backtop


Print 56 comment(s) - last by Snipester.. on Jan 7 at 1:34 PM


The ASUS L1N64-SLI WS
AMD's premium chips hit ... with a price premium, too!

The Tech Report reports AMD Quad FX processors and accompanying motherboard are available in retail. All is not well for AMD’s Quad FX platform, though. While the Athlon 64 FX-70 series and ASUS L1N64-SLI WS are available, there’s a steep price premium on processors and the required motherboard.

There are only two retailers that carry the necessary Quad FX products: Newegg and ZipZoomFly. AMD Athlon 64 FX-70 series processors of all speed grades are available from Newegg while ZipZoomFly only has the Athlon 64 FX-70 in stock.

Obtaining the required ASUS L1N64-SLI WS is a challenge as neither retailer has it in stock.  Pricing of the ASUS L1N64-SLI WS is $429.99 and $379.99 from Newegg and ZipZoomFly respectively, $30-80 higher than the expected $349.99 MSRP.

Nevertheless, AMD Quad FX parts are indeed available in retail. Expect to pay a $129-181 premium to have AMD’s power flagship.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: WOW
By mino on 1/4/2007 6:16:45 AM , Rating: 2
"And you will probably find that 1 45nm quad core CPU from Intel is better than 2 65nm native quad core CPUs from AMD."

Well, won't be so sure about that. Remember, even Kentsfield _is_ bandwith-starved. Even K8-based 65nm quad would be able to match its performance. Not to mention K8L with >10% performance bump...

The battle for mainstream is 3GHz Conroe vs. 3GHz K8 and by the end of 2007 will most probably be 3.3GHz Penryn vs. 3.2GHz K8L. It is dominated by Intel now, and will be a close race by the end of 2007.
However on the 4C front I do not see Intel catching AMD before Q1 08.


RE: WOW
By ss284 on 1/4/2007 9:39:35 AM , Rating: 2
Considering that 65nm athlon x2s are very slightly slower than their 90nm counterparts, I would have to disagree with your first statement that a 65nm quad would match a kentsfield in performance.


RE: WOW
By hubajube on 1/4/2007 2:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would have to disagree with your first statement that a 65nm quad would match a kentsfield in performance.
And I would have to disagree with your statement because a 65nm quad from AMD won't be the same core as the present 65nm cores.


RE: WOW
By androticus on 1/5/2007 1:07:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

And I would have to disagree with your statement because a 65nm quad from AMD won't be the same core as the present 65nm cores.


Let's see... 939 to AM2 (DDR2)... no performance increase; 95nm to 65nm... performance **decreases**
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=28...

Quad FX... performance **decrease** on most applications and benchmarks compared to equally clocked X2 rigs (seemingly due to cache coherency issues.)

So exactly WHAT in AMD's **recent** history of new product design leads one to conclude any kind of earth-shattering or even measurable improvement in performance is coming with K8L???


RE: WOW
By cochy on 1/5/2007 2:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However on the 4C front I do not see Intel catching AMD before Q1 08.


Please explain. I do not understand. By 4C do you mean quad-core? If so how do you figure Intel will only "catch" up to AMD by Q1 08 when last I checked AMD doesn't even have a quad-core cpu in the market yet let alone have any real benchmarks available. No one has any idea how the AMD quad cores will perform. So your statement is very presumptuous. If I understood you correct of course.

AMD has already stated that they are not interested in the multi-core approach or race, if you will, with Intel. This statement leads me to believe that AMD will forfeit the desktop x86 mainstream performance crown to Intel and focus on their real winners and current cash cow the Opteron, and the future with integrated graphics/cpu + chipset market which AMD hope to become a very large player as seen with the acquisition of ATI.

On the desktop front, I believe AMD realizes that they just can't compete with Intel's enormous wealth and resources. Even for the past few years while AMD had the performance crown securely in their pocket (K8 vs. P4), they still had a very hard time gaining considerable market share from Intel. Reason: They just couldn't properly market their superior product because of Intel's MASSIVE marketing power. Mainstream users just didn't understand the potential of K8. Now that Intel is back in front with C2D, I think AMD has given up for the long term for the mainstream performance desktop.

AMD's biggest supporters were PC enthusiasts. Unfortunately for the desktop industry, the enthusiast market, while nice (as seen by boutique PC shops like Alienware, Voodoo etc.) is not a cash cow. However, the server industry is, and for the most part the people making the buying decision on servers are pc enthusiasts and understood the potential of K8 and jumped all over the Opteron. These people are not as susceptible to marketing as mainstream users, thus negating Intel's massive marketing advantage. Opteron still has a very large advantage over Core 2 in SMP operations.

Anyway this is just my opinion based on the news out of AMD recently. I definitely have more chance of being totally off base here, since exiting the mainstream performance desktop market is a pretty drastic measure.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki