Associate
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 177
Is it worth the money to pay the extra £300 to get the fx-60 over the 4800+, has it got any special features that help gaming?
-
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.
Worth the money? 4800+ vs. Fx-60?
- Thread starter jimbonkers
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,829
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Nope, they both have the same amount of cache. The only difference is the extra 200mhz and unlocked multiplier. No one in their right mind would consider these benefits worth an extra £300!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,922
- Location
- fife, Scotland
For overclockers or rich boys, i would say the FX60 is the better option, but if you dont have more money than sense go for the 4400+ imo. Not much slower and like half the price 
Not being an expert on AMD CPUs it strikes me as odd that AMD would do something like this. If there really is no difference between the FX and the upper AMD X2s (4400 onwards have the same cache dont they?) besides an unlocked multiplier - what possible incentive is there to pay an extra £300?ACESHIGH said:
An unlocked multiplier really isn't worth that much in my opinion. You could afford to buy a new set of memory and still have change if thats what was holding you back (which generally seems to be the point of unlocked multipliers).