FX CPU's

What is wrong with the FX series of AMD CPU's
Why isnt anyone here recommending them

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:33:01 +0000, Legend wrote:

What is wrong with the FX series of AMD CPU's
Why isnt anyone here recommending them

Because they are overpriced IMO. Got plenty of money you don't care about,
go for it. They are not multiplier locked and have default clockspeed
usually 200MHz above the fastest A64.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

Nothing is wrong with them in fact they are very nice. They are just
insanely priced as are all cutting edge CPUs. You can get within 10-15% of
their performance for half the money and within 25% for a quarter of the
money. They are great CPUs but unless you are Bill Gates and money just
means nothing to you they are just not worth what they cost.
Joe

"Legend" wrote in message
...
What is wrong with the FX series of AMD CPU's
Why isnt anyone here recommending them

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:17:14 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:33:01 +0000, Legend wrote:

What is wrong with the FX series of AMD CPU's
Why isnt anyone here recommending them

Because they are overpriced IMO. Got plenty of money you don't care about,
go for it. They are not multiplier locked and have default clockspeed
usually 200MHz above the fastest A64.

Wes is exactly right, the FX series has lousy price/performance. For
example the FX60 (2.6GHz) is $1018, the X2 4800+ (2.4GHz) is $680 and the
X2 4400+ (2.2GHz) is $461. All three parts are identical except for the
clock speed (dual core, 1M caches). The FX60 is 18% faster then the 4400+
but it's price is 2.2X the price of the 4400+. For the difference in price
between a FX60 and a 4400+ you could but a second 4400+, a motherboard,
and a graphics card.

Wes Newell wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:33:01 +0000, Legend wrote:

What is wrong with the FX series of AMD CPU's
Why isnt anyone here recommending them

Because they are overpriced IMO. Got plenty of money you don't care about,
go for it. They are not multiplier locked and have default clockspeed
usually 200MHz above the fastest A64.

are they 64bit dual core?


Sorry for all the doubt and negativity lately WES, but I have like 2days
to take the plunge into getting a new computer (currently own a P4 3ghz
1meg cache) with is so rock solid I am scared to make a move (last time
I took a jump to AMD was the athlon 1200 , and blew $16k Australian on
them (double that for $US) only to find that it was fast but I couldnt
upload or download any file bigger that 20k, be it floppy, usb, CD or
internet,, I couldnt burn CD's but I COuld use the ISA port.. ( I
bought AMD because I had 6 USrobotic internal Courier m0dems that cost
me a thousand australian dollars each and still wanted to use them yrt
still have the fastest machine going at the time

I had fast machimes that could do nothing... but that was back in 2000 I
think .. I understood that it was the VIA chipsets fault...

Then I saw were VIA wanted to buy out AMD... Woooo not for me.. nothing
wrong with AMD... It would have suited me better if AMD bought out VIA
and cleaned up the VIA chipsets..

anyway I remeber your name from teh old USRobotic Courier modem days and
respect your opinion ,,, so lay it on me Bro

What is the fastest, most cost effective way to go in 64bit... AMD or
INtel .. my main use is rendering movies to DVD's for people these days

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 01:30:20 +0000, Legend wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:33:01 +0000, Legend wrote:

What is wrong with the FX series of AMD CPU's
Why isnt anyone here recommending them

Because they are overpriced IMO. Got plenty of money you don't care about,
go for it. They are not multiplier locked and have default clockspeed
usually 200MHz above the fastest A64.

are they 64bit dual core?


Sorry for all the doubt and negativity lately WES, but I have like 2days
to take the plunge into getting a new computer (currently own a P4 3ghz
1meg cache) with is so rock solid I am scared to make a move (last time
I took a jump to AMD was the athlon 1200 , and blew $16k Australian on
them (double that for $US) only to find that it was fast but I couldnt
upload or download any file bigger that 20k, be it floppy, usb, CD or
internet,, I couldnt burn CD's but I COuld use the ISA port.. ( I
bought AMD because I had 6 USrobotic internal Courier m0dems that cost
me a thousand australian dollars each and still wanted to use them yrt
still have the fastest machine going at the time

I had fast machimes that could do nothing... but that was back in 2000 I
think .. I understood that it was the VIA chipsets fault...

Then I saw were VIA wanted to buy out AMD... Woooo not for me.. nothing
wrong with AMD... It would have suited me better if AMD bought out VIA
and cleaned up the VIA chipsets..

anyway I remeber your name from teh old USRobotic Courier modem days and
respect your opinion ,,, so lay it on me Bro

What is the fastest, most cost effective way to go in 64bit... AMD or
INtel .. my main use is rendering movies to DVD's for people these days

The best choice is an Athlon 64 X2 with an Nforce4 motherboard. The A64s
run rings around the current Intel offerings and they do it at a fraction
of the power. My recommendation is the X2 4400+, thats the sweet spot in
pricing for a dual core 1M cache part. I have three Athlon 64 systems, a
3400+ laptop, a 3800+ desktop (the single core 3800+ as opposed to the
dual core X2 3800+), and an X2 4400+ which I use as a compute server. All
of these systems have been solid as a rock. I'll give you my configuration
for the X2 4400+ system:

Athlon 64 X2 4400+
MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum mother board
4G DDR 400
Enermax EG565P-FMA REV.2.0 ATX, 535W supply
Thermaltake A1838 heatsink
Thermaltake VB1000BWS Soprano ATX case (This is the one with the side fan)
Seagate 250G SATA-II drive

I've had this system since July, it's been running 24/7 with Fedora Core 4
since then. The only reboots have been for operating system or kernel
upgrades.

I'm currently running a simulation on one core and an FPGA place and route
on the other, the CPU temperature is 40C. With just the simulation running
the CPU temp was 35C, an Intel CPU would be much much hotter.

Any major brand Nforce 4 Ultra motherboard is fine, I'm using the MSI but
an ASUS or a Tyan should be just as good.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 01:30:20 +0000, Legend wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:33:01 +0000, Legend wrote:

What is wrong with the FX series of AMD CPU's
Why isnt anyone here recommending them

Because they are overpriced IMO. Got plenty of money you don't care about,
go for it. They are not multiplier locked and have default clockspeed
usually 200MHz above the fastest A64.

are they 64bit dual core?

I think the new FX60 is, but I'm pretty sure all the ealier ones are
single core. To be honest though I don't follow them much.

What is the fastest, most cost effective way to go in 64bit... AMD or
INtel .. my main use is rendering movies to DVD's for people these days

That's a hard one to answer, but it will definately be an AMD cpu. The
Intels eat up power like it's going out of style. I guess if you don't
need a lot of power A socket 754 Sempron with the right MB can be clocked
up close to A64 4000+ speeds (like that's not a lot of power:-)). Just
make sure you get a newer 64 bit enabled one if you want 64 bit.. If you
do lot of multitasking or high load things then I'd buy the X2 3800+ and
overclock it to close to 4800+ speed.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

What is the fastest, most cost effective way to go in 64bit... AMD or
INtel .. my main use is rendering movies to DVD's for people these days


One last thing...The motherboard chipset
I see VIA, Nvidia, ATi,ULi chipsets on boards made by ABIT
and have heard some people hear swear by NVidia chipsets yet others have
all sorts of trouble with them..
I never want VIA again and if Nvidia has trouble if I use an ATI video
card then that leaves ATI and ULi

My video card of choice is the ATI SAPPHIRE X1300 256meg PCIx MODEL
Single slot passive (silent) cooling solution

Your experiences welcome here please

The X1300 are very slow card and is not recommended.Your better off getting
an X1600 or nvidias 6800s

--
XP2600@171
PC3200 Samsung 512mb, SB Live OEM
AIW9600XT, A7N8X-X
WD120gb + 80gb HD 8mb buffers
Plextor PX-712A, Liteon 1693S 16X Dual Layer
Pioneer DVR-110D 16X - 4X Dual Layer
Thermaltake Lanfire, 420 Watt PS
ViewSonic 19" A91f+ CRT
Micrsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick

Overall Score-2066, cpu_score-2926
in 3DMark2005 basic 1078X768, No AA


"Legend" wrote in message
...
What is the fastest, most cost effective way to go in 64bit... AMD or
INtel .. my main use is rendering movies to DVD's for people these days


One last thing...The motherboard chipset
I see VIA, Nvidia, ATi,ULi chipsets on boards made by ABIT
and have heard some people hear swear by NVidia chipsets yet others have
all sorts of trouble with them..
I never want VIA again and if Nvidia has trouble if I use an ATI video
card then that leaves ATI and ULi

My video card of choice is the ATI SAPPHIRE X1300 256meg PCIx MODEL
Single slot passive (silent) cooling solution

Your experiences welcome here please

General Schvantzkoph wrote in
news
Enermax EG565P-FMA REV.2.0 ATX, 535W supply


General, how quiet is this PS?

Thanks.