Intel has out now. Conroe is a magic 65 nm processor as opposed to the 90 nm Fx-60. So I expect it should be able to acheieve higher clock speed than the prescott if in the right hands. final word, AMD is currently leading and Intel has yet to come close. So to put it in non-nerd format. What processor would I buy if they were both available and blah? the Fx-60 or it's new 65 nm incarnation the Fx-62. IMO whenever that comes out.

So...the Fx-60 can best any other processor under 4.3 Ghz running at 3 ghz. so anyone saying the fx-60 is slow needs to quit smoking dope or coloring the facts. whichever.
yes nerdies, thats right...amd amd amd. get over it.

 

[jokersgrin]

Mike 995 said: Intel is not used to loosing in anyway they were always on the top of the performance charts, except for amds 3 prosperous years, they came out swinging with great force, when in downfall the fallen challenger learns

Fact #1: Intel hasn't released the proc yet to independent non-biased tester's for unbiased results!

Mike 995 said: You honestly think they tainted with the computers/benchmarks ?

Fact #2: Intel has a lawsuit against them for foul business deal's. Plus the " benchmarketing" in the past that was all hype!..etc...All to decive the public and lie about their product! And look if you trust them ..fine its your world sir!..I don't, same for AMD, I look toward independent testing, not just 1, but several, for facts!

Mike 995 said: But as far as being loyal to one company, youd have to be crazy, I buy the processor with the best performance/price no matter which company it came from.

My Fact #3: Glad to see that you have common sense... All they want is your money..period :!:

Mike 995 said: I do however find it hard to beleive that people refuse to believe that a much larger company with more engineers working on their projects with alot more funding for these products would have a faster processor.

My Fact #4: I hope they do have a good proc! I see the fire is finialy lit under Intel's butt. Hopefuly they will go the honest route and over time earn some face back..because right now its just "fugly"

Mike 995 said: when in downfall the fallen challenger learns.

Common sence Fact #1: I hope that they do learn something from this,if not where at a stand still in this technolgy. Also because this means a buyers market for us...everytbody will benifit ( Intel trolls and AMDroids alike ).. :mrgreen: .. :tongue:

If anything I wish that the debate over the Conroe would stop until its in other than the companines hands! Trust is earned..not given..unless that person is an idiot!

 

[TabrisDarkPeace]

They know most of the settings and game versions used in the AMD tests. So if you don't believe the results, then set up your own AMD machine and duplicate them from the AMD side. I really don't understand why someone hasn't done that already, since so many people do not believe the results. I would have thought, within a day of these results from IDF, it would have happened.

And if your Fx-60 is so slow, then send it my way. I will take that SLOW processor off your hands, so you it wont be bothering you so much.

This has already been done like 10+ times.

http://www.google.com
http://www.alltheweb.com

Seek and yé shall find.

 

[qurious69ss]

Data?????????????????????? Fanboys only look at data when it's in their best interest. Come on, you have to jest.

 

[endyen]

Here's a strange bit of data for you. No reputable site has done a review of crossfired x1900XTs. I find that interesting/strange.
I guess that means they aren't worth the bother.
Wonder why then Intel used them.

 

[Action_Man]

LOL try harder!

Xbit Labs.
Beyond3d.

The two best sites have done it!

 

[endyen]

Sorry, I thought that the requirement of a dual core chip was obvious.
Why are they benching dual graphics cards with single core chips?

 

[Action_Man]

Not really since I don't think I've ever seen a review site use a dual core cpu for a graphics card test.

Because that's all they have? And they're not cpu limited?

 

[qurious69ss]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......... very good jumpinjackson.....that is the way of the fanboy.......always bias and will always use talking points.

 

[Rustol3um]

Yet another never ending nerd war. Well, if FX-60 is slow then get a better one.

I agree you but .....DOH!!!......there is nothing faster right now.....as Conroe is just a paper launch........AmdMeltDown, you ignorant A$$ But I know why you post this crap....all you are really interested in doing is pushing people's buttons.....so i give you a.... :roll: :roll:

 

[endyen]

Does that mean somebody doesn't know the impact that dual cores had, in the Conroe benches?

 

[Action_Man]

Somebody as in? You could check out the yonah reviews I guess or the X2 reviews. *confused*

 

[pip_seeker]

Why is it slow??? DUH man, cuz it's not INTEL!

Oh really then why can't intel beat it with a "production cpu" right now???

By the time it gets out the gate it won't be nearly as fast as you think it is.

You are a funny guy or gal (flame alert, I am not flaming you )...but what I do want to ask is, what data do you have to support your claim?

Ok that's easy the latest Intel comparison between Conroe and Amd FX proc.

If that wasn't the fastest why would Intel use it to compare against???

So it's easy to see even Intel knows it's faster than anything they got. Otherwise they would have compared Conroe against an Intel chip.

 

[pip_seeker]

The problem with the test is they are comparing a Production cpu to a Non-Production cpu.

Amd chooses to be quiet for a reason... they have the lead. Until Intel gets out the gate nothing has changed other than the PR guys are yacking.

Certainly Amd stock has taken a hit, down graded due to this news. So now it's obvious why intel did it...no?

you know I can understand this if, 7 years ago you were about 8 or 9 years old, so I'll give you a pass.

yeah and a statement like that only admits to the stunning truth of my post. The truth can not be challenged. mmmwhahahahaha :twisted:

 

[pip_seeker]

Why is it slow??? DUH man, cuz it's not INTEL!

Oh really then why can't Intel beat it with a "production cpu" right now???

By the time it gets out the gate it won't be nearly as fast as you think it is.

Define beat it?

Intel for the first time ever used Amd CPU in a comparison test.

~TaDa------ beat it...defined!

ahahahahahaha :lol:

 

[kcmac]

Why is it slow??? DUH man, cuz it's not INTEL!

Oh really then why can't intel beat it with a "production cpu" right now???

By the time it gets out the gate it won't be nearly as fast as you think it is.

You are a funny guy or gal (flame alert, I am not flaming you )...but what I do want to ask is, what data do you have to support your claim?

Ok that's easy the latest Intel comparison between Conroe and Amd FX proc.

If that wasn't the fastest why would Intel use it to compare against???

So it's easy to see even Intel knows it's faster than anything they got. Otherwise they would have compared Conroe against an Intel chip.

You make a good point and something else that I haven't seen commented on yet, (Although I admit to only reading about 3 dozen of the hundreds of Conroe vs AMD threads ) Why in the world did Intel overclock the FX-60. I have noticed when I overclocked (read here attempted to overclock) my s754 A64 3400+ I ran into some latency issues with the RAM. If overclocking by such a small amount raised the Latency from 2 to 3 that could cause a signigicant decrease in performance since an overclock of 200MHz on a 2600MHz core will not increase your performance that much. They would have been better to just leave it stock and do the benchmarks with that. Then, if they wanted to try something different, they could have overclocked the FX-60 and redid the benchmarks. Wonder why they didn't do that? We have had various people link to articles and reviews, some of them right here from Tom's, where an FX-57 or a single nVidia card setup did almost as good or better than the FX-60 with x1900xt's crossfired Intel used. Seems a little fishy to me. But, then again, I don't claim to know very much, but I do trust my instincts.

I will definitely reserve judgment until I see what AMD and Intel are offering as retail products.

Just my $.02

 

[johnmar33]

i agree with kcmac, there might be some issues if you overclock a proc.

they say the reason intel overclocked the fx-60 is to simulate amd's future processors. but at least, they figure out first what is the best settings for the fx-60. then compare it to their conroe.. or just like kcmac says, benchmark the amd system twice: stock and OC setup.

i dont care whoever wins the benchmark, but at least figure out a way about how a system will perform to its peak level and to prevent bad speculations

 

[gpfear]

If it is so slow please send it to me, I will be happy to take it off your hands. I will even pay the shipping.

 

[Maxiius]

i agree with kcmac, there might be some issues if you overclock a proc.

they say the reason intel overclocked the fx-60 is to simulate amd's future processors. but at least, they figure out first what is the best settings for the fx-60. then compare it to their conroe.. or just like kcmac says, benchmark the amd system twice: stock and OC setup.

i dont care whoever wins the benchmark, but at least figure out a way about how a system will perform to its peak level and to prevent bad speculations

If they figured out the best settings, why not atleast update the MB bios to read the chip right :roll: Even if updating the bios has nothing to do w/ performance, still why not update it if at all possible?

Guess we'll have to wait till release to find out the real stats on the Conslow.