backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 64 comment(s) - last by johnsonx.. on Apr 16 at 5:42 PM
AMD cuts prices on Athlon 64 FX-70-series, X2 6000+ and more

AMD has cut prices on its high-end dual-core desktop processors after the launch of Intel’s quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX6800. AMD also announced its new restructuring plans to compensate for reduced quarterly revenue today. The price cuts affect AMD Athlon 64 X2 for single processor desktops and Athlon 64 FX Quad FX processors.

Quad FX Athlon 64 FX-74 and FX-72 processors prices drop to $799 and $599 from $999 and $799 respectively. AMD sells the Athlon 64 FX-70-series in pairs for its Quad FX enthusiast’s dual processor platform. AMD no longer lists the Athlon 64 FX70, the lowest priced pair of Quad FX processors, in its price list.

AMD Athlon 64 FX
Model Previous Price New Price
FX-74
 $999 $799
FX-72
$799 $599

The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ that AMD released in February receives a drastic price cut to $241 as well. AMD previously priced the X2 6000+ at $464. Other Athlon 64 X2 processors including the X2 5600+, 5200+, 5000+, 4800+, 4400+, 4000+, 3800+ and 3600+ receive price cuts, too. With the new price cuts, all AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors are now priced under $250.

AMD Athlon 64 X2
Model Previous Price New Price
X2 6000+
 $464 $241
X2 5600+
$326 $188
X2 5200+
 $232 $178
X2 5000+
$222 $167
X2 4800+
 $217 $136
X2 4400+
$170 $121
X2 4000+
 $144 $104
X2 3800+
$113 $83
X2 3600+
 $102 $73

Intel expects to cut prices on Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad processors later this quarter as well. Intel also plans to aggressively cut prices of its entire processor lineup in Q3’07 before AMD launches Barcelona and refresh its Core 2 Duo product lineup.

Expect retailer pricing to reflect AMD’s new pricing structure in the upcoming weeks. AMD’s pricing is per processor, in 1,000-unit quantities.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
high end?
By adam92682 on 4/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: high end?
By feelingshorter on 4/10/2007 1:08:57 AM , Rating: 4
Well, with all the hype about Intel Core 2 Duo, I believe we are overlooking one factor with AMD cpus. They idle at lower watt usage. So for someone who wants to make a silent PC, this is great. Or for those of us that are less than frequent gamers. I'm just excited about C2D as you are, but there are still people who buy AMD for the above mentioned reasons.


RE: high end?
By ionoxx on 4/10/2007 1:29:19 AM , Rating: 5
I've built quite a few AMD machines lately, using AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 65W, Asus M2NBP-VM/CSM motherboards, 1 GB of OCZ ram, 160GB Seagate 7200.9, NEC AD-7170A, Antec NSK6500 + 2 extra 92mm fans,and a Floppy/Card Reader Combo.

Using a kill-a-watt, these computers idle at 54 Watts with cool 'n' quiet enabled. Full load 95 Watts. I think its fair to say, these are very efficient computers. People need to realise that for general purpose machines, AMD still offers a better product. Energy conservation is as important with computers as it is with cars.


RE: high end?
By irev210 on 4/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: high end?
By Hoser McMoose on 4/10/2007 2:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's interesting that despite how close they are in apparent costs, when I tried to price out a system the Intel solution was going to cost a LOT more. I was actually planning on getting a Core 2 Duo setup until I found out I couldn't fit it into my (admittedly slim) budget without making major sacrifices.

Setups I was looking at (all prices in Canadian $):

AMD Athlon64 X2 4400+ : $190
2GB DDR2-800 memory : $165
Asus M2NPV-VM : $100

Total: $455, $482 after tax

vs.

Intel Core 2 Duo 4300 : $210
2GB DDR2-800 memory : $165
Gigabyte GA-965GM-S2: $145
SATA to PATA adapter: $15 *

Total: $535, $567 after tax

(* needed because I have two PATA optical drives and one PATA hard drive, but all low-cost Intel boards can only handle 2 PATA drives).

End result was that the AMD system worked out to $85 cheaper. In fact the X2 4600+ was still cheaper than the E4300 while the X2 4800+ was about price parity. The problem really was the motherboards. I just couldn't get a cheap board for the Intel solution (the Asus board you mentioned wasn't available while other 945GZ boards were badly lacking compared to the GeForce 6150 board I did end up with while still being more expensive).


RE: high end?
By subhajit on 4/10/2007 2:37:15 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. As far as overall platform is concerned AMD still provides much better solutions for Mid Range (with integrated graphics). Like the ASUS M2NPV-VM board which has a DVI port so you can use a wide screen lcd with brilliant image quality.


RE: high end?
By Tsuwamono on 4/10/2007 12:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
personally i still choose AMD over Intel dispite intels ability to finish superPi calculations faster then AMD. For me there are just a few things that bug me about intel that just wont let me hop on that bandwagon. I almost did when i built a C2D rig for my friend but call me crazy but i dont really like the motherboards available for intel and i extremely dislike the heat sink mounting on the C2Ds. 4 holes? come on intel you couldnt give us something other then that?

I dunno, i know they are faster processors in the high end and some may argue in the lower ends aswell but unless im building a PC just to do SuperPi or Folding i dont see a reason for taking what i consider disadvantages for its slightly faster speeds.

Intel Fanboys: "Slightly faster speeds" is in context, im a gamer and gaming is mostly GPU based which makes the CPU in it barely a factor. Also note i did not dispute intel's control of the over all speed crown. No need to flame i already pointed out all your arguements..

AMD fanboys: Dont take my comments off and say that AMD is the 1337 WTFPWNZORs or whatever. its not, its just a better solution depending on ones personal needs.


RE: high end?
By Samus on 4/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: high end?
By NotAok on 4/10/2007 9:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
less than frequent gamers? AMD is the reason I am a pc gamer. They offer the most bang for your buck when compared to Intel. I'm still using an AMD 3400, which i paid little for, and can still run the latest games with ease.

Right now I'm playing stalker with everything almost maxed out and it runs fine... Granted my 2 gigs of ram and 7900gtx plays a big part in that but still, those are all cheap parts too.

AMD has always been the best buy when it comes to gaming. Top of the line hardware is almost never needed and ends up being a waste of money in the long run.


RE: high end?
By Pirks on 4/10/2007 5:44:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Right now I'm playing stalker with everything almost maxed out and it runs fine
Exactly. Stalker is the reason I'm switching to S939, this is da best bang for the buck, Intel fanboys can continue licking fat blue Intel's a$$, no problem with that - as long as Intel keeps away from producing EFFICIENT and FAST _single_ core CPUs with DDR support (not DDR2, who needs this laggy thing for fast paced 3D gaming like Stalker?) - I'm staying with S939. The second there is an interesting dual-core-friendly game on horizon (no, not SupCom, not my type, thanks :), like Crysis - I'm swapping my SanDiego with X2 3800 and continue kicking Intel idiots' puny little a$$es in the "bang for a buck" department :P That's all true only for 3D gaming of course. Video encoding experts don't need to apply.


RE: high end?
By majormajormajormajor on 4/10/2007 10:17:45 AM , Rating: 2
Are you sure about the low idle watt usage? I'm a bit concerned after looking at this article:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc...
But of course there is a disclaimer here - saying that the different testbeds used would be a distorting factor in the comparison...

Can anybody point me to reliable stats on the minimum idling wattage of a high end Athlon X2 processor - say the 5000+ Brisbane?


RE: high end?
By Hoser McMoose on 4/10/2007 2:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
Different test beds indeed! The original poster was using integrated graphics (probably about 5W idle, 15W at load?) while the article you quoted is using a GeForce 8800GTX (probably about 100W idle, 150W at load).

Changing the highest power consuming device in the PC is going to make a HUGE difference!


RE: high end?
By majormajormajormajor on 4/10/2007 11:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
'tis integrated graphics for me then! I don't game, and am not likely to load vista either.

Thanks for the wattage numbers. I just read another anandtech article which showed that the X2 5000+ Brisbane was very good on the power consumption front.


RE: high end?
By JumpingJack on 4/10/2007 3:22:14 AM , Rating: 2
Ohhhh, come on --- AMD launched the X2 line in May of 2005 as I recall, and it was this launch that really widened the gap between similar Intel offerings. They charged a premium for them (remember when an X2 4800+ was 600 bucks), and rightly so as they were high end at the time....


RE: high end?