t-break: With dual core enhancements to graphics drivers, the FX-60 comes out on top in most of the tests falling right in line with AMD’s positioning of the FX series as the fastest desktop CPU. The FX-57’s slightly higher clock speeds help it get past the FX-60 in a few benchmarks while all of the Pentium4 based CPUs are left in the cold.

HEXUS: Gaming wise, yes, currently the FX-60 is a minor step down from an FX-57, both at their default clocks. But the step is a small one, and the benefits of the extra core in system that's being used by other applications while you game are what the FX-60, and all performance dual-core processors, are about. The FX-60 is a gamer's chip, make no mistake.

FiringSquad: On the other hand, if you're living for today's games (a majority of which are not threaded), then the extra stock frequency is preferred. The threaded game infrastructure just isn't there yet and this has been marketed as a gaming CPU since its inception. You'll probably have a better chance at hitting 3 GHz with the FX-57, anyway.

TechReport: One wouldn't expect to have to make any compromises if one were paying $1031 for a microprocessor, which is what AMD intends to charge for the Athlon 64 FX-60. Personally, I'd be content with an overclocked Athlon 64 X2 3800+, but if you want to have the fastest desktop CPU money can buy, the FX-60 is undoubtedly it.

AnandTech: Then there's the issue of AMD's upcoming Socket-AM2; due out in another few months, you obviously won't be able to use any Socket-939 processors in the new motherboards and there will be no upgrade path beyond the FX-60 for current 939 owners, so our recommendation would be to stay away from the FX-60 unless you absolutely have to build the world's fastest system today.