Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and Athlon 64 FX-60 Review

**Hardware Secrets Team** · 05-10-2006, 02:23 PM

There has been a new article posted.

Title: Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and Athlon 64 FX-60 Review
URL: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/323

Here is a snippet:
"Dual-core technology is finally a reality and the tendency is that all mainstream CPUs to become dual-core in a near future. But will average users really benefit from it? In this review we’ve got two..."

Comments on this article are welcome.

Best regards,
Hardware Secrets Team
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com

cyclone3d · 05-11-2006, 04:49 PM

While the FX-60 was overclock tested, neither the 4600+ X2 nor the 3800+ was overclock tested.

Also, why do I keep seeing reviews with the X2 that only has 512kb L2 cache per core?

The 4400+ X2 and the 4800+ X2 both have 1Mb L2 cache per core.

I bet if you got a 4400+ X2 or a 4800+ X2 and upped it to 2.6Ghz, it would bench the same exact as an FX-60.... and there is about a 400-500 difference between the 4800+ and the FX-60. Why pay 400-500 more for almost the same exact product. Hmmmm... (4800+ X2)$632 vs (FX-60)$1012... I wonder which processor I would be inclined to buy.

Who cares if you have an unlocked clock.... If you have good enough RAM, you will end up having to lower the clock(which isn't locked on any of the Athlon 64 socket 939 processors). Bus speed increases throughput a lot more than just upping the multiplier on the processor.

You wouldn't even have to up the voltage to make a 4800+ as fast as a FX-60... and if you have good RAM, you could just up the bus speed, and make it faster than a FX-60. Even the 4400+ X2 would be able to beat a FX-60 pretty easily.

Right now my 3700+ (1Mb L2 cache) is clocked faster than a FX-55... it benches faster than a FX-55, it IS faster than a FX-55. If I had better RAM, I could up the speed even more and beat a FX-57.

**Gabriel Torres** · 05-12-2006, 06:36 AM

Hi there,

These CPUs we've got from AMD. Other websites have probably got the same CPUs we did from AMD. We didn't buy them. That's why I think everybody is publishing reviews with these CPUs.

BTW, I agree with you. Like I wrote under "Conclusions", I think FX-60 is too expensive for such performance gain.

Cheers,
Gabriel.

cyclone3d · 05-13-2006, 12:24 PM

Well, I think soembody should bench the 1Mb L2 X2s against the FX-60... I want to see a bench that shows that AMD is charging way more for the same performance.

Don't get me wrong, I love AMD products. I just don't think it is right to take advantage of people. They make is seem like the FX-60 is way better than the X2s when that isn't the case.

I would also like to see a bench of the single core 1Mb L2 cache Athlon 64 against a FX-55 or FX-57. Of course they need to be running at the same clock speed...

**Gabriel Torres** · 05-14-2006, 08:44 AM

I think you are right. We'll keep you idea in mind!

Cheers,
Gabriel.

05-10-2006, 02:23 PM	#1
Hardware Secrets Team Administrator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,952	Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and Athlon 64 FX-60 Review There has been a new article posted. Title: Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and Athlon 64 FX-60 Review URL: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/323 Here is a snippet: "Dual-core technology is finally a reality and the tendency is that all mainstream CPUs to become dual-core in a near future. But will average users really benefit from it? In this review we’ve got two..." Comments on this article are welcome. Best regards, Hardware Secrets Team http://www.hardwaresecrets.com

05-11-2006, 04:49 PM	#2
cyclone3d Junior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2	Review needs more info! While the FX-60 was overclock tested, neither the 4600+ X2 nor the 3800+ was overclock tested. Also, why do I keep seeing reviews with the X2 that only has 512kb L2 cache per core? The 4400+ X2 and the 4800+ X2 both have 1Mb L2 cache per core. I bet if you got a 4400+ X2 or a 4800+ X2 and upped it to 2.6Ghz, it would bench the same exact as an FX-60.... and there is about a 400-500 difference between the 4800+ and the FX-60. Why pay 400-500 more for almost the same exact product. Hmmmm... (4800+ X2)$632 vs (FX-60)$1012... I wonder which processor I would be inclined to buy. Who cares if you have an unlocked clock.... If you have good enough RAM, you will end up having to lower the clock(which isn't locked on any of the Athlon 64 socket 939 processors). Bus speed increases throughput a lot more than just upping the multiplier on the processor. You wouldn't even have to up the voltage to make a 4800+ as fast as a FX-60... and if you have good RAM, you could just up the bus speed, and make it faster than a FX-60. Even the 4400+ X2 would be able to beat a FX-60 pretty easily. Right now my 3700+ (1Mb L2 cache) is clocked faster than a FX-55... it benches faster than a FX-55, it IS faster than a FX-55. If I had better RAM, I could up the speed even more and beat a FX-57.

05-12-2006, 06:36 AM	#3
Gabriel Torres Administrator Join Date: Oct 2004 USA Posts: 2,553	Hi there, These CPUs we've got from AMD. Other websites have probably got the same CPUs we did from AMD. We didn't buy them. That's why I think everybody is publishing reviews with these CPUs. BTW, I agree with you. Like I wrote under "Conclusions", I think FX-60 is too expensive for such performance gain. Cheers, Gabriel. Last edited by Gabriel Torres; 05-12-2006 at 06:40 AM.

Laptop Deals			Powered by Shopping.com
Acer (LU.S680B.066) PC Notebook From $256	Acer AOD250-1116 (LU.S700B.029) Netbook From $287	Toshiba NB205-N310/BN (PLL20U-00201D) Netbook From $367	Acer Aspire One AOD250-1326 10.1-Inch UltraThin Seashell White Netbook - 3 Cell Battery (LU.S690B.037) From $287	ASUS Eee PC 1005HA-PU1X-BK Netbook From $355

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-13-2006, 12:24 PM	#4
cyclone3d Junior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2	Well, I think soembody should bench the 1Mb L2 X2s against the FX-60... I want to see a bench that shows that AMD is charging way more for the same performance. Don't get me wrong, I love AMD products. I just don't think it is right to take advantage of people. They make is seem like the FX-60 is way better than the X2s when that isn't the case. I would also like to see a bench of the single core 1Mb L2 cache Athlon 64 against a FX-55 or FX-57. Of course they need to be running at the same clock speed...

05-14-2006, 08:44 AM	#5
Gabriel Torres Administrator Join Date: Oct 2004 USA Posts: 2,553	I think you are right. We'll keep you idea in mind! Cheers, Gabriel.