backtop

Hardware AMD Quietly Releases Athlon 64 X2 5200+
Anh Tuan Huynh (Blog) - September 6, 2006 3:01 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 34 comment(s) - last by Visual.. on Sep 8 at 1:47 AM
The Athlon 64 FX-60 gets reincarnated as the X2 5200+

AMD has quietly released a new Athlon 64 X2 5200+ processor for AM2 platforms. DailyTech previously reported AMD was expected to launch new Athlon 64 X2 5200+ processors. The Athlon 64 X2 5200+ is essentially identical to the previous socket 939 Athlon 64 FX-60, with the exception of socket and memory support. Clock frequency of the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ is also identical to the previous X2 5000+ at 2.6 GHz. The only difference with the X2 5200+ is the 2x1MB L2 cache configuration which delivers slightly better performance in cache intensive applications. The power envelope has increased due to the added L2 cache. While the X2 5000+ has a 65 watt TDP, the X2 5200+ TDP has increased to 89 watts.

DailyTech asked AMD representatives why the Athlon 64 X2 5200+ was launched quietly without any press releases or reviews. AMD PR person Damon Muzny stated the X2 5200+ would offer similar performance to the older Athlon 64 FX-60 and world wide reviews weren’t necessary as an Athlon 64 FX-62 clocked with the multiplier dropped would demonstrate identical performance.

AMD’s Athlon 64 X2 5200+ is available immediately. PIB pricing is $403 each for 1000 units.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
is this 939 or am2?
By hondaman on 9/6/2006 5:54:51 PM , Rating: 4
I hope its 939 so AMD will give me something to upgrade to.

I'm passing on AM2 till they build something worth buying.




RE: is this 939 or am2?
By smitty3268 on 9/6/2006 6:05:41 PM , Rating: 4
So you want to buy this, but you won't move to AM2 unless they build something worth buying. Hmm...


RE: is this 939 or am2?
By finalfan on 9/6/2006 6:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
He does not want to buy this unless it's 939, and won't move to AM2 unless they build something worth buying (new motherboard and memory)


RE: is this 939 or am2?
By smitty3268 on 9/6/2006 7:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get it - he obviously thinks this processor is worth buying. Do you mean he is waiting until a better MB is made? Faster memory?


RE: is this 939 or am2?
By hondaman on 9/6/2006 7:36:48 PM , Rating: 5
Not quite sure what the problem understanding this is.

AM2 is a dud. And Ive bought NOTHING but AMD products since my first cpu back in 1996, a Pentium 166.

When AMD makes something worth the upgrade, on a value for dollar level, I'll buy it. AM2, the cpu, isnt it, as I'm not about to dump my 4400, a8n32, and 4 gigs of ram for an AM2, new motherboard, and 4 gigs of ddr2 ram for _very_ marginal speed increases.



RE: is this 939 or am2?
By Bonrock on 9/7/2006 2:41:49 AM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry, but if you already have an Athlon X2 4400+, then why are you looking to upgrade at all? Do you really have that much extra cash burning a hole in your pocket? You already have a faster processor than 98% of computer users.

I'm a computer geek too but sometimes I just don't understand what's wrong with my fellow geeks.


RE: is this 939 or am2?
By hondaman on 9/7/2006 2:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
I buy stuff based on my particular needs. And very often I reach the threshhold (read: pegging) my current cpu, a 4400+



RE: is this 939 or am2?
By kilkennycat on 9/7/2006 3:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
My 939-pin X2 4400+ overclocks at 2.65GHz and is fully stable running all torture-tests ( multiple simultaneous instances of Prime95 etc...etc..) I'm happy until the quad-core processors from both AMD (on 65nm) and Intel arrive around the middle of next year. Also, second-gen Dx10 video cards should be beginning to emerge by then.


RE: is this 939 or am2?
By hondaman on 9/6/2006 6:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
Correct.

AM2 is a waste of money imo.

Ill stick with 939 till they make something better.


RE: is this 939 or am2?
By Targon on 9/6/2006 7:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
AM2 isn't the problem, it's just that the current 800MHz DDR-2 isn't enough to make it worth switching to. Going to 1066MHz would probably make it so AM2 will have enough of a benefit to switch to.



RE: is this 939 or am2?
By Spoelie on 9/7/2006 9:58:39 AM , Rating: 2
RE: is this 939 or am2?
By retrospooty on 9/7/2006 9:58:48 AM , Rating: 2
"the current 800MHz DDR-2 isn't enough to make it worth switching to."

exactly. I dont think ddr2 1066 is much of an improvement either, just minor.


RE: is this 939 or am2?
By twjr on 9/6/2006 7:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
Dude it would be totally pointless it being released as 939 seeing it is identicall specd to an fx60.


RE: is this 939 or am2?
By hondaman on 9/6/2006 7:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
Its not identical.

FX series are unlocked, and aimed for the enthusiast.

There are plenty of "+" series AMD cpu's faster than FX chips.


5000+ X2 on Newegg
By bob661 on 9/6/2006 6:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
The X2 5000 is on Newegg (yes I know the article is about the 5200). I thought the 5000 was suppsoed to be around $300?




RE: 5000+ X2 on Newegg
By johnsonx on 9/6/2006 10:31:40 PM , Rating: 1
just call 'em GougeEgg. Notice the 4000+ is $429 too. I guess they're holding out for a few suckers.


RE: 5000+ X2 on Newegg
By Frank M on 9/7/2006 12:14:27 AM , Rating: 2
Really? I've never had anything but good experiences with newegg. Who do you buy from?


RE: 5000+ X2 on Newegg
By johnsonx on 9/7/2006 12:47:37 AM , Rating: 2
I buy almost everything from NewEgg (for business too, so we're talking tens of thousands per year minimum). But that doesn't mean they don't price-gouge on new products like many other retailers do. Presuming that NewEgg buys from AMD, their cost for a 5000+ is about half what they are charging for one; their cost isn't higher just because there aren't as many available (unless they've had to turn to 3rd party sources because supply is so tight).

I suppose the rule is what the market will bear, but that doesn't mean I can't grouse about it. I don't buy the sorts of products that get price-gouged anyway, so my griping is somewhat academic; I stick to the budget and midrange waters of the market.


RE: 5000+ X2 on Newegg
By bob661 on 9/7/2006 1:01:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
just call 'em GougeEgg. Notice the 4000+ is $429 too. I guess they're holding out for a few suckers.
The 4000 is a 1MB cache CPU so I understand the cost. It's just that the 5000 (512MB cache) was supposed to be $300 or thereabouts. Maybe there aren't many in stock and there's high demand?


Errors
By chedrz on 9/6/2006 5:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
Should say 5200+, not 5000+ or 52000+.




RE: Errors
By Furen on 9/7/2006 2:43:37 AM , Rating: 2
=)

And here I thought AMD had increased performance by an order of magnitude...


RE: Errors
By JackPack on 9/7/2006 3:28:42 AM , Rating: 2
The ultimate rebadge....

Come on AMD, I can't believe you guys are expecting FX-64 to hold the tide until Q3'07.


Should be 5200+
By formulav8 on 9/6/2006 5:26:42 PM , Rating: 3
The title say 5000+ when it should be 5200+.

I saw this this morning at the AMD price list and thought it to be pretty interesting they brought out a 1MB per core CPU. They evidentally do not expect it to sell in high volumes. At $400 its going to be a pretty tough purchase with the lower-end X2's and the Conroe based cpu's at a cheaper price.


Jason




RE: Should be 5200+
By Anh Huynh on 9/6/2006 5:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
Fixed, thanks for pointing it out guys.


1MB cache?
By AstroCreep on 9/6/2006 6:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
Wait a sec...I thought AMD was done doing 1MB L2 caches (per core) on the desktop model CPUs...

Ah well, it's not like I can afford one of these anyway...

Move along...




RE: 1MB cache?
By johnsonx on 9/6/2006 10:26:54 PM , Rating: 3
no, they're just done selling more expensive 1mb cache chips at lower prices. AMD's two most expensive Desktop CPU's are both 1Mb cache, and the rest are all 512k. Makes sense, doesn't it?

This also gives AMD a way to get rid of FX-62 chips that don't quite meet spec at 2.8ghz; if they're ok at 2.6, then they lock the multiplier and label 'em 5200+.


wrong
By R3MF on 9/6/2006 7:27:31 PM , Rating: 3
only the EE CPU's have the 65W TDP until the 0.9u versions arrive




RE: wrong
By R3MF on 9/7/2006 3:12:23 AM , Rating: 2
"While the X2 5000+ has a 65 watt TDP, the X2 5200+ TDP has increased to 89 watts."

all X2 chips have an 89WTDP unless they are EE chips, until they get .65u out.


By DallasTexas on 9/6/2006 5:29:13 PM , Rating: 1
A name change to the FX-60 at higher thermals and same performance? I would keep that announcement quiet too.




By OvErHeAtInG on 9/6/2006 6:48:10 PM , Rating: 3
Same 89W as FX-60 AFAIK. Just higher compared to 5000+.

@ below: this is AM2-only.


They are NOT "readily available"
By SuperSix on 9/7/2006 10:18:05 AM , Rating: 2
Earliest ETA to disty is 09/17 or so..

Quiet launch = no product to ship




By Saphyrro on 9/7/2006 4:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
By Roy2001 on 9/7/2006 7:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
E6600 at stock speed beats FX-62. So new CPU is not shining at all.




unlocked?
By Visual on 9/8/2006 1:47:01 AM , Rating: 2
is this thing still unlocked up?
not that i think its multiplier is too low... just curious.




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki