CPU question -

[maasharu]

I am not interested in the new FX-75 quad from AMD, not just yet anyway. There's only one mobo for it - which is rather pricey. However - i do have a plain and simple question.

Which will grant you greater computer performance: the AMD X2 6000+ 3.0 Ghz dual core: or the AMD FX-62 2.8 ghz dual core?

I The FX-62 costs round about $70 more, but has the same front side buss, a lower frequency and the same L2 cache. So i don't see why it costs so much compared to the X2 6000. I don't get it - is there some kind of performance increase? If they both can be fitted on the same board - using the same ram and other components: what does the FX bring to the table?

If you created two computers with identical motherboards, graphics cards, RAM boards, etc. - But one with the FX-62 and one with the X2 6000, would the FX out perform the X2 6000 in bench tests?

Seriously - why the extra cost? Is it worth it?

[cauzomb]

From the benchmarks that are available via Tomshardware cpu charts, the performance difference depends on what you are doing.. The fx62 is marginally faster at some things, and marginally slower at other things, but it is a very small difference in performance, such a small difference that it may not be noticeable... I did noticed that the amd 64 x2 5600+ benched nearly identical to the fx62 at nearly all the cpu and game tests, probly due to the fx62 and x5600+ test rigs both using 800ddr2 memory where as the 6000+ is shown to be using 750ddr2. For what it is worth, I wouldn't buy the fx62 based on the out of the box performance tests shown at toms. If there are other things that it is better at, such as overclocking, then I would re-consider. There are a couple good reasons to go with the 6000+/nf5 ddr2 750 combo, over the fx62 nf5 ddr2 800 combo, "the price difference of the 6000+cpu and memory will save you some money; and the 6000+ tests at tomshardware shows that it is about 17 seconds faster than the fx62 at the large photo rendering benchmark"

[knight0334]

Other than price and clockspeeds - the only difference is that FX series is NOT multiplier locked. You can change the multiplier as so desired for overclocking - that is what you pay extra for.

[cauzomb]

Good info Knight, that 70 bucks would be worth it for me, I have the amd 64 3000+ venice non x2, hardware locked and bios is locked it sucks for overclocking.

With how overclocking is going now, "lowering" the multi, if it isn't locked at one setting, lower the multiplier, crank up the different busses and watch the temps/voltages carefully as you get up to the 3.6-4.0GHz area.

[TurcoLoco]

I find it quite amusing when people o/c their already decent, powerful system when they are not even doing any hardcore gaming or multimedia processing, etc.

[punkrkr52]

well i remember years ago when we o/c'd just to see how fast we could go. the 200mhz fsb race. people just dont o/c as much anymore.