I have an Opty 148 on air that is running fine for me, but I thnk I want to upgrade my CPU (but not fork out on a new M/B etc). I have been looking around to try to see what the difference is between the FX CPUs and the standard 64 / Opterons. True mine only has 1 core and I would probably look at a FX60 which would give me an extra core, but what would be the difference between that and a standard Athlon64?
-
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.
should I go for an FX?
- Thread starter chrislip
- Start date
Only thing FX series have that non FX CPUs don't is an unlocked multiplier. The FX-60 is a dual core (2.6 Ghz 1MB cache per core) but will perform the same as any Opteron/Athlon X2 at the same clock speed with the same cache (of which only the Opteron 185 exists on 939, Athlon X2s stop at the 4800+ which is 2.4 Ghz 1MB cache per core).
The same applies with the FX-53 and Athlon 64 4000+ clawhammer core (2.4 Ghz 1MB cache) and Opteron 154 versus FX-57 (2.8 Ghz 1MB cache).
The same applies with the FX-53 and Athlon 64 4000+ clawhammer core (2.4 Ghz 1MB cache) and Opteron 154 versus FX-57 (2.8 Ghz 1MB cache).
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
MeatLoaf said:For the price of an FX-60 plus what you could sell your existing stuff for you could get a nice C2D/Mobo/RAM combo
Agreed.
While OCUK is selling the 939 FX-60 at a decent price, I was telling my friend the other day, it is pointless. For only 150 you could get a motherboard that uses your current ram, and a Conroe. Even with a small overclock, it would be about what the FX 60 is. Doing as meat loaf suggests, would murder it :/