Home AMD’s Athlon 64 FX-57 processor
Reviews

AMD’s Athlon 64 FX-57 processor

Scott Wasson
Disclosure
Disclosure
In our content, we occasionally include affiliate links. Should you click on these links, we may earn a commission, though this incurs no additional cost to you. Your use of this website signifies your acceptance of our terms and conditions as well as our privacy policy.
IT MAY BE AMONG the last of a dying breed. The Athlon 64 FX-57 is AMD’s latest and greatest single-core enthusiast-oriented CPU, a 200MHz clock speed bump in an era when such an increase is becoming more of a rarity than a regular event. This single-core monster runs at 2.8GHz, which is awfully fast in the world of AMD K8 processors. It also packs a handful of revisions that make it more potent, clock for clock, than its predecessor, the FX-55.

The question is: does this chip, which may have the single fastest x86 CPU core ever, have any appeal compared to the slick new dual-core processors from AMD and Intel? We’ve compared it against a dozen competitors in order to find out.

Getting to know the FX-57
The Athlon 64 FX-57 isn’t hard to get your head around. It’s an Athlon 64 with 1MB of L2 cache that drops into a 939-pin socket and runs at 2.8GHz. As you might expect, it looks about like so:


Our centerfold

Nothing too different there. Lurking under that sexy metal cap, however, is a somewhat revised K8 core. We’ve already discussed the enhancements AMD has made to its newer revision E K8 processors in our review of the Athlon 64 “Venice” 3800+. The two cores of the Athlon 64 X2 are both fortified with the same new vitamins and minerals. Now, rev-E goodness comes to the Athlon 64 FX-57 in the form of the “San Diego” core. Like other rev-E chips, this core is manufactured on AMD’s 90nm fabrication process with the help of Silicon-on-Insulator (SOI) and Dual Stress Liner technologies. Previous FX chips were made on a 130nm process, so this is a die shrink.

If all goes as one would hope, the die-shrunk chip should be smaller, run faster, consume less power, and cost less per chip to manufacture. Things haven’t always gone that way in the move to 90 nanometers, though, which is why CPU makers are exploring alternative approaches like multicore processors.

In addition to the manufacturing changes, AMD has added several things to the rev-E chips, including support for SSE3 instructions, a more flexible memory controller, and improved memory mapping and loading. Revision E cores have typically performed better, clock for clock, than older K8 cores. Part of the reason for the higher performance may be a faster L2 cache, and it’s possible AMD has enhanced the mechanism that speculatively prefetches data into that cache. Ask AMD about these things, however, and they go enigmatic on you. So we’ll have to ponder that question a little bit.

Like prior FX processors, the FX-57 has an unlocked multiplier for easy overclocking. Unlike in the past, however, the FX-57 does not replace the previous FX and take its place alone atop the product line. Instead, the FX-55 will continue as AMD’s 2.6GHz product at a lower price. Here’s how the pricing will line up.

CPU Price CPU Price CPU Price CPU Price
Pentium 4 630 $224 Athlon 64 3200+ $194
Pentium 4 640 $237 Pentium D 820 $241 Athlon 64 3500+ $272
Pentium D 830 $316
Pentium 4 650 $401 Athlon 64 3800+ $373
Pentium D 840 $530 Athlon 64 4000+ $482 Athlon 64 X2 4200+ $537
Pentium 4 660 $605 Athlon 64 X2 4400+ $581
Pentium 4 670 $851 Athlon 64 FX-55 $827 Athlon 64 X2 4600+ $803
Pentium 4 XE 3.73GHz $999 Pentium XE 840 $999 Athlon 64 FX-57 $1031 Athlon 64 X2 4800+ $1001

Yep, the FX-57 costs more than an Athlon 64 X2 4800+. That means you can pay 30 bucks more for one 2.8GHz K8 core than you would for two similar K8 cores running at 2.4GHz in the X2 4800+. Whether or not this proposition sounds like a good deal to you will depend a great deal, I suppose, on how you read the benchmarks on the following pages. AMD is positioning the FX-57 as “the gamers’ CPU of choice,” and that makes sense given the single-threaded nature of most current games. For single-threaded apps, the FX-57 seems like a shoo-in to be the fastest CPU in town. Let’s test that theory.

Test notes
We have included results for the Pentium D 840 in the following pages. We obtained these results by disabling Hyper-Threading on our Extreme Edition 840. Since the Pentium D 840 is just an Extreme Edition 840 sans HT, the numbers should be valid. Similarly, the Athlon 64 3500+ scores you’ll see in the following pages were obtained by underclocking an Athlon 64 3800+ (with the new “Venice” core) to 2.2GHz. The performance should be identical to a “real” 3500+.

Our testing methods
As ever, we did our best to deliver clean benchmark numbers. Tests were run at least three times, and the results were averaged.

Our test systems were configured like so:

Processor Pentium D 820 2.8GHz Pentium 4 660 3.6GHz
Pentium D 840 3.2GHz
Pentium Extreme Edition 840 3.2GHz
Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2GHz (Venice)
Athlon 64 3800+ 2.4GHz (Venice)
Athlon 64 4000+ 2.4GHz (130nm)
Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6GHz (130nm)
Athlon 64 FX-57 2.8GHz
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2GHz
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4GHz
Pentium 4 670 3.8GHz
System bus 800MHz (200MHz quad-pumped) 800MHz (200MHz quad-pumped) 1066MHz (266MHz quad-pumped) 1GHz HyperTransport
Motherboard Intel D945GTP Intel D955XBK Intel D955XBK Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
BIOS revision NT94510J.86A.0897 BK95510J.86A.1152 BK95510J.86A.1234 MCT2/dualcore
BK95510J.86A.1452
North bridge 945G MCH 955X MCH 955X MCH nForce4 SLI
South bridge ICH7R ICH7R ICH7R
Chipset drivers INF Update 7.0.0.1019 INF Update 7.0.0.1019 INF Update 7.0.0.1019 SMBus driver 4.45
IDE driver 4.75
Memory size 1GB (2 DIMMs) 1GB (2 DIMMs) 1GB (2 DIMMs) 1GB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type Corsiar XMS2 5400UL DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz Corsiar XMS2 5400UL DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz Corsiar XMS2 5400UL DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz Corsair XMS Pro 3200XL DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
CAS latency (CL) 3 3 4 2
RAS to CAS delay (tRCD) 2 2 2 2
RAS precharge (tRP) 2 2 2 2
Cycle time (tRAS) 8 8 8 5
Hard drive Maxtor DiamondMax 10 250GB SATA 150
Audio Integrated ICH7R/STAC9221D5
with SigmaTel 5.10.4456.0 drivers
Integrated ICH7R/STAC9221D5
with SigmaTel 5.10.4456.0 drivers
Integrated ICH7R/STAC9221D5
with SigmaTel 5.10.4456.0 drivers
Integrated nForce4/ALC850
with Realtek 5.10.0.5820 drivers
Graphics GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB PCI-E with ForceWare 71.84 drivers
OS Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
OS updates

All tests on the Pentium systems were run with Hyper-Threading enabled, except where otherwise noted.

Thanks to Corsair for providing us with memory for our testing. Their products and support are both far and away superior to generic, no-name memory.

Also, all of our test systems were powered by OCZ PowerStream power supply units. The PowerStream was one of our Editor’s Choice winners in our latest PSU round-up.

The test systems’ Windows desktops were set at 1152×864 in 32-bit color at an 85Hz screen refresh rate. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled for all tests.

We used the following versions of our test applications:

The tests and methods we employ are generally publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

Memory performance
This first round of tests is very much synthetic, measuring the performance of the memory subsystem, but it’s the perfect setup for what follows. These results should illustrate how the CPUs differ in some key ways.

Linpack shows us floating-point math performance while the CPU is operating on data matrices that fit into the L1 cache, then the L2 cache, and finally spill over into main memory. The FX-57’s large L1 data L2 caches combine to form an effective total data cache size of 1088K. As you can see above, performance drops off once the matrix sizes approach that barrier, because main memory is much slower.

The FX-57’s rev-E heritage shows up here in a couple of ways, including the fastest performance we’ve seen from any of the Athlon processors as they reach into main memory. Also, notice how the Athlon 64 X2 4800+’s L2 cache bandwidth matches that of the FX-55, even though the FX-55 runs at 2.6GHz and the X2 4800+ at 2.4GHz. That’s because AMD’s 90nm L2 caches are plainly faster, clock for clock, than those on its 130nm chips. Judging by its scores at the middle matrix sizes, the FX-57 benefits from the faster L2 cache at 90nm, as well.

Here’s a nice illustration of the benefits of the Athlon 64’s built-in memory controller. Memory access latencies are much lower than those of the Pentium processors, because the Intel CPUs must access RAM via a memory controller on a core-logic chip situated behind a front-side bus. The A64’s one-hop path to memory is almost twice as quick.

Gaming performance
Up next are some gaming tests. Notice that we’ve included above each result a little graph generated by the Windows Task Manager as the benchmark ran on our dual Opteron 275 system (with four total CPU cores.) This should give you some indication of the amount of threading in the application. In some cases with single-threaded apps like the games below, the task will oscillate back and forth between one CPU and the next, but total utilization generally won’t go above 50% for a dual-core or 25% for a quad-core (or quad-front-end, in the case of the XE 840 with Hyper-Threading) system.

Doom 3
We tested performance by playing back a custom-recorded demo that should be fairly representative of most of the single-player gameplay in Doom 3.

Far Cry
Our Far Cry demo takes place on the Pier level, in one of those massive, open outdoor areas so common in this game. Vegetation is dense, and view distances can be very long.

Unreal Tournament 2004
Our UT2004 demo shows yours truly putting the smack down on some bots in an Onslaught game.

These gaming test results are about what one would expect, and exactly why AMD claims the FX-57 is the world’s best processor for 3D gaming. The Athlon 64 scales well to 2.8GHz. Also, just so you know, the graphs are sorted by performance, not by CPU manufacturer—’tis hard to tell the difference, I know. The FX-57’s ostensible rival from Intel, the P4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz, contends for the gaming crown about like my KC Royals contend for their division title. To be fair to the Royals, though, they have a small-market payroll.

3DMark05

3DMark’s composite test is utterly bottlenecked on the video card, but the CPU test is not. 3DMark05’s CPU tests are multithreaded, however, using the CPU to handle vertex processing work. The FX-57 does fairly well here, but AMD’s slowest and Intel’s fastest dual-core CPUs come out ahead of it. Hyper-Threading even propels the P4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz past the FX-57 in CPU test 1.

POV-Ray rendering
POV-Ray just recently made the move to 64-bit binaries, and thanks to the nifty SMPOV distributed rendering utility, we’ve been able to make it multithreaded, as well. SMPOV spins off any number of instances of the POV-Ray renderer, and it will bisect the scene in several different ways. For this scene, the best choice was to divide the screen up horizontally between the different threads, which provides a fairly even workload.

Multithreaded rendering apps are not the FX-57’s home turf, and it shows. The $241 Pentium D 820 renders this scene nearly as fast as the FX-57, and the X2 processors are way ahead of their single-core cousins here. Despite its Hyper-Threading capabilities, the P4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz can’t keep up with the FX-57.

Cinema 4D rendering
Cinema 4D’s rendering engine does a very nice job of distributing the load across multiple processors, as the Task Manager graph shows.

Cinebench tells a story similar to the one POV-Ray did. For 3D rendering, dual-core CPUs are the way to go. In a pinch, though, the FX-57 isn’t bad.

The remaining Cinebench tests are single-threaded graphics shading exercises, and the FX-57 can’t be beaten at such tasks.

LAME audio encoding
LAME MT is, as you might have guessed, a multithreaded version of the LAME MP3 encoder. LAME MT was created as a demonstration of the benefits of multithreading specifically on a Hyper-Threaded CPU like the Pentium 4. You can even download a paper (in Word format) describing the programming effort.

Rather than run multiple parallel threads, LAME MT runs the MP3 encoder’s psycho-acoustic analysis function on a separate thread from the rest of the encoder using simple linear pipelining. That is, the psycho-acoustic analysis happens one frame ahead of everything else, and its results are buffered for later use by the second thread. The author notes, “In general, this approach is highly recommended, for it is exponentially harder to debug a parallel application than a linear one.”

We have results for two different 64-bit versions of LAME MT from different compilers, one from Microsoft and one from Intel, doing two different types of encoding, variable bit rate and constant bit rate. We are encoding a massive 10-minute, 6-second 101MB WAV file here, as we have done in our previous CPU reviews.

The FX-57 produces the best scores of the bunch with single threading, but once we spin off a second thread, it falls to the middle of the pack. Notably, the Extreme Edition 3.73GHz contends closely with the FX-57 once multithreading is enabled. The Pentium 4 core can often be pretty competitive with AMD’s K8, provided that Hyper-Threading is well used.

Xmpeg/DivX video encoding
We used the Xmpeg/DivX combo to convert a DVD .VOB file of a movie trailer into DivX format. Like LAME MT, this application is only dual threaded.

AMD’s single-core, non-SMT processors occupy the bottom ranks of the Xmpeg results, and the FX-57 is among ’em. Even the lowly Pentium D 820 is faster.

Windows Media Encoder video encoding
We asked Windows Media Encoder to convert a gorgeous 1080-line WMV HD video clip into a 640×460 streaming format using the Windows Media Video 8 Advanced Profile codec.

Our Windows Media Encoder results aren’t far from the Xmpeg scores in terms of relative performance, but the FX-57 does manage to rise to the middle of the pack here, outpacing any single-core P4 processor. Once again, the dual-core CPUs are all faster.

ScienceMark

We’re using the 64-bit beta version of ScienceMark for these tests, and several of its components are multithreaded. ScienceMark author Alexander Goodrich says this about the Molecular Dynamics simulation:

Molecular Dynamics is lightly multithreaded – one thread takes care of U/I aspects, and the other thread takes care of the computation. The computation itself is not multithreaded, though Tim and I were looking into ways of changing the algorithm to support multi-threading programming a couple years ago – it’s a lot of effort, unfortunately. When MD [is] running there [is] a total of 2 threads for the process.

Here are the results:

The Primordia test “calculates the Quantum Mechanical Hartree-Fock Orbitals for each electron in any element of the periodic table.” Alex says this about it:

Primordia is multithreaded. Two main tasks occur which allow this to happen. Essentially, we identified 2 parallel tasks that could be done. We could probably take this a step further and optimize it even more. There is an issue, however, with the Pentium Extreme Edition that we’ve identified. The second computation thread gets executed on the logical HT thread rather than the 2nd core, so performance isn’t as good as it could be. This will be fixed in the next revision. This doesn’t effect [sic] the regular Pentium D. A workaround could include disabling HT on Pentium EE. There are 3 threads for primordia – 2 threads for computation, 1 thread for U/I.

Mixed results here, with the FX-57 taking third in the Molecular Dynamics test but dropping to the middle of the group in Primordia.

SiSoft Sandra
Next up is SiSoft’s Sandra system diagnosis program, which includes a number of different benchmarks. The one of interest to us is the “multimedia” benchmark, intended to show off the benefits of “multimedia” extensions like MMX and SSE/2. According to SiSoft’s FAQ, the benchmark actually does a fractal computation:

This benchmark generates a picture (640×480) of the well-known Mandelbrot fractal, using 255 iterations for each data pixel, in 32 colours. It is a real-life benchmark rather than a synthetic benchmark, designed to show the improvements MMX/Enhanced, 3DNow!/Enhanced, SSE(2) bring to such an algorithm.

The benchmark is multi-threaded for up to 64 CPUs maximum on SMP systems. This works by interlacing, i.e. each thread computes the next column not being worked on by other threads. Sandra creates as many threads as there are CPUs in the system and assignes [sic] each thread to a different CPU.

We’re using the 64-bit port of Sandra. The “Integer x16” version of this test uses integer numbers to simulate floating-point math. The floating-point version of the benchmark takes advantage of SSE2 to process up to eight Mandelbrot iterations at once.

Ow. Intel’s Netburst core is rich in vector computational resources, and having two of those cores onboard is especially nice. Similarly, a higher clock speed doesn’t go far enough toward bridging the gap between the FX-57 and the Athlon 64 X2 chips.

Sphinx speech recognition
Ricky Houghton first brought us the Sphinx benchmark through his association with speech recognition efforts at Carnegie Mellon University. Sphinx is a high-quality speech recognition routine. We use two different versions, built with two different compilers, in an attempt to ensure we’re getting the best possible performance. However, the versions of Sphinx we’re using are only single-threaded.

AMD’s revision E changes pay off in Sphinx, pulling the FX-57 into contention against the fastest Pentium 4 processors. The FX-55 isn’t nearly as close.

picCOLOR
picCOLOR was created by Dr. Reinert H. G. Müller of the FIBUS Institute. This isn’t Photoshop; picCOLOR’s image analysis capabilities can be used for scientific applications like particle flow analysis. Dr. Müller has supplied us with new revisions of his program for some time now, all the while optimizing picCOLOR for new advances in CPU technology, including MMX, SSE2, and Hyper-Threading. Naturally, he’s ported picCOLOR to 64 bits, so we can test performance with the x86-64 ISA.

At our request, Dr. Müller, the program’s author, added larger image sizes to this latest build of picCOLOR. We were concerned that the thread creation overhead on the tests rather small default image size would overshadow the benefits of threading. Dr. Müller has also made picCOLOR multithreading more extensive. Eight of the 12 functions in the test are now multithreaded.

Scores in picCOLOR, by the way, are indexed against a single-processor Pentium III 1GHz system, so that a score of 4.14 works out to 4.14 times the performance of the reference machine.

The FX-57 rips through picCOLOR at five and a half times the speed of a Pentium III 1GHz machine, which is very impressive—until you see the X2 and Pentium D 840 scores.

Power consumption
We measured the power consumption of our entire test systems, except for the monitor, at the wall outlet using a Watts Up PRO watt meter. The test rigs were all equipped with OCZ PowerStream 520W power supply units. The idle results were measured at the Windows desktop, and we used SMPOV and the 64-bit version of the POV-Ray renderer to load up the CPUs. In all cases, we asked SMPOV to use the same number of threads as there were CPU front ends in Task Manager—so four for the Pentium XE 840, two for the Athlon 64 X2, and so on.

The graphs below have results for “power management” and “no power management.” That deserves some explanation. By “power management,” we mean SpeedStep or Cool’n’Quiet. In the case of the Pentium 4 600-series processors and the Pentium D 840 and Pentium XE 840 CPUs, the C1E halt state is always active, even in the “no power management” tests. The Pentium D 820 and P4 Extreme Edition 3.73GHz don’t support the C1E halt state or SpeedStep.

The beta BIOS for our Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe mobo wouldn’t support Cool’n’Quiet on the Athlon 64 FX-57 or X2 processors. I was able to update to Asus’ 1011 BIOS rev and get Cool’n’Quiet support for the FX-57, but not for the X2 chips. The power management results at idle below for the FX-57 were measured using the new BIOS, but the rest were obtained using the same BIOS as all of the other Athlon 64 configs.

At idle on the Windows desktop, the Athlon 64 FX-57 system consumes only slightly more power than the FX-55 system. With Cool’n’Quiet clock throttling in play, the FX-57 system needs only 119W at idle, while the P4 Extreme Edition rig pulls 175W just sitting there—a 56W difference. Under load, the story gets even better, as the FX-57 system proves more frugal than the systems hosting its 130nm counterparts like the FX-55. The difference between the FX-57 system and the Extreme Edition 3.73GHz setup remains nearly the same under load as at idle, at 57W.

Overclocking
Somehow, I was expecting more overclocking headroom out of the FX-57 than I found, although I don’t really know why. The deepest wells of overclocking potential usually reside in the low end of the product line, not the high end.

I was able to get this CPU to boot into Windows and run some benchmarks at 3GHz, but even giving it quite a bit more voltage than the default—up to 1.55V—wouldn’t make it 100% stable at that speed. I got some benchmark scores out of it at 3GHz, but I expect that better cooling than the Thermaltake air cooler that I used would be required to get this particular chip stable at that nice, round number. No matter, though. AMD kindly leaves the multiplier unlocked on FX chips, so overclocking is a snap, and the benchmark scores are pretty impressive.

If you can squeeze more clock speed out of this puppy, you’ll be rewarded with nice, linear performance increases.

GeForce 7800 GTX SLI performance
In our recent review of the new GeForce 7800 GTX GPU, we had trouble really pushing this fancy new graphics card with the Athlon 64 4000+ in our test systems, especially with SLI. That left me wishing that I could test with the nifty new FX-57, and now, I can. The numbers below were generated using the same test config we used in our 7800 GTX review, save for the substitution of the FX-57 processor. Let’s see how adding another 400MHz and some nifty core enhancements will help drive a pair of 7800 GTXs in SLI.

Whoa. Here’s something to ponder. If you’re gonna drop $1200 on a pair of GeForce 7800 GTX cards for SLI madness, you may need to pony up for an FX-57 in order to take fullest advantage of them.

Conclusions
I was all ready to give you my spiel about how I’d rather have a dual-core Athlon 64 X2, of any flavor AMD currently offers, over the FX-57. Then I ran those numbers on the dual GeForce 7800 GTX cards in SLI. I can’t really deny the FX-57’s potency in gaming, and if you are planning on driving an exotic graphics configuration involving multiple high-end cards, a blisteringly fast single-core processor like the FX-57 may be the right chip for the job. Beyond gaming, any application that isn’t readily busted into multiple threads for additional performance should benefit from the single-threaded performance of this CPU. For such tasks, the FX-57 has no equal.

Miraculously, like the GeForce 7800 GTX, the FX-57 should be available for purchase right now. AMD has something like 40 system builders lined up with systems ready to launch, including many of the usual suspects like Alienware and Voodoo PC. I didn’t see many major OEMs on the list, but then those guys don’t usually excel at building gaming rigs. I believe individual processors should be available from online retailers right away, too. If this immediate availability thing is the beginning of a trend in new hardware releases, let’s hope it doesn’t stop any time soon.

But I must unleash my spiel, because I really, really would prefer even an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ to the FX-57 for my main system. I play games on that system, sure, but an Athlon 64 X2 at 2.2 or 2.4GHz is plenty potent for real-world gaming. Heck, with the Pentium 4 sucking wind like it is in most games, developers may be forced to keep CPU requirements at a minimum until they make the transition to multithreaded gaming engines. Even before that transition comes in earnest, we may see multithreaded graphics drivers that negate the FX-57’s present advantage in gaming performance. Dual-core processors arguably offer better future proofing than the FX-57, as well.

Beyond that, dual-core processors are simply newer and better products. The results from our test suite, which is admittedly loaded up with multithreaded applications, leave no doubt about that. We’re testing the same basic mix of application types that we’ve tested for years now, and many of them benefit greatly from having a second CPU core onboard. The Pentium D 820 sells for under a quarter the cost of the FX-57, yet it gave the FX-57 a run for its money in a number of scenarios on the preceding pages. More importantly, the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ is a wondrous thing—and still the fastest CPU you can drop into a 939-pin socket. If you must sink a grand into the purchase of a new CPU, for Pete’s sake, let it be the X2 4800+ and not the FX-57. Your multithreaded performance will be better, and your quotient of creamy smoothness for multitasking will rise exponentially.

Latest News

Apple Might Join Hands with Google or OpenAI for Their AI Tech
News

Apple Is Reportedly Planning to Join Hands with Google or OpenAI to License Their AI Tools

YouTube Launches New Tool To Help Label AI-generated Content
News

YouTube Launches a New Tool to Help Creators Label AI-Generated Content

YouTube released a tool that will make creators clearly label the parts of their content that are generated by AI. The initiative was first launched in November in an attempt...

Ripple Dumps 240 Million XRP Tokens Amid 17% Price Decline
Crypto News

Ripple Dumps 240 Million XRP Tokens Amid 17% Price Decline

Popular crypto payment platform Ripple has released 240 million XRP tokens in its latest escrow unlock for March. This comes at a time when XRP’s price has declined significantly. Data from...

Crypto Expert Draws A Links Between Shiba Inu And Ethereum
Crypto News

Crypto Expert Draws Link Between Shiba Inu And Ethereum

The Lucrative FTX Bankruptcy Trade and Ongoing Legal Battle
Crypto News

The Lucrative FTX Bankruptcy Trade and Ongoing Legal Battle

Bitcoin (BTC) Price Set to Enter “Danger Zone” – Time to Back-Off or Bag More Coins?
Crypto News

Bitcoin (BTC) Price Set to Enter “Danger Zone” – Time to Back-Off or Bag More Coins?

SNB to Kick Off Rate Cut Cycle Sooner Than Expected
News

SNB to Kick-Start Rate Cut Cycle Sooner Than Expected