Print 68 comment(s) - last by ajalbetjr.. on Oct 2 at 8:19 PM

No, it still isn't a special edition Mercedes

With Barcelona finally launched, the enthusiast community eagerly awaits the launch of AMD's Phenom desktop processors. A large gap, however, still remains between now and then, and what better way to fill that gap than with a new AMD Athlon 64 product?

Today AMD silent-launched its Athlon 64 X2 5000+ "Black Edition." The Athlon 64 X2 5000+ is AMD’s second processor offered under the Black Edition moniker; the first being the AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+.

In reality, the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ can hardly be considered a completely new product. It still features the same 2.6GHz clock speed, 1 MB of L2 cache, and 65 Watt TDP. In fact, all technical aspects of the processor are identical to its non-Black Edition counterpart. The only new feature that the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black Edition brings to the table is an unlocked multiplier -- allowing overclockers to increase the frequency of the processor without the need to adjust the HyperTransport clock.

It is unmistakable that AMD is attempting to entice enthusiasts and DIY PC builders with the unlocked multiplier. Thus, success of the new product centers on its overclocking performance.

According sources familiar with the new CPUs launch schedule, retail availability of the processors should come later this month, but as of right now no major supplier is selling the new processor.   

AMD guidance sets the MSRP of the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ "Black Edition" at $136 in quantities of 1,000. 

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By retrospooty on 9/27/2007 11:53:32 AM , Rating: 5
I can hardly contain my excitement.

Wait... for a second there, I thought I had an emotion on this, but it faded =)

RE: Wow...
By OrSin on 9/27/2007 11:58:08 AM , Rating: 5
Unlocked for $136 is not bad if you need an upgrade. If you buying new Intel might be better. The CPU for intel are nice but I'm not fan of chipsets right now.

RE: Wow...
By defter on 9/27/2007 12:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
This is available only for AM2 socket. Considering that AM2 was released less than 1.5 years ago, how many people:
- have single core AM2 systems?
- want already upgrade their AM2 systems?

RE: Wow...
By mmntech on 9/27/2007 12:49:08 PM , Rating: 4
If you're still using something like an X2 3800+ like I do, a 5000+ for $136 is a big upgrade for such low cost. Unfortunately my system is Socket 939 so I can't buy this. I'm sure some guy would try to rip me off on eBay for the 939 version of the same thing.

RE: Wow...
By retrospooty on 9/27/2007 1:06:51 PM , Rating: 5
"Unfortunately my system is Socket 939 so I can't buy this. I'm sure some guy would try to rip me off on eBay for the 939 version of the same thing."

exactly the issue... AMD blew it with canceling the 939 CPU's. Alot of people had 939 boards, and if newer faster 939 CPU's were available, they could have sold plenty CPU upgrades... BUT, since to go from 939 to AM2, you needed a new CPU, mobo, and RAM. At that time (and still true today) if you are going to buy a new CPU, mobo, and RAM, Intel is a way better option, so many people switched back to Intel.

RE: Wow...
By designdp on 9/27/2007 1:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately my system is Socket 939 so I can't buy this. Me too

RE: Wow...
By softwiz on 9/27/2007 2:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have liked to get X2 4800+ 939 if they were in stock anywhere.

RE: Wow...
By 1078feba on 9/27/2007 5:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
Snagged an FX-60 just before 939 went the way of the dodo. I know that the Egg doesn't stock them anymore, but I'm pretty sure that you can find them elsewhere.

Got mine at 3.2 stable (stock 2.6, just like this Black edition +5000) on a Coolit Freezone. While it still bottlenecks my dual Ultra's, it's better than nothing while I wait to see how Phenom stacks up against Core 2 and Penryn.

RE: Wow...
By Sunrise089 on 9/27/2007 2:41:18 PM , Rating: 2 aren't the first person I've heard saying this, but last time I checked plenty of s939 Opteron dual-cores were available. So what's the problem?

RE: Wow...
By retrospooty on 9/27/2007 3:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of upgrading to a faster 939 CPU, I (and most people who upgraded) moved on to the batter platform. Dual core Opt's are expensive as hell.

RE: Wow...
By Dactyl on 9/27/2007 8:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
Dual core Opt's are expensive as hell.

I'm considering buying a dual-core S939 2.4GHz Opteron from Newegg for $160.

That's just a little bit more in price than this "Black Edition" CPU and I would get 2x1MB of cache.

Dual core Opterons, while they last, are no longer expensive as hell.

RE: Wow...
By retrospooty on 9/28/2007 10:24:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but the high end AM2 processors are at 3.2ghz. The point was that AMD should have been making faster 939's as well. If they did you could buy a 3.2ghz 939, and that is a nice upgrade.

RE: Wow...
By Sunrise089 on 9/27/2007 11:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe in Canada. In the U.S., my 2.7ghz in 5 minutes Opty was less than $100.

RE: Wow...
By mmntech on 9/27/2007 7:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote: aren't the first person I've heard saying this, but last time I checked plenty of s939 Opteron dual-cores were available. So what's the problem?

I'm from Canada and that sort of stuff is not widely available here anymore. NCIX only has a few left in stock, mostly lower end ones. And yes, Opties are still expensive as hell. I don't like buying valuable stuff from the States either since I'm always worried customs is going to trash it. As for simply upgrading to a new platform, I'm a university student and just spent $500+ on text books. I just don't have the cash so I stick with what I've got.

RE: Wow...
By calyth on 9/27/2007 2:44:24 PM , Rating: 5
Fact of the matter is, by moving the memory controller to the CPU die, whenever you change the memory technology, you probably need a socket change.

Could they have stuck with releasing both 939 and AM2 parts, yes, but I don't think they could get away with not releasing AM2 parts. Mainstream users would tend to say, oh, "Intel is using DDR2, and AMD's still using DDR, so I'll go for Intel" - not quite realising that early DDR2 clock speed isn't enough to make up for its latency, and DDR would work just fine. AMD had to move to DDR2 some point, and eventually they will have to kill off 939.

It isn't like Intel doesn't have similar problems. In fact, they have a worse track record IMO in terms of changing sockets and screwing people.

I'm still interested in the black edition, simply because i'm on a 4000+ and I wouldn't mind moving to an unlocked piece. I do agree withe the comment that AMD should just release unlocked parts to stay in the game. That would definitely entice OCers.

RE: Wow...
By omnicronx on 9/27/2007 3:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
The memory controller has been on the cpu since a64 came out. As for the DDR2, i still really doubt that a socket change was needed, especially since the cpu barely changed (only added one pin which made it 940). Added features such as virtualization probably warranted a socket change, but i really doubt ddr2 was the sole reason for changing sockets.

RE: Wow...
By AMDfreak on 9/27/2007 4:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly the reason, despite my screen name, that I am now building a Q6600 system.

RE: Wow...
By Zagor on 9/27/2007 2:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
I almost got excited when I saw this and then I remembered that my three systems are all 939. What a let down. I will be upgrading this fall but as already stated, new mb and new RAM means going back to intel. What a big mistake by AMD.

RE: Wow...
By defter on 9/27/2007 3:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
If you're still using something like an X2 3800+ like I do, a 5000+ for $136 is a big upgrade for such low cost.

1. 3800+ runs at 2GHz, this new CPU has only 30% higher frequency (and a bigger cache), thus I wouldn't count this a big upgrade.
2. Ordinary 5000+ has been available for ages, now it's availble for $107 according to pricewatch. Only advantage of this "black edition" is unlocked multiplier.

Thus, this 5000+ black edition is neither cheap, not a big upgrade to 3800+.

RE: Wow...
By sdifox on 9/27/2007 3:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
1. 3800+ runs at 2GHz, this new CPU has only 30% higher frequency (and a bigger cache), thus I wouldn't count this a big upgrade.
2. Ordinary 5000+ has been available for ages, now it's availble for $107 according to pricewatch. Only advantage of this "black edition" is unlocked multiplier.

Thus, this 5000+ black edition is neither cheap, not a big upgrade to 3800+.

Huh? a 30% bump on CPU speed for 136 while keeping everything else is not a big deal? Granted, you probably can't OC much out of this anyway, but unlocked is not bad is it?

RE: Wow...
By clovell on 9/27/2007 4:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
How do you figure only 30%? The multiplier is unlocked - you can raise it to whatever you want (although it may not be stable). If this thing has a TDP of 65w vs the 89w 3800+, I'd imagine it has far more headroom as well (since it would use less power). Multiplier OC'ing is more stable than 'FSB' OC'ing anyway, so I'm not certain where 30% is coming from - I hit 37.5% OC on my 3800+.

And a 30% increase in clock speed isn't going to earn you 1337-0C'3r tags, but it's pretty respectable.

RE: Wow...
By Mitch101 on 9/27/2007 12:58:53 PM , Rating: 3
Mine are mostly 939 sockets so I would have to invest in a mobo and ram for this so it doesnt appeal to me. If I have to buy a new mobo and ram then Im looking at either getting a Phenom or an Intel Dual/Quad core at this point.

Maybe they should have also made this in a socket 939 package as a last stand thanks for all who feel abandoned and for no performance increase going to DDR2 unless you went to a Conroe which most did instead.

I would consider upgrading 3 of my current 939 machines with this if it were a 939 package instead of AM2. Sorry AMD.

RE: Wow...
By Felofasofa on 9/27/2007 5:27:29 PM , Rating: 1
but I'm not fan of chipsets right now.

Yeah they are just dreadful. The P35, I can only get to 3ghz on stock cooling with 1.225v on a q6600 g0. Runs annoyingly cool and stable at that speed/voltage. Must be a junk chipset. The guys at Nordic hardware they're only getting 4ghz+ with the new QX9650, more crap chipsets. Gee when will Intel get their shit together.

RE: Wow...
By jajig on 9/27/2007 6:34:26 PM , Rating: 1
A chipset isn't a processor.

RE: Wow...
By Felofasofa on 9/27/2007 6:53:44 PM , Rating: 3
A chipset isn't a processor.

My mistake, they have nothing to do with each other..;)

RE: Wow...
By jajig on 9/27/2007 10:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously that's sarcasm.

OrSin said he liked the processors but not the chipsets, if the chipset is missing something he requires processor speed is irrelevant.

RE: Wow...
By Felofasofa on 9/28/2007 4:52:38 AM , Rating: 2
if the chipset is missing something he requires processor speed is irrelevant.

But what could they be missing? Todays chipsets are packed with features, heaps of USB Ports, lots of SATA's, built in raid, plenty of expansion, mature memory management, reliable and stable, overclock ridiculously easy, and are really cheap for what you get. There's a choice of vendors. I guess I found his gripe rather strange considering the above.

By clovell on 9/27/2007 12:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
This is great! I have an AM2 box and my board's max vDIMM is 1.95v, so fiddling with 'FSB' tends to cause a lot of memory errors and instability. I've been able to go from 2.0 GHz to 2.7 GHz stable on air before my memory gave me problems. With a TDP of 65 W, there's gonna be some nice headroom on this.

It may not save the company, but it'll save me from having to build again sooner.

RE: Awesome
By designdp on 9/27/2007 1:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
All you had to do was up the FSB to 200

RE: Awesome
By omnicronx on 9/27/2007 1:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
FSB died with the Barton first off, second the base clock (basically fsb) has been 200 for a while. For 1:1 mem to cpu you sometimes need to lower the 'fsb' and raise the multiplier to achieve better results. Of course FSB usually gives a better gain than mhz, but I personally find it easier to make your system stable.

RE: Awesome
By clovell on 9/27/2007 2:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
200 is the stock setting... =/

RE: Awesome
By johnsonx on 9/27/2007 3:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think his reply was meant for another post. There's one here about OC'ing a barton for which that reply makes sense.

RE: Awesome
By clovell on 9/27/2007 4:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
that makes more sense.

RE: Awesome
By johnsonx on 9/27/2007 3:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
Just set the Memory Limit option in your BIOS (it may be called other things too.. just don't leave it at Auto or 200Mhz). There's no need to overclock your memory when you overclock the CPU.

RE: Awesome
By omnicronx on 9/27/2007 3:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
There's no need to overclock your memory when you overclock the CPU.
Except for the fact 1:1 almost always results in the best performance/overclock. a computer with fsb at 300 at memory at 200 is not going to be nearly as fast or stable as a pc running async 1:1 at 300mhz for both.

RE: Awesome
By johnsonx on 9/27/2007 4:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
ah, yeah, thanks for that Captain Obvious. 300Mhz memory is faster than 200Mhz memory. I'll have to jot that one down.

Now if you'll leave 2002 and rejoin us in 2007, on AMD platforms there is no such thing as a 1:1 memory ratio. Anything in the BIOS that implies a 1:1 ratio is trying to simplify things for you. On a K8 processor, the memory controller runs at the CPU core speed divided by an integer (my crappy S754 box is running the memory at CPU Core/11 right now, which is 177.5Mhz because I'm lightly overclocking a crappy Sis755 board with crappy PC2700 memory); it isn't directly related to the 'FSB' or HTT speed at all (well, obviously the core speed is a multiplier of the 'FSB' speed, but there's no direct link between memory clock and HTT clock... they're on opposite sides of the CPU core).

Setting the memory limit option simply changes the divider that will be used to derive the memory clock from the CPU clock. While some BIOS's say things like '1:1' or '3:2' in the memory limit option, and others say '166Mhz', '133Mhz' etc, neither set is really true (one of my boards actually has some Memory Limit options listed as speeds, others as ratios... talk about confusing!)

A simple example: you set the Memory Limit to 166Mhz. This tells the BIOS to use a divider of the CPU core frequency that would result in no more than 166Mhz IF the CPU were not overclocked. If the CPU is overclocked, the memory clock will most likely be higher than 166Mhz.

The old axiom about synchronizing the 'FSB' to the Memory speed simply doesn't apply to K8, because the two aren't connected (yes nitpickers, the 'FSB' is the HTT Clock).

RE: Awesome
By Slaimus on 9/27/2007 4:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
There is no penalty for different memory/HT speeds on K8.

The memory speed is obtained by dividing the CPU frequency.

2400/8 = 300, it does not matter whether the 2400 is gotten from 12x200 or 9x266.

This is different than on P4/K7 where the memory speed and CPU speed are both multiplied directly from the FSB.

RE: Awesome
By clovell on 9/27/2007 4:13:27 PM , Rating: 3
Well, unfortunately for me, there's no simple option like that on my mobo - I just have to grind out the srithmetic myself. The thing is, though, that I get less stability even at the memory's rated stock speeds by running a divider.

That's the reason why I had to drop down from 2.7 GHz to 2.4 GHz. Once I added another 2 x 1GB, it became even more unstable and I had to clock back to stock. There's a noticeable performance difference now - things load and execute more slowly intially, but having 3 GB of RAM, I can switch between apps a lot easier.

That being said, with a locked multiplier, you can't OC without raising the 'FSB' - and the 'FSB' and the memory are linked - raising one raises the other. The only way to OC my CPU and keep the memory speeds in check is to run a memory divider, which, as omnicronx pointed out, isn't as stable as running your memory 1:1.

I'm pretty confident that I wouldn't have these problems if I could give my ram more than 1.95v (board max - memory is rated at 1.9v) - I just am stuck walking a fine line because Asus falsely advertised the M2N-E.

I know what I'm doing - I spent 3 months as an Anandtech forum junkie before even ordering my parts.

RE: Awesome
By johnsonx on 9/27/2007 4:25:34 PM , Rating: 1
The memory ratio option is the same thing as Memory Limit. Please read my response to omnicrox, there's no point in me repeating the same info.

I know what I'm doing - I spent 3 months as an Anandtech forum junkie before even ordering my parts.

If the AT forum people told you about running your memory at 1:1 on K8, did they also tell you about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy?

RE: Awesome
By clovell on 9/27/2007 4:37:12 PM , Rating: 3
I read your post. You can replace '1:1' with 'stock divider' in my post and still have the same information.

You've completely missed the point of my problem and have focused on how Overclocking my CPU doesn't require Overclocking my memory. I know that. I've never even tried to Overclock my memory - I have 0.05v of voltage headroom on my vDIMM - it's just not going to happen. I've always used a divider - I know how they work.

If you just want to be a troll and argue over symantics, that's fine, but let's call a spade a spade - you're not here to address my problem - you're here to try to impress us with your knowledge of overclocking and the K8 architecture - and to be completely honest, the only thing I'm impressed with is how much of a natural you are at being a jerk and ignoring the point.

RE: Awesome
By johnsonx on 9/27/2007 7:03:24 PM , Rating: 1
Fair enough criticism... I may have been feeling a bit boisterous and cocky. Honestly I was trying to help you, but perhaps I started amusing myself at the end there.

However, I still maintain there is no 'stock divider' for a K8 CPU. This isn't semantics. No one divider is more 'right' than another; the default is calculated by the BIOS at boot time by considering the memory limit setting, SPD values, and CPU multiplier. If you encounter stability problems using other dividers than the default, I suspect you have other settings incorrect. One thing even I, in my infinite mastery of all things overclocking, sometimes forget is setting a memory limit ratio also tells the BIOS to use the SPD timings for the lower memory speed. While I usually get away with using the DDR-333 timings at or a little above DDR-400 speeds, it's something to be mindful of.

This whole thread started out by you saying you couldn't get above 2.7Ghz with your multi-locked CPU because you can't overvolt your DIMMs enough; that clearly implied you were overclocking your memory. Now you're saying you never tried overclocking your memory (so then why do you need more vDIMM?). In an response post, you said you didn't want to use a divider because 1:1 is best, now you say you've always used a divider. It's hard to be of help when the story keeps changing.

I made my original comment only because your original post strongly suggested you didn't know about using a memory divider, and my follow-up comments were due to what I took as your false belief in a magic '1:1 memory ratio' fairy that bestows extra memory performance like so much pixie dust. You were threatening to drop $160 on a CPU upgrade just because it had an unlocked multiplier, and I attempted to save you from wasting that coin. I shall now martyr myself upon a cross and await your sword in my side...

(damn, I'm doing it again aren't I? bad johnsonx, BAD!)

RE: Awesome
By clovell on 9/28/2007 3:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well, locking in the stock settings of my memory at its rated 5-5-5-15 @ 2T with the HT multiplier at 4x and the HT bus at 240 MHz and my PCIe bus locked at 100MHz while leaving my CPU multiplier at 10x and running a memory setting of 667 MHz (effectively putting the memory at 800 MHz) while giving the memory 1.95v (an extra 0.05v - for good measure) still gives errors on Orthos Dual Core Blend Stress test in under 10 minutes. I guess I could have got some bad memory when I last upgraded, but once I set everything to auto, I'm 24 hours stable on Orthos DC Blend, so it doesn't seem like bad memory to me...

I'm not sure about magic fairies and performance, but the stock settings are the only thing that seem to give me stability right now. I know that contradicts what you're telling me about the architecture, but that's just my experience with the thing.

I may not have made a lot of sense earlier. Right now, the only way I can get stability is at stock, so I'm using the default/stock/1:1 divider and leaving the HT bus at 200 MHz. If you've got any ideas, though, I can give em a shot.

RE: Awesome
By johnsonx on 9/29/2007 7:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
While it's not all that much of an overclock, is it possible your CPU just isn't stable at 2.4Ghz? Certainly there must be at least a few AMD CPU's out there that are speed binned low because they truly couldn't cut it at any higher clock speed. Most people get much higher with their AM2's, but that doesn't mean everyone does.

Or are you saying you can run stable at 2.4Ghz with the memory overclocked by leaving the memory ratio setting at Auto, but unstable at 2.4Ghz with the memory at stock speed using a memory ratio?

If the second one is what you mean, then I'm stumped. Without having the system to look at personally, I guess I have little else to offer.

RE: Awesome
By clovell on 10/1/2007 11:02:36 AM , Rating: 2
When I first built, my CPU would max out at 2745 MHz stable. That's dropping the memory speed as low as I could using a divider with HT bus set to 305 and a 9x multiplier. I scaled it back to 2700 MHz for good measure, and it was stable for awhile. I can't remember exactly what did it, but I started getting some instability, so I backed off the OC a bit and came down to 2400MHz.

And that was fine, stable - great. But then I add another 2x1 GB of memory (same kind as the 2x512 MB I already had), and I start getting some stability issues that I can only get past by setting everything to auto. Which is weird, because if I lock in the stock settings, I still get some problems.

I may experiment with different BIOS revisions; I think that's what caused me to have to scale back from 2.7 to 2.4 GHz.

RE: Awesome
By Socaddict on 10/1/2007 4:39:10 AM , Rating: 2
hold on, your RAM is rated at 800mhz, and your trying to shove 1.95V through it? I thought almost all 800mhz RAM was rated at 2.0V? That would most likely be the problem.

RE: Awesome
By clovell on 10/1/2007 10:55:43 AM , Rating: 2
Corsair XMS2 PC6400 is rated at 1.90v

To compete with Intel...
By Tedtalker1 on 9/27/2007 12:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
They should be unlocking all of their CPUs.It really ticked me off when after seeing my friend's 2500+ Barton easily overclock to 3200+,I ordered one a couple of months later only to find it hard locked.Just being able to overclock it at all was futile.With Intel's new processors being overclocking monsters, AMD needs to get their head out of the sand.They left an avid supporter high and dry and that doesn't make good business sense to me at all.

RE: To compete with Intel...
By StinkyMojo on 9/27/2007 12:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
All you had to do was up the FSB to 200... you don't need to touch the multiplier ;-)

RE: To compete with Intel...
By Tedtalker1 on 9/29/2007 12:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
I tried that and it was a no go.It was hard locked completely.I even tried a pin mod with no success.

RE: To compete with Intel...
By johnsonx on 9/30/2007 11:54:12 PM , Rating: 1
No such thing as a 'hard locked' AMD CPU. However there were plenty of Barton 2500+ CPU's that simply wouldn't do 2.2Ghz. Remember that 2.2Ghz was the pinnacle of released K7 CPU's; very few had much OC headroom beyond that.

What if I still have a 754 :(
By drinkmorejava on 9/27/2007 1:55:58 PM , Rating: 2
Clawhammer 3400 ftw

RE: What if I still have a 754 :(
By cochy on 9/27/2007 2:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
Turn it into a media pc like I'm about to do with mine :P

RE: What if I still have a 754 :(
By JonB on 9/28/2007 12:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
or into a Windows Home Server like I'll do (don't need a Media PC). A tribute to the old AMD 64 3000+ that it still seems very peppy for everything but video rendering.

I see an AM2 replacement in my near future.

By Alphafox78 on 9/27/2007 2:24:51 PM , Rating: 3
you know what they say.. once you go black.. you never go back to Intel.. hahahaahah!!

RE: Black
By troublesome08 on 9/27/2007 3:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
Haha yeah.

but it got a laugh anyway

are you listening AMD?
By whickywhickyjim on 9/27/2007 6:24:20 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe if AMD starting pushing out their new AM2+ chipsets, which supposedly are backward compatible to AM2, there might be something for the market to get excited about. It would at least be a partial solution - people could upgrade their board and memory now and still use one of these cheezy AM2s, but have a drop in upgrade option waiting for them when phenom is finally released.

But instead they release this waste of time that everyone knows is outdated upon release. If you wanted to release something to appease the diehards, you should have released 939s.

Are you paying attetion AMD? Giving the market what it wants is a good thing. And all you have to do is read this forum to see what that is, because this is about all that's left of your dying market share.

This monkey drivel simply won't do.

RE: are you listening AMD?
By Silver2k7 on 9/28/2007 4:10:28 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't the memory the same for AM2+ boards ??

Ive got an 6000+ CPU and feel totally un-excited about this lower black edition.. why not release a 6600+ unlocked then it would have some speed to begin with.. then new AM2+ boards would be nice to see also!!

RE: are you listening AMD?
By whickywhickyjim on 9/28/2007 2:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
am2+ is suposed to officially support ddr2 1066. am2 maxes out at ddr2 800.

Only for already owners of AM2 out there
By DeepBlue1975 on 9/27/2007 2:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
This is intended only for AM2 owners. If you don't own an AM2 and wanna change your whole rig, AMD is not the way to go, maybe it will be a good alternative when phenom comes out, but it's not a good time to spend money on AMD right now, with Phenom around the corner and Intel's chips as cheap and overclockable as they never were.

Even though, if I owned an AM2 setup, I would wait to see how much this one can overclock, because if it goes no higher than an x2 4000, I wouldn't see any reason to upgrade.

By clovell on 9/27/2007 4:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
The 4000 only ran at 2.0 GHz - if it can't do better than that, then it'd be a colossal failure and prove AMD is incompetent.

Not mentioned in article
By ioKain on 9/27/2007 3:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's also gonna be built on 65nm. I was waiting to get the 89W 6000, but I think I might have to go with this. Hopin to get at least 800mhz more on an OC. Should be no problem on my Crosshair.

RE: Not mentioned in article
By ioKain on 9/27/2007 3:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I guess they already had a 5000 on 65nm. It's also 512 per core, not 1mb. Sigh, anyone know where I can get an 89W 6000. So far it only seems to be available overseas.

Fairly small
By crystal clear on 9/27/2007 4:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
AMD Zone says-

Stop-gap or not, AMD has succeeded in making a lot of noise, out of something fairly small.

RE: Fairly small
By Regs on 9/27/2007 4:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
That sounds about right. What saddens me is it took the loss of millions and maybe even billions of dollars of revenue for AMD to unlock the multiplyer.

I know, not many on the market over clock, but it seems like AMD knows how to come out with a good idea a year too late. You can all guess my next statement. Yes, just like the Barcelona.

Not So Excited
By Quiescent on 9/27/2007 3:58:26 PM , Rating: 3
If this is all AMD has to offer, then I am not at all excited. Just because the multi-core is unlocked for easier overclocking, this isn't enough for me to turn my head and choose AMD over Intel. I used to be a fan of AMD, but currently they have been jacking around and not offering anything convenient and exciting.

By Comdrpopnfresh on 9/27/2007 7:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
these are just lower-speed binned processors that never got the multipliers upper-locked

RE: lol
By burn0u7 on 9/28/07, Rating: 0
It's 2.8 Ghz!!!!!!!!
By ajalbetjr on 10/2/2007 8:19:11 PM , Rating: 2

It appears this is a better deal than we expected: an Inquirer article links you to the first posted review of the chip-apparently it is 65nm at 2.8Ghz, NOT 2.6!!!:

Like the Inquirer said, it's like an FX on the cheap...but at only 65 watts!!!:

"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki