mikemuch writes "AMD just released their new Dual-Core FX-60 processor which is basically two FX-55s strapped together. Unfortunately, the FX-60 doesn't blow away Intel's recently announced Pentium 955 Extreme Edition, and it's actually slightly more pricey. It gets a slight edge in games and runs cooler, as Loyd Case found when he put the FX-60 through ExtremeTech's battery of benchmarks. From the review: 'AMD now ships a dual-core CPU that's essentially the equal of Presler, while generating far less heat. In terms of performance, however, this means that AMD no longer commands the same type of lead it once did when Intel only had the somewhat anemic 840 Extreme Edition. In fact, AMD is now more expensive, at $1,031 (quantity 1,000), versus the 955 Extreme Edition at $999 (quantity 1000).'"

AMD Releases Dual-Core FX-60 Processor

lol, they are far behind. What with Intel releasing the Pentium D long ago.

The Pentium D came out months after the much more powerful Athlon 64 x2, which really put AMD on the map. I mean, sure IBM beat em both too it, but since they don't really make them for PC's...

I believe the Intel "Extreme Edition" Single core came out before the AMD Athlon FX-57, but the FX Totally beat the EE in all categories. Intel Did release a Dual-core EE before the FX-60, but at the time of launch it was something like $1500. I however, have a very Legit, unbiased magazine, by the name of PC Gamer(issue 146), that reported the actual benchmarking results on an FX-60 and OCed(4.0 GHz, thats .8GHz faster) EE.

Advantages the FX-60 had over the EE:
256KB(!?!) L1 Cache vs. 28KB
Faster FSB
Integrated 128-bit memory Controller(Intel had to run theirs through the FSB)
110W vs 130W(on other words, less power consumption and alot cooler)

Benchmarking Results(Identical Besides the Processor):
AMD first, Intel Second:
Sysmark 2005 Overall - 266 vs 232
3DMark05 Overall- 7,641 vs 7,311
Quake 4 Average FPS - 171 vs 130
FEAR FPS - 241 vs 189

They said there were more... but in a non-existant section. Maybe it's on the CD with the magazine that I'm too cheap to get, maybe it's a typo. I dunno.
Hm... I could've sworn it said it was like $20 cheaper in here, but I can't seem to find it. For the performance, even if the prices are correct up there, it's worth an extra $30.

Wherever these people got their results from, they must have used different Graphics cards, or ram amounts, or ram Latencies.

Read the thing. It says the FX. Not to mention the mainstream Athlon 64 X2s are typically more expensive than the Pentium Ds.

I was making a point that AMD had dual-core first. Besides, an AMD 4500+ is equilvelent to an Intel 4.5ghz P4, which doesn't exist. the Athlon 64 x2's are much more powerful than the Pentium D's, and give you more bang for your buck.

Wrong again. Intel started having dual-core CPUs first.

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3496926

the Athlon 64 x2 was out well before mid 2005. I was shopping for a computer long before then, and there were definantly dual-core AMD processors well before then. They are simply stating that dual-core operatons were not out yet. This is a comparation of workstation CPU's, not all CPU's.

In any case, IBM manufactured them in 2000, so they both were beat.

Wrong again. Internation Business Machines Corp. had indeed developed a dual-core CPU and was implementing them, but they were not available for consumers using the x86 architecture.

Might I also note that intel's "dual-core" processors(save dual-core Xeon) are not true dual core.

The Xeon is dual-core. The Xeon is from Intel. Intel's dual-core processors are dual-core. Simple logic.

No, the Extreme Editions and Pentium D's aren't actually dual-core.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_core

No, I never said that the "Extreme Editions" and Pentium Ds are dual-core. And the Pentium Extreme Edition and Pentium D actually are dual-core. If you actually bothered to do research about them, you would find that both of them consist of two dies in a single package. And dual-core processors are defined as a single package consisting of two independent microprocessors.

No, a Dual-core chip consists of 2 cores on a single die. The Pentium D's are actually more like 2 physical chips as opposed to a single chip with 2 cores. Although it is slightly better than 2 separate chips, it has quite a few disadvantages to true dual core design:

it is less efficient with cache/memory, which causes it to be slower
it uses more power, and generates more heat
it uses the chips space less efficiently

and that's a few examples of how true dual-core is better. I have done my research, unlike you.

Intel is better than AMD
The end.
Finito
Alex

Yeah...I got one...

The hp motherboard broke so I got an AMD one.