Showing Results: Most Recent
Pros: It's AMD, unlocked multi and full DDR2 800mhz speed. Guarenteed speed of 3.2ghz. Decently priced, no extra cost for a HS that anyone who needs or deserves this chip would ever EVER use.
Cons: As with every Flagship cpu, they tend to already be pretty close to the limit in terms of speed, at least with out spending an obscene amount of money on WC or phase change cooling kit. But since the HTT has been the only limiting factor in my OCing thus far i'm hoping i'm wrong and the availibility of unlocked multis will let it pass 4ghz. At this point, i'd rather have a quad core then another dually, and the quads aren't much more then this. When the price drops, i'll grab one for sure.
Other Thoughts: To anyone complaining about the lack of a heatsink with this.
1) It clearly specifies this, and your whining only makes your ignorance more amusing.
2)If you actually wanted a stock cooler with this chip, you don't need it and your ignorance as to why is all the more amusing.
3) To the buyer complaining about it running that hot, you seriously messed up the mounting of the heatsink, or you possibly jacked up the Vcore to a dangerous level.
I bought a 4400x2 Toledo core from newegg begining of the year for $120. LCCBE stepping. 939 socket and runs 24/7 with an OC speed of 3.6ghz @ 1.45v (from stock 2.2) With a TT Big typhoon and a 120mm silverstone 110cfm fan replacment on it the chip idles at 32-34c, load temp of 43-45c after extended use. I live in texas, and it runs that cool. I haven't pressed it to it's limit by far, and from what i could find out the stepping only is used on 185 opterons. True overclockers do the research. 1.4ghz is more satisfying then 255mhz,and for 1/2 $
This review is from: AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 Windsor Dual-Core 2.8GHz Socket AM2 125W Processor ADAFX62CSBOX
Pros: It's AMD, unlocked muli which makes RAM compatibility a bit easier and it's the cheapest current-ish FX chip i've ever seen on newegg.
Cons: It's 90nm fab, which isn't a huge deal, but it will run a little warmer then a 5000+ 65nm which may overclock better then this. Also, i still consider DDR2 to be more trouble then it's worth, but if you already use DDR2, or plan to you might as well get an FX, best for games especially if you're one of the few actually running 64bit vista.
Other Thoughts: FX chips are for gamers and overclockers. They are guarenteed to run at a high clock and have a bit different instruction set compared to normal x2's. The unlocked multi makes OCing easier, but i've always found it to be a bit of a gamble to get an FX to OC since they usually cost 4 times more then any other AMD chip, and are more often then not pretty close to the speed limit of the chip. Im still using a 4400x2 939 toledo core with a LCCBE stepping which i run 24/7 stable at 3.6ghz on air. booted at 3.8 but unstable due to heat.
If you want to OC this chip, it's alot of luck, trial and error. OCing is an artform, but you will need something beyond stock cooling, a highend motherboard and some common sense.
Also, recently it's been discovered that AMD's desktop chips still run cooler then intel's latest and "greatest" slaughter intel in memory performance, and really prove AMD's worth when actually running a 64bit OS. Since it's a mere $30 more then the 6000+, get it.
Pros: It's ATI. 1 gig GDDR4 lower power consumption and increased performance over GDDR3. 100-350 hundred bucks cheaper then the gtx/ultra cards which are (much like every other leading piece of gpu/cpu hardware) benched in XP...DX9 performance doesn't mean ANYTHING with the dx10 cards which are intended for VISTA. Shader performance is outstanding HDMI adapter is very convenient. ATI's drivers are ever improving and closing the gap between 8800 performance.
Cons: It's big. It's hot. It needs alot of juice. But that's a given with these type of cards, so i only list it as a con to anyone who doesn't own a Lian-li PC-G70 size case =D. There aren't very many DX10 games available, so it's hard to accurately compare performance. Also a major con, though not related to the actual card...is all the people with 8800 cards and quad core intel cpu's that are running 32bit xp and using DX9 games that are 1-2 years old to benchmark. It's cheap, it's pathetic and it's not at all an accurate way to measure performance.
Other Thoughts: Everyone that is boasting about the 8800 cards...Go to Tomshardware.com. Look at the Best graphic card for the $$ july. It states (as do many other unbiased reviewers) that the 2900 512mb is tied with the 8800gts, and with ati's latest drivers the 2900 512mb card is competing with the 8800gtx. Again, if you want to compare the performance of this card to any Nvidia card: Get 64bit Vista ultimate, run a DX10 game. That's what those 64bit cpu's we own are meant for, and that's what these DX10 cards are meant for. 4 years and change after 64bit cpu's came out most are still running 32xp and boasting about benchmarks. running in vista, the 512 version wipes the floor with the grs, and closes in on the gtx. With nothing to take full advantage of the hardware, how much of a difference could we expect to see?READ FULL REVIEW