Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-21-2006, 02:32 PM   #1
BSOD
 
JustinMcG67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,519
Send a message via AIM to JustinMcG67 Send a message via MSN to JustinMcG67 Send a message via Yahoo to JustinMcG67
Default AMD Athelon 64 FX-60 Toledo 2.6 GHz Review

This CPU seems to be the best gaming CPU out on the market right now. With its Dual Cores and 64 bit architecture, along with a clock speed of 2.6 GHz and a 2x 1 MB L2 cache, it seems to be the chip you'll want to buy if you're looking for some insane scores on 3DMark06.

According to Tom's Hardware, the FX-60 will mark the end of Socket 939. Paving the way for the new AM2 Sockets. It's said that the new AM2 Socket will also mark the way for the new FX series of processors, such would be the FX-62. Only time will tell to see how it stacks up against other new processors, such as the new intel Pentium Exteme Edition 955.

The benchmarks that Tom's Hardware posted show some interesting results. The new FX-60, which by the way costs $1,169 dollars.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103608

The benchmarks show some very interesting things against the FX-60's main competetion, the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 processor. Which, in some benchmarks, it does lose to.

But maybe it's competetion is the old FX-55 and FX-57 CPUs. Because from the Quake III Team Arena benchmark, it doesn't beat it's old predocessor. It scores a 255.6, as oppossed to it's older counter parts, the FX-55 and FX-57 CPUs. The FX-55 2.6GHz scores 268.8, and the FX-57 scores a 296.8. Even when the FX-60 is overclocked to 3.0GHz, the Toledo FX-60 loses to the FX-57, which isn't overclocked, and it only scores 284.6.

Along with lossing to it's older FX family CPUs, the Toledo FX-60 @ 2.6 GHz loses to the intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition CPUs. The P4 EE @ 3.40, 3.72, and 3.46, along with the Pentium 4 670, manage to beat it in this benchmark. Which to me is kind of disappointing to see it lose to it's older counter parts, along with the Extreme Edition CPUs, and the regular Pentium 4 670.




When Tom's Hardware tested the FX-60 Toledo in 3DMark05 Graphics Test, it performed much better, only if you consider winning against the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 CPU by a mere 5 points. The FX-60 Toldeo overclocked however, beats everything. Tom's Hardware managed to overclock the Toledo to 2.8 GHz and it beat everythign that it competed against. Scoring a total of 7886 when overclocked, and scoring 7824 when not overclocked. But, even then, the new FX-60 Toldeo still loses to the Athelon 64 X2 4600+ by 11 points, the 4600+ scored 7833, over the FX-60's 7824. The Pentium Extreme Edition 955 without it's Hyper-Threading technology enabled, loses to the FX-60 Toldeo by 5 points, scoring a total of 7819.



Well, from the benchmarks that Tom's Hardware posted, the FX-60 Toledo isn't worth buying in my opinion. It loses on some benchmarks, but fairs well in others. I was expecting a massive improvement with this new FX series CPU. But, like most dreams, they don't come true. However, if you have a $1K spending limit, then by all means grab the new FX-60, or better yet, the new X2 4800+ or an intel Pentium Extreme Edition 955 processor. Either way, you'll definetly be running with the best of them if you own either of those CPUs.

[EDIT] Sorry as I'm not able to post more images, ImageShack.us wasn't letting me upload some photos that I saved from Tom's Hardware. However, here's the official review from tomshardware.com. Enjoy!

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/..._core_assault/
__________________

JustinMcG67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2006, 04:11 PM   #2
88
Fully Optimized
 
88's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,775
Send a message via MSN to 88
Default Re: AMD Athelon 64 FX-60 Toledo 2.6 GHz Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337DuD3
According to Tom's Hardware, the FX-60 will mark the end of Socket 939.
The sad truth of reality.....
__________________

__________________
Killing under the cloak of war is no different than murder

Kein Alkohol ist auch keine Lsung!
88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2006, 04:30 PM   #3
BSOD
 
JustinMcG67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,519
Send a message via AIM to JustinMcG67 Send a message via MSN to JustinMcG67 Send a message via Yahoo to JustinMcG67
Default Re: AMD Athelon 64 FX-60 Toledo 2.6 GHz Review

Sad? The new AM2 socket processors will be 65nm, faster, consume less power, as far as I can tell, the end of Socket 939 and the beginning of Socket AM2, is nothing short of amazing! The new Am2 processors will be awesome. Soon to follow the AM2 processors, Quad-Core processors will be launched. Plus, the new FX-62 CPU will be launched.

Which is also why the FX-60 may not be worth purchasing at the moment. Because the FX-60 could potentially be outdated overnight. As Tom's Hardware stated,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom's Hardware Guide
The Athlon 64 FX-60 not only is the most expensive AMD desktop processor, but its life span will be short. AMD is getting ready to release the new Socket M2 processor platform in the first half of this year. Also, AMD is about to shift from a 90 to 65 nm process, which will result in the output of new, faster processors very soon- whether this happens in sync with the platform change or not remains to be seen. The socket 939 FX-60 could thus become obsolete over night, which should make you think twice before spending $1,000.
So, you may not want to spend $1000 dollars on a CPU that could potentially become outdated very soon. You might as well get the newest CPU out that won't be outdated for some time, the Pentium Extreme Edition 955. It's on par with the FX-60, and quite fast, plus the same price. But, nevertheless, the FX-60 is an amazing processor. But the processor to look for is the FX-62 CPU. Because it's said to be 65nm, as well as Dual-Core. So that's good news.

But, if you're looking to upgrade from an older CPU, to a newer CPU, such as a Dual-Core CPU, then wait for them AM2 Socket to debut. Because as well all know, once somethign new hits the market, it's predocessors become cheaper. So that's good if you're looking to grab an Athelon 64 X2 CPU, as well as maybe an FX series CPU for a bit cheaper then what is listed.

But, the FX-60 is nothing less then meracilous. It's incredibly fast, and performs incredibly well against CPUs that use the new 65nm technology. Noteable the Pentium 955XE, which uses the 65nm technology. It performs much better then it's older 90nm Extreme Edition CPUs, so you can only imagine how much better an Athelon 64 FX series CPU, as well as the Athelon 64 X2 series CPUs will do once they have equipped the new 65nm technology. As well as the upcoming Quad-Core technology.

One thign to also think about is how well the new Opterons will do once in the AM2 Socket. Because a 65nm, Quad-Core Opteron could quite possibly do much better then the X2 series and FX series. This is however just a hunch, but a server processor is meant to process more per clock then a regular or standard CPU is suppossed to. So maybe the next big thing to get is not the FX or X2 series processors, but rather the Opteron series porcessors.

Either way, CPUs as we know it are going to be getting faster, consume much less power, and bring all sorts of new technologies to the table!
JustinMcG67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2006, 07:08 PM   #4
Golden Master
 
ISOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,208
Default Re: AMD Athelon 64 FX-60 Toledo 2.6 GHz Review

Looks like the Athlons dominate the charts regardless. Can't wait for the new Socket to come out. The FX CPU are too highly priced. I don't think I will ever get one of those processors because there always in the thousands of dollars (for a single CPU!!!). That sounds awful. Especially if benchmarks dont show a significant increase.
__________________
*Fact: Microsoft Window's Blue Screen of Death vs Computerforums.org's White Screen of Death. Which is worse?
ISOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2006, 07:30 PM   #5
BSOD
 
JustinMcG67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,519
Send a message via AIM to JustinMcG67 Send a message via MSN to JustinMcG67 Send a message via Yahoo to JustinMcG67
Default Re: AMD Athelon 64 FX-60 Toledo 2.6 GHz Review

Upon further review of this thread. I decided to do another review, on an entirly different CPU. The intel Pentium Extreme Edition 955 Processor.

The intel Pentium D 955XE processor is nothign short of awesome. It brings a lot of new technologies to the table. Such as: 65nm dies, a new "double-core," technology, that essentially combines two regular cores onto the same processing package, it also uses the highest L2 cache ever seen in an intel chip, 2x 2MB! It also boasts a new FSB, 1066MHz to be exact, and, the FSB is now, "quad-pumped." The new Pentium D is dubbed the, "Presler." It is without a doubt a very nice CPU, one worthy of definetly owning. (owning as in you own a computer, not own as in I owned you.)

The new 65nm technology is really nice to have, it gives intel a new advantage over AMD and it's now aging 90nm technology. Along with its huge L2 cache (2 x 2MB) it should perform quite well against the newer Athelon 64 X2 series processors. Let's see how it stacks up!

In the Quake III Team Arena benchmark, the Pentium XE 955 @ 3.46GHz processor beats the Athelon 64 X2 4800+ when it's Hyper-Threading technology is disabled, however, when it uses the Hyper-Threading Technology, it loses to the Athelon 64 4800+. The 955XE without HT enabled scores 246.8, and with HT enabled it scores 235.1, while the Athelon 64 X2 4800+ scores 241.7, virtually right in the middle of both processors. Although the really interesting thing in this benchmark, is that the new 955XE loses to it's older Pentium 4 Extreme Edition processors, as well as the FX-55 and FX-57 processors.



However, yet another interesting thing happens to the Athelon X2 4800+ and the 955XE processor when testing in the 3DMark05 graphics test. They both end up lossing to their lower counterparts! This I find rather disappointing, as a new CPU should almost always win in a benchmark against it's older counterpart(s). But, nevertheless, the new 955XE does beat the targeted CPU, the Athelon X2 4800+. The intel 955XE without HT enaled comes up with a total of 7819 points, while the 955XE with HT enabled scores a total of 7723. And finally the Athelon 64 X2 4800+ scores a total of 7809. But the ultimate champion of this benchmark was not the 4800+ or the 955XE, but rather the Athelon X2 4600+ CPU, with a total score of 7833.

This is kind of weird, as the Athelon 4800+, with it's higher clock rate, should have beaten the 4600+, and the 955XE should have also beaten the 4600+, but, both CPUs end up lossing to the 4600+, but the 955XE does however, end up boasting against the Athelon X2 4800+ with a score of 7819 to the X2 4800+ score of 7809.


Now onto the 3DMark05 CPU test. Surely this test will show who's got what it takes. To my surprise, this test was a shut out. The 955XE CPUs, both stock and overclocked, knock out every single Athelon X2 series card that was in this test. The winner in this test was the 955XE overclocked to 4.26 GHz, and scored a total of 8615. While the non-overclocked 955XE scored a total of 7405, and then the 955XE without HT enabled scored a total of 6984. The Athelon 64 X2 4800+ managed to take 8th place in this benchmark with a total of 6448, and lost to it's lower counterpart, the Athelon 64 X2 4600+, which ended up scoring 6476.

The 3DMark05 benchmark truly shows that the new 65nm Quad-Pumped 955XE has what it takes to compete against the Athelon X2 series processors. Infact, the Pentium D 840 managed to overtake the Athelon 64 X2 4400+, besting it with a score of 6129 to a score of 6044.



Aside from graphics and games, the next benchmark was applications. Surly this would show what the new 65nm archtecture can surely do.

In the Winrar 3.51 benchmark, the Pentium 955XE lost to the Athelon 64 X2 4800+, but did however, manage to beat the 3800+, 4400+, and 4600+ processors. however, once the Pentium 955XE was overclocked, only then did it beat the Athelon 64 X2 4800+. But of course, the Athelon 64 X2 and the Pentium 955XE series both lost to the Athelon 64 FX series processors. Well, except the Pentium 955XE overclock to 4.26 GHz, it did manage to beat the Athelon 64 FX-55 processors.



However, when it did come to multitasking, the 955Xe didn't fair so well, as oppossed to previous benchmark results. In the Multitasking I benchmark, the Athelon 64 X2 series cards really shined. The Athelon 64 X2 4200+, 4400+, 4600+, and 4800+ all beat the 955XE processors, that is, until they overclock one to 4.26 GHz. The 955XE that was overclocked to 4.26 GHz managed to be the champion, but overall the X2 series CPUs took the trophy, beating out the standard 955XE CPUs by at least 10 seconds, with the Athelon 64 4800+ leading the way in this benchmark. However, the Pentium 955XE that was overclocked to 4.26 GHz did manage to beat the Athelon 64 X2 4800+ by 10 seconds in this benchmark.

Although the overclocked 955Xe did "win," I would by no means consider it a glorious win, because it took an extra 2 GHz of speed to overtake the Athelon 64 X2 4800+ by ten seconds. So if having to overclock a Pentium 955XE by that margin is what it takes to outdue an Athelon 64 X2 4800+, then by all means, don't try it. There's no need to out perform it that much, and risk a meltdown if you don't have proper cooling. Either way, the Pentium 955XE CPUs did manage to beat out the Athelon 64 X2 3800+ as well as the FX-55 and FX-57 processors, something it previously couldn't do, which was boast the FX series CPUs in the previous test, except in one benchmark.



Well, that is all I'm going to post for now on the Pentium 955XE processor. If you'd liek to view the entire article of Tom's Hardware Reviewing the 955XE Processor, then read it at the link posted below. Enjoy!

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/...ion/index.html
JustinMcG67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2006, 02:01 AM   #6
BSOD
 
JustinMcG67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,519
Send a message via AIM to JustinMcG67 Send a message via MSN to JustinMcG67 Send a message via Yahoo to JustinMcG67
Default Re: AMD Athelon 64 FX-60 Toledo 2.6 GHz Review

So, did anyone liek the reviews?
JustinMcG67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2006, 06:33 PM   #7
In Runtime
 
Quinton McLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 298
Default Re: AMD Athelon 64 FX-60 Toledo 2.6 GHz Review


You're right about the AMD FX-60. There is no reason to have one right now. Also, it's a bit too expensive. It's just an unlocked 4800+ with the FX name on it. If AMD were to lower the price on it, it would be the chip to buy, but considering the AM2 is right around the corner, the processor is just pointless.
__________________
The best quotes I've ever heard:
RaistlinZ - "I think God woke up one day (probably around Noon. dude likes to sleep in) and said to himself, "OMFG, these dinosaurs are just kicking too much ass. The world is not ready for them yet." "
Quinton McLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2006, 06:50 PM   #8
In Runtime
 
Quinton McLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 298
Default Re: AMD Athelon 64 FX-60 Toledo 2.6 GHz Review


Concerning the Pentium 955XE review...
I found it flawed.

1) The biggest note I made on the review was the fact that they compared an overclocked 955XE to stock AMD X2/FX processors. That's not much of a fair comparison unless you include atleast one overclocked AMD processor (which never was found).

2) The 65nm technology doesn't increase performance on its own. It simply allows for cooler tempertures and lower manafacturing costs. AMD, on the other hand, is investing in 65nm and 45nm technology. AMD claims that they will not release the 65nm processors until they're able to associate a noticable improvement in the switch to the consumer. Basically, they're saying that they will not release the 65nm processors until they're able to squeeze some real performance from them. A prime example would be the quad core processors.

3) HT shouldn't be added in any benchmark. HT simply splits the core in half and therefore each virtual thread will run at half of the processor's max speed. This easily slows any application down. HT is not as efficient as dual core. HT can see improvements for applications that utilize it... But for the synthetic benchmarks that were just used, that improvement would not be visible.

__________________
The best quotes I've ever heard:
RaistlinZ - "I think God woke up one day (probably around Noon. dude likes to sleep in) and said to himself, "OMFG, these dinosaurs are just kicking too much ass. The world is not ready for them yet." "
Quinton McLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2006, 07:27 PM   #9
BSOD
 
JustinMcG67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,519
Send a message via AIM to JustinMcG67 Send a message via MSN to JustinMcG67 Send a message via Yahoo to JustinMcG67
Default Re: AMD Athelon 64 FX-60 Toledo 2.6 GHz Review

Quote:
You're right about the AMD FX-60. There is no reason to have one right now. Also, it's a bit too expensive. It's just an unlocked 4800+ with the FX name on it. If AMD were to lower the price on it, it would be the chip to buy, but considering the AM2 is right around the corner, the processor is just pointless.
I agree. If the FX-60 was indeed lowered in price, and possibly came out a little sooner, it would be the chip to get. Although, I wouldn't mind owning one!

Quote:
1) The biggest note I made on the review was the fact that they compared an overclocked 955XE to stock AMD X2/FX processors. That's not much of a fair comparison unless you include atleast one overclocked AMD processor (which never was found).
Yes, I think that if you're going to compare overclocked processors, then both manufacturers processors need to be overclocked, not just one specific processor, which in this case was the intel 955XE processor. I think if they would have overclocked the FX-60, although there's no need to as it clearly wins in virtually every benchmark they tested it in, it would be interesting to see an overclocked Athelon 64 X2 4800+.

Quote:
2) The 65nm technology doesn't increase performance on its own. It simply allows for cooler tempertures and lower manafacturing costs. AMD, on the other hand, is investing in 65nm and 45nm technology. AMD claims that they will not release the 65nm processors until they're able to associate a noticable improvement in the switch to the consumer. Basically, they're saying that they will not release the 65nm processors until they're able to squeeze some real performance from them. A prime example would be the quad core processors.
Indeed true. The 65nm technology just makes the chips cheaper to produce. Although I'm more then certain that there's performace gains to be made in 65nm. Also, intel has announced that they want to release 45nm chips at the end of this year, as well as the first quad core. I think it's a bit to soon to release quad-core CPUs along with 45nm technology. They should really focus their efforts on the new Dual-Core processors and new 65nm technology before openly announcing, "We're releasing 45nm chips as well as quad-core CPUs this year." It just doesn't make any sense to me, or rather it does in terms of marketing. Peopel will immediatly jump on the bandwagon if you flash new words and say, "technology." I mean look at why businesses buy pre-built computers, when they could very easily get peopel to build there own for them, and get much more performance enhancments out of them

Quote:
3) HT shouldn't be added in any benchmark. HT simply splits the core in half and therefore each virtual thread will run at half of the processor's max speed. This easily slows any application down. HT is not as efficient as dual core. HT can see improvements for applications that utilize it... But for the synthetic benchmarks that were just used, that improvement would not be visible.
I don't know what to do with HT technology. I myself want to turn it off, but I'm worried that it will make my CPU slower. So I'm not sure what to do with it. Although when it comes to benchmarking, if the CPU has the option, leave it on. Grade the CPU based on what it has. Certain technologies were implaced on it, and therefore it should be graded on those technologies. Wether or not you get better scores is indeed subjective, but, if the processor comes with a feature, then test it on that feature. That's only my opinion though.
JustinMcG67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2006, 09:54 PM   #10
Fully Optimized
 
ownage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,404
Default Re: AMD Athelon 64 FX-60 Toledo 2.6 GHz Review

AMD will not go 65nm until late 2007. They are usually 1-1.5 years behind Intel on the manufacturing process.
__________________

ownage is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0