backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by bldckstark.. on Feb 1 at 5:07 PM


Image courtesy Newegg
Bleeding edge AMD fans rejoice; your 3.0GHz processor has arrived

It appears as though the February 20th, 2007 embargo date on Athlon 64 X2 6000+ applies to everyone except DailyTech and Newegg.  Details of the last high-end Athlon 64 X2 processor before AMD's next-generation microarchitecture was leaked out DailyTech just a few days ago.

Ryan Shrout tells us that early this morning the retailer began selling the 3.0GHz chip for $599 in-stock, which is actually just under the volume distributor pricing of $607.  Buy.com also lists the processor, but for $685 and out of stock

The processor is slated to launch in a little more than three weeks, but it appears that information about the CPU has already been disclosed.  The  model number has not appeared on AMD's website yet.  AMD's model number, ADX6000IAA6CZ, was leaked with some preliminary specifications on Asrock's motherboard support website early this year.

The CPU is a 90nm dual-core 3.0GHz processor. It features 1MB L2 cache per core and is essentially identical to the Athlon 64 FX-74 processor with the exception that the 6000+ uses Socket AM2 instead of Socket 1207. 

Two Athlon 64 FX 70-series processors are used in AMD's high-end Quad FX platform.  Typically the FX-family processors cost significantly more than the desktop components, but in this case the FX-74 is actually priced $50 less than the 6000+ at Newegg.


Comments     Threshold


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

Unreasonably overpriced !!!
By ButterFlyEffect78 on 1/27/2007 5:29:34 PM , Rating: 4
Probably because it is the fastest cpu by amd aside from the 4x4 quadfather platform. And should be faster then the FX62 so that explains the high price.

Is it a smart buy if you building a brand new pc? hmmm Not really, not a great by at all. For 600 dollars you can purchase a powerfull cpu that overclocks, a decent mobo, and a decent video card. If this cpu was around 300-350 then it will be a great upgrade to those who already have an amd platform.




RE: Unreasonably overpriced !!!
By kenji4life on 1/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Unreasonably overpriced !!!
By ButterFlyEffect78 on 1/27/2007 5:53:02 PM , Rating: 3
I believe my Opty 165 dual core that i payed 150 dollars for and overclocked it to 2.8ghz on air was well worth on my part. I don't agree with you on that one because the only cpu's that are not worth buying are the flagship processors, the FX line. But to say 'nothing worth buying' is plain absurd.


RE: Unreasonably overpriced !!!
By kenji4life on 1/27/2007 5:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you missed the part where I said IMHO- In my humble opinion. And I mostly meant that for myself.. as I am still sticking it out with my system for now:

Barton Mobile 2400+ (35watt)
1 gig valuram
6800GS 256mb unlocked to Ultra
hercules gtxp
nec multisync fe700+
raided wd 80's

still does everything i need it to do good enough.

sad thing is how 'amazing fast' my computer was when I built it a few years ago.

but yes, disagree with my humble opinion, that is within your right as a human being in most first world contries on the earth


RE: Unreasonably overpriced !!!
By Scabies on 1/27/2007 6:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
Shoot, now you totally have me second guessing my next move. I was about to step out of my Socket A 3200XP Barton corner and throw down about a grand on a core2 setup, seeing as my rig is around four years old. My family came to visit over the holidays, and they all said "dang, I wish my computer was this fast."
I just wish AMD/TI would toss out a better northbridge to compliment the r600 launch, otherwise its back to intel for me... We'll know in a month or so.


By StevoLincolnite on 1/28/2007 2:08:20 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, My Socket A Barton 3000+ 1gb of DDR, Radeon 9800XT does everything and plays everything. (Even oblivion!!!).
Still, I was thinking of going the low end single core Athlon 64... Or a low end Core 2. But until I cant play games on medium quality my current rig is good enough for me!


RE: Unreasonably overpriced !!!
By Hare on 1/28/2007 6:40:04 AM , Rating: 2
Jump from 3200XP barton to 3000+ A64, hardly noticed.
Jump from 2,5Ghz A64 to Pentium M740, hardly noticed.
Jump from Pentium M to E6300. Definately noticed...

Jump from Ati 9700 -> nVidia 6800, definately worth it
Jump from 6800 -> X1950pro, definately worth it

If you are happy with your current rig. Keep it. If you want more performance I can tell you that C2D and a decent GPU make miracles happen. Conroe is definately a breath of fresh air from a performance stand point. I can actually feel the difference unlike with previous upgrades.


RE: Unreasonably overpriced !!!
By TechLuster on 1/27/2007 6:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact of the matter is that nothing AMD has right now is worth buying imho


Actually, if you're building an inexpensive low-power system right now, Intel has nothing worth buying in the sub-$150 category. AMD, on the other hand, has the 3800+ Orleans and X2 3800+ EE Windsor for $100 and $135, respectively. For most people, either of these chips paired with a nice integrated board and a gig of RAM will provide plenty of (energy-efficient) computational power for the next couple years.

I agree that Intel has AMD beat in the mid-to-high end market, but AMD's doing just fine on the low end.


RE: Unreasonably overpriced !!!
By Ringold on 1/27/2007 8:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, got to disagree.

Saw earlier today a Fry's in-store deal.

"Frys Electronics - Intel E4300 CPU + Motherboard for $149.99"

"Frys Electronics in-store has the Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E4300 and the ECS P4M800PRO-M V2 motherboard for $149.99.

Motherboard comes with
- Onboard 2D/3D Video / 6 Channel Audio
- Supports AGP8x / SATA & RAID Support
- DDR400 or DDR2 533
"

For a low-end econo box, that rocks. Hell, the processor alone is worth that.

AMD has some strength in the low end category but once the E4300 is in wide circulation the smart money is C2D from low end to high end.

Saw the above on spoofee.com, btw.

http://ads.ocregister.com/interactive-ads/ocr/imag...

NewEgg wants $179 for the E4300 alone.


RE: Unreasonably overpriced !!!
By BladeVenom on 1/27/2007 9:03:11 PM , Rating: 1
That's not the normal price, it's only available at Fry's brick and mortar stores which most people don't have near them, and even worse that motherboard doesn't work with that processor until it's been flashed with a new BIOS.


RE: Unreasonably overpriced !!!
By lonster on 1/28/2007 12:30:49 AM , Rating: 2
Be careful, I've returned 2 CPU/ECS board combos from Fry's. The first combo was an X2 3800+ and an NFORCE4-A939, stability issues + faulty USB controller which would only operate in 1.1 mode. The second was a P4 2.66/ECS P4M800 PRO which would not post at random. Save your cash, or buy the combo and eBay the board.


RE: Unreasonably overpriced !!!
By mino on 1/29/2007 5:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you found a deal 1cent under $150 he mentioned. HURAH!
;-)))

Actually, as that board has a negative value by the necessity to get rid of her (that's its bundled for free), your deal may be a little over $160.


RE: Unreasonably overpriced !!!
By kenji4life on 1/28/2007 12:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
wow this post got rated down to -1?

okie :P


The PS3 is a better value
By xuimod on 1/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: The PS3 is a better value
By kenji4life on 1/27/2007 6:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the PS3 actually is a better value than the 6000+.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Despite having NO desire to own a PS3..

I'd still choose the PS3 over this processor if forced to spend my 600..

btw that was more random than monkey boobs in jello covered fried chicken from popeye's with barq's root beer R34 doing 0-60 in less than 4 seconds after the clock struck 12..



RE: The PS3 is a better value
By Scabies on 1/27/2007 6:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
lol. just go to bed.


RE: The PS3 is a better value
By protosv on 1/27/2007 8:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
"Cocaine's a hell of a drug..."

-Rick James


RE: The PS3 is a better value
By theprodigalrebel on 1/27/2007 7:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because every CPU finds its way into a gaming rig. /sarcasm

This CPU allows AMD to say that they have a mainstream processor that runs at 3GHz stock. Nothing more, nothing less.


RE: The PS3 is a better value
By sonoma1993 on 1/29/2007 6:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, this just let amd say they have a processor that runs at 3ghz finally.


Intel = AMD?
By 3kliksphilip on 1/28/2007 12:28:20 PM , Rating: 5
I've loved AMD for all of these years. We bought a 1 GHZ one about 5 years ago, then an amd athlon 2100 XP and 2800 XP (Which I'm using now). I felt that they were underdogs to Intel's aggressive monopoly. However, once the X2's came out, the price for an amd 3800 x2 stayed at about £210. For almost a year. Once the core 2 duo's came out, the prices halved for the amd range. All of a sudden I realised that AMD had had the upper hand for a year and were exploiting it by upping their prices. I then thought 'well, they have to gain some ground back against Intel', but then I also considered the possibility that it didn't matter whether AMD or Intel were ahead, they'd always up their prices if there wasn't any competition. I've now just bought a Core 2 Duo 6300.
Sorry if this is off-topic but I had to say it some where. AMD and Intel are both just companies which will attempt to make money. Using this theory has helped me to think clearly when buying a new processor.

If only AMD and Intel could become like the 2 main GPU manufacturers- always on the same level of performance as each other. I hope that AMD over takes again (It would be terrible to see them lose the processor war, Intel's far stronger and larger). I'm looking forward to the benchmarks of these processors, though at the moment the core 2 duos are still the best performers (and overclockers) for a reasonable amount of money.




RE: Intel = AMD?
By Spinne on 1/29/2007 9:28:29 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think there's anything to worry about. Unlike ATI and Nvidia, Intel and AMD appear to be out of phase by a half product cycle, unlike Nvidia and ATI. To me, this seems to be a better situation because it simplifies decesion making.


Yes and No
By DangerIsGo on 1/28/2007 3:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
Why do I get the feeling like this is going to be one of those that never die? Just like the P4. It was release after release of not necessarily garbage, but processors that just aren't really needed. Instead of focusing on next gen stuff, they are putting more man power to other areas that dont need this. For example, a $600 processor for the enthusiast crowd is definitely not necessary. Sure its good to see a 3.0GHz CPU for AMD, but lets work more on the 65nm K8L/quad core next gen stuff. Ok so it may get you a few extra numbers in benchmarks, but when you compare it against Conroe, there is no comparison. I like AMD as much as the next AMD fan, but if AMD releases garbage (im sorry, their 4x4 platform is just...what?? why??) But, hopefully AMD can give intel a run for its money because now, they arent in the performance crown area. In budget CPUs, yes. they are worth the money.




RE: Yes and No
By Regs on 1/28/2007 5:44:50 AM , Rating: 1
Problem is marketers don't think like this. They think if they put anything out it's good. Especially a 3.0 GHz core.

Of course they're working on the K8L or barcelona or K10.. or whatever they want to call it. It's more or less a dead technology and it's kind of sad to seem them take over 4 years to actually make one that does 3.0 GHz stock.

I'd say they're about 2 or 3 years late on this marvel.


RE: Yes and No
By Andrwken on 1/28/2007 8:22:08 AM , Rating: 1
It really has more to do with existing road maps and not what the other guy has on the market at the time. I mean the 6000 has probably been on roadmaps for 6-12 months already, and the foundries just don't shut down because "we've just gotten our ass kicked, lets go home." Just like Intel's later prescotts, it may not be worth it to the more educated user, but it still has been in planning for some time and will see the light of day to any builder who gets an order for a high-end amd chip.

Personally, its not a very good chip for the price. But they have to hang on to some profitablility for the time being, and now they can market it as the "fastest retail cpu." Wouldn't that be a gas to see Amd touting the mhz for marketing.


RE: Yes and No
By Andrwken on 1/28/07, Rating: 0
I think it's a milestone
By just4U on 1/29/2007 11:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
I consider it a milestone for AMD. This is the first time they have released a 3GHZ cpu. Sure it's overshadowed by a more powerful intel alternative but so what? It's a first for them.




Waste of money.
By clairvoyant129 on 1/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Waste of money.
By jmunjr on 1/27/2007 5:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
"Completeley unnecessary"...just like your post, and mine...


RE: Waste of money.
By kenji4life on 1/27/2007 5:23:09 PM , Rating: 5
I hate to say it, but K8 is starting to feel like Netburst at this point. Release after release of pointless 'faster' processors from AMD. AFAI am concerned, there's really no reason to buy any AM2 beyond a 3800 x2

The only difference is that Netburst was just a bad baby while K8 is more or less just long in the tooth.

I now understand how the die-hard Intel fans felt about 1 year ago.


RE: Waste of money.
By KaiserCSS on 1/27/2007 5:39:35 PM , Rating: 5
Holy crap, I'm starting to see a cycle here!

First the Intel hardcore refused to move on to AMD64 processors, now the AMD loyal are slow in adopting Core 2. It's the circle of fanboyism restarting.

Just FYI, I'm still happy with my AMD64 X2 3800+. Maybe in a few months I'll move on... but I love my X2 so much. It will be difficult... :'(

PS: AFAI? It took me 10 seconds to figure that out... is it really that hard to spell out "as far as I"?

Oh, internets.


RE: Waste of money.
By kenji4life on 1/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Waste of money.
By kenji4life on 1/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Waste of money.
By KaiserCSS on 1/27/2007 5:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not my fault that:
1. I type too fast for my own good
B. You can't think as fast as you read
III. You take the 'internets' too flippin seriously.

Me? Wow dude, chill. I was just pointing that out because I thought it was humorous; that's the first time I've ever seen someone abbreviate "as far as I". No offense intended.


RE: Waste of money.
By kenji4life on 1/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Waste of money.
By Timbear2020 on 1/30/2007 4:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
S'ok, clearly has chip envy or something...

People rarely get pissed without SOME reason, no matter obtuse.


RE: Waste of money.
By feelingshorter on 1/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Waste of money.
By elegault on 1/27/2007 11:23:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Better to keep money in America anyways.


Exactly how does buying Intel keep money in America?


RE: Waste of money.
By poohbear on 1/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: Waste of money.
By skagen on 1/28/2007 9:33:04 AM , Rating: 3
now i am rofl, knowing that this AMD CPU was designed and validated by hard working Austin Texans -- and the Intel CPU designed and tested in good ole' Israel. What is your economic lesson here? That AMD has a fab in DK; packages in Malaysia? Where do you think Intel does their packaging?


RE: Waste of money.
By jarman on 1/28/2007 4:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
You would do well to take some of your own advice. Regardless of where Intel's R&D, manufacturing, testing, purchasing, and shipping occur that profit still ends up in the hands of Intel corporation. While labor and other SG&A do become out of pocket expenditures for Intel, those costs are already accounted for in the price of Intel's products. Give or take for import tariffs (if applicable) and currency exchange rates and that profit still stays with Intel, right here in America. Just like it would with AMD.


RE: Waste of money.
By bldckstark on 2/1/2007 5:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
Intel is a publicly traded company. That means that any and all assets are owned by the stock holders. Be they American, Deutsch, or Japanese. The same is true for auto manufacturers. The profit goes to the stock holders. The real money is where the workers are located. The economy where the workers of a large labor force gets paid is where you need to be looking to make your purchasing choices if you are ignorant enough to care where it is "made".


RE: Waste of money.
By skagen on 1/28/2007 9:56:14 AM , Rating: 3
Intel has six assembly and test sites worldwide and is building a seventh, all of them outside the U.S. Assembly and test sites outside the United States are located in Shanghai, China; Chengdu, China; San Jose, Costa Rica; Kulim, Malaysia; Penang, Malaysia; and Cavite, Philippines. An assembly and testing site in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, is under construction. There is one testing facility and one assembly development facility inside the U.S.

About half of Intel’s total workforce is involved in production or production services.


RE: Waste of money.
By jarman on 1/28/2007 4:25:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
About half of Intel’s total workforce is involved in production or production services.


And? Is that work force not employed (directly or indirectly) by Intel?


RE: Waste of money.
By kamel5547 on 1/29/2007 12:10:41 AM , Rating: 2
A) AMD is based in Sunnyvale, CA... I guess that makes it less American than Intel?
B)Intel and AMD are both good at what they do... AMD may be a bit long in the product cycle, but that may change with Barcelona.
C) C2D only gives more bang for the buck at a certain price point... below that AMD is still better.



RE: Waste of money.
By Comdrpopnfresh on 1/27/2007 9:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm happy with my 939 x2 3800+ as well. I mean, it is easily clocked to 2.7ghz.... But I won't hop on c2d, I'll either wait for Intel to shoot its own prices down by releasing The 45nm chips which will be batter than current 65nm versions, or until amd releases better architecture


RE: Waste of money.
By knowyourenemy on 1/27/2007 10:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
Looking at the Kentsfield, myself. I intend to move to quad core as soon as possible. However, today, with AMD making claims of their future chip, I may hold off until the quad core race begins.


RE: Waste of money.
By crystal clear on 1/28/2007 3:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
"Holy crap, I'm starting to see a cycle here"

OF VOTING DOWN COMMENTS.

AFAI? It took me 10 seconds to figure that out.

"is it really that hard to catch the creep at his dirty work."



RE: Waste of money.
By dgingeri on 1/29/2007 12:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AFAI am concerned, there's really no reason to buy any AM2 beyond a 3800 x2


Well, I can give a good reason.

My company is now buying AM2 based machines, and probably will for the next year. The comparable Core 2 based machines available through our supplier is almost 50% more expensive, so our desktops are currently Athlon64 3500+ or the X2 4200+. For just under $800, we can get a 4200+, 1GB memory, 80GB SATA hard drive, and DVD/CD-RW. The closest unit CDW has with a Core 2 is a 6400 with 1GB memory for $1180. We're actually better off with the AM2 systems. If the price comes down by next year, we might buy the Core 2 based systems.

OTOH, our laptops are all Core/Core 2 based.

We have a certain budget, and we go for the best we can get within that budget. In this case, our desktops are HP DC5750's and our laptops are HP NC6400's.

For the money, we couldn't find more reliable or better performing systems.


RE: Waste of money.
By PrezWeezy on 1/31/2007 3:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well you should find a different distributor. We are building C2D's with 1GB Kingston Value RAM, 80GB WD HDD's, Case, PS, E6300, and DVDRW's for $600 (give or take $50 depending on memory and part price flux.) That's just $200 more than the 3.0 P4's we used to build.


RE: Waste of money.
By Hoser McMoose on 1/29/2007 1:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only difference is that Netburst was just a bad baby while K8 is more or less just long in the tooth.


How exactly is the K8 "long in the tooth" while Netburst was not?! Keep in mind that Netburst was first released in 2000 and between that time and the end of 2003 when AMD released their Athlon64 it was generally the fastest processor out there (there was a brief period when the AthlonXP was about on-par with the fastest P4s, but that was only a few months).

By the time Netburst was being really eclipsed by the Athlon64 architecture it slightly over 3 years old. On the other hand, the Athlon64 was slightly less then 3 years old when the Core 2 Duo was released.

The problem was NOT that Netburst was a bad baby, it was just that Intel didn't have a replacement for it until almost 3 years after it was needed! Actually, they sort of did in the Prescott, which was rather heavily modified from the original P4. Now THAT was a "bad baby". However looking at the P4 in general, and in particular the Northwood where it really hit it's stride, the P4 was actually quite a good processor.


RE: Waste of money.
By mino on 1/29/2007 4:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
You got the history lesson wrong.

P4 was on top starting by 2.4 Northwood chips. Anyting before was AMD.

Willamette could not win with its own P3, not to mention Athlon at a time.


RE: Waste of money.
By Hoser McMoose on 1/30/2007 5:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
When the P4 was released, the fastest AMD chip was 1.2GHz, and the two were competitive. But by the summer of 2001 Intel was up to 2.0GHz with the P4 vs. 1.4GHz for AMD and only 1.13GHz for the P3. By that stage the raw clock speed of the P4 was enough to overcome any other potential weaknesses and it was the performance leader in the majority of applications. There were a few months when AMD was competitive again with the release of their AthlonXP chips in late 2001, but the release of the Northwood in Jan. of 2002 pretty much negated that.

AMD could still compete reasonably well though due to costs, not just of the processor but also the motherboards and especially the RDRAM needed for the P4.

Anyway, the long story short is that while the P4 had more than it's fair share of detractors and it was often very expensive for the performance it offered, for several years of it's life it was the fastest chip out there. The same was true with the Athlon64.


RE: Waste of money.
By sweetpapa on 1/28/2007 1:40:22 AM , Rating: 5
Well, AMD had to do something to fill the gap between Barcelona.

IMHO AMD has been making excellent design choices for their chips and it's a compliment that AMD64 has lasted them this long, even though everybody's raving about the Core chips.

AMD has no where near the R&D budget of Intel, yet they've outperformed Intel until Core came out. That's due to AMD making the right design decisions for AMD64 such as hypertransport and an onchip memory controller. They overdesigned the AMD64 for the time that it was introduced and basically all AMD64 chips have server grade architecture. All Intel could do to remain competitive was increase clock speed, beat AMD at manufacturing by being early to new process shrinks, and through tons of cache on their chips.

You have to believe that AMD has positioned themselves to again to make the right design choices for Barcelona, because they have to. They can't afford to throw tons of money to hack out a solution to make their chips competitive or push on to a process shrink.

Even though Core is a great chip, it still stinks of Intel hacking the chip to make it fast. Honestly, imagine if Core had an onchip memory controller, instead of alot of cache to hide latency. Intel's still a couple of years away from an onchip memory controller. They know it's the right thing to do, but did they do for Core. Nope, didn't have time.

Yes AMD64 is long in the tooth compared to Core, but I am hopeful for Barcelona. AMD has to execute well especially with Intel's turnaround.


RE: Waste of money.
By Supa on 1/27/2007 5:26:36 PM , Rating: 5
Don't be mad, this is just a milestone kind of thing; it needs to happen, and if it's released to the market, it needs a price.

Now that a milestone is reached, we can look forward to a new one.

AMD has done great things for consumers by being a serious competitor to Intel, we should be grateful.


---


RE: Waste of money.
By Goty on 1/27/2007 6:58:59 PM , Rating: 5
So why exactly is it garbage? Does this mean that the whole Pentium D line and all prescott processors are garbage as well? Does this mean that all conroe-derived processors will be crap 6 months from now when something better comes out?

Come back in ten years when you've gotten through puberty.


RE: Waste of money.
By Scrogneugneu on 1/27/2007 8:09:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Does this mean that the whole Pentium D line and all prescott processors are garbage as well?


Yeah. Who told you it wasn't?


RE: Waste of money.
By crystal clear on 1/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Waste of money.
By Darith on 1/29/2007 12:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
Correct you are!


RE: Waste of money.
By Hare on 1/28/2007 4:53:33 AM , Rating: 5
It's garbage either because

a) the performance per $ is low
b) the absolute performance is low
c) the performance per watt is low
d) or a combination of all these

I couldn't care less what logo my processor has as long as it delivers good performance and doesn't cost a lot. That's exactly why I've had Bartons, A64, X2, Pentium Mobile and now C2D E6300. I just don't understand the loyality to one specific manufacturer. Same thing with graphics. Ati -> nVidia -> Ati. I just look for performance per buck.

And yes. The Pentium D line is garbage and always was since the A64 offer a lot better performance and wattage as well as price.


RE: Waste of money.
By coldpower27 on 1/29/2007 7:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
That is not how things work, this processor isn't as good as what the competition offers at the equivalent price point. However, regardless it will still be released as AMD needs time to bridge the gap until K8L/K10 derivatives.

The Pentium D was an acceptable Dual Core for the price in the lower spectrum as it was priced at cheaper levels then the AMD Athlon 64x2 3800+, especially with the Pentium D 805 and Pentium D 920, 930 later on in the cycle.

The Athlon 64x2 had good performance, but were priced high. Nothing was below 300USD, before the advent of Core 2 Duo.


RE: Waste of money.
By mindless1 on 1/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: Waste of money.
By MonkeyPaw on 1/27/2007 10:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
Companies still need to release new products. AMD would truly suck as a business if they released nothing new at all. Releasing nothing shows that they can't even improve the product they currently have, much less offer a new one. Hitting 3.0ghz is not a bad thing, it's just not a great thing either.


RE: Waste of money.
By Adonlude on 1/27/2007 11:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. There is no reason to purchase this part when there is a far superiour Intel part available. Your post was not pointless.


RE: Waste of money.
By StevoLincolnite on 1/28/2007 12:23:02 AM , Rating: 2
If it was cheaper, there would be a reason to purchase it, but considering you can by a core2, mobo, ram etc for that price, it kind of makes it pointless.
And the Athlon FX-74 (Windsor) is currently going for $550 and considering they have almost the same configuration... What looks like the better choice? (Problem is its socket F).
Yet if you go for the Socket AM2 FX-62 @ 2.8ghz I'm sure you could crank that extra 200mhz and it only costs $495 bucks.


RE: Waste of money.
By Missing Ghost on 1/28/2007 12:26:46 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. That thing must be a real flamethrower...it must be a poor OCer too.


RE: Waste of money.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/29/2007 8:51:36 AM , Rating: 2
Given past history OCing AMD chips, I would say this is just a factory OC version of the other chips. Probably doesn't OC at all because its already on the edge of its limits.


A couple of questions for Dailytech Idiots.
By Saist on 1/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: A couple of questions for Dailytech Idiots.
By TomZ on 1/27/2007 7:58:51 PM , Rating: 1
I always upgrade MB + MEM + CPU together, so I see incompatibilities as a non-issue. By the time I'm ready for a new CPU, there are larger, faster types of memory, and better, faster motherboards with more features.


RE: A couple of questions for Dailytech Idiots.
By zeroslugfm on 1/27/2007 9:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
and I'm quite satisfied with my s939 system; swapped out the processor without so much as a hiccup. Not everyone has the time and/or funds to change out their systems every few months ~


RE: A couple of questions for Dailytech Idiots.
By TomZ on 1/27/2007 10:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
I upgrade every 2 years or so and I use my machine ~70 hours/week for my livelihood, so I don't mind investing another $1000 every two years.

My current build has a Vista score of 5.2 (lowest component) and 5.7 (average), and even if I upgraded to the top-of-the-line today, I could probably only get that up to 5.6 (lowest) and 5.9 (average), which is not worth the time or money.


By omrtech on 1/28/2007 4:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
I am like you, by the time I am ready to upgrade, pretty much everything is done at once as things advance so quickly. I spend about $1000 too and get the most bang for the buck.

But I also agree with zeroslugfm, it's nice to have the upgrad option. I am actually upgrading my brother-in-laws cpu to the max that motherboard will allow (should be about another 400 MHz) Good deal for the money, and should extend the life for a while.


RE: A couple of questions for Dailytech Idiots.
By Lord 666 on 1/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: A couple of questions for Dailytech Idiots.
By kenji4life on 1/28/2007 12:27:34 AM , Rating: 3
Well, I'd hardly call it desperation.

By your logic any company releasing a new product despite another company having better ones at the time is 'desperation'

And since why would AMD even try to stop die-hard fans? of what? AMD or Intel? I assure you that the term die hard means that an AMD die-hard fan would never buy intel products despite superiority. Likewise a diehard intel fan isn't going to jump ship for AMD. We all saw how many people stuck with Intel through netburst if nothing else out of plain ignorant 'diehard' intel loyalty...

It is ten times more likely that this product release is a 'milestone' like said before, and a motivating factor for companies like dell, hp, gateway, compaq etc to upgrade their high end AMD systems - so that the somewhat ignorant consumers of such companies can see that AMD is 'keeping up' with intel, at least as far as clockspeeds are concerned.

It's amazing how little it takes for the uneducated (computer hardware wise) consumer to make an uneducated buying decision.

This is not necessarily to say that such consumer wouldn't be 100% happy with a 400 dollar HP computer with a 3800X2 and a gig of ram etc. Quite to the contrary, they will probably be blown away by its performance and be happy with their new computer. Until it is riddled with viruses and spyware in a year (ha ha it seems this goes hand in hand with uneducated buyers)

It's all business. Just like AMD/ATI was a business decision. Who honestly thinks it'd be in AMD's best interest to fight with Nvidia? Or that it'd be in Nvidia's best interest to show animosity towards one of it's biggest markets? Matter of fact the only real losers in the situation are SiS and VIA, as they will have to actually try harder to make a fricken chipset now like they used to back in the day. There will come a point where lame-o onboard graphics just don't cut it anymore.

Enough ranting, must goto work and put up with bull for dough. It's all business though. Can't let it get to you like I was before I got some sleep :)


RE: A couple of questions for Dailytech Idiots.
By SunLord on 1/28/2007 3:11:19 AM , Rating: 2
Finally a smart person!

This release has nothing to do with the fanboy retards/gaming morons (Yes buying a new $500 Video every year for 10FPS makes you a moron) who haunt AT and most other hardware sites with there wise and knowledgeable comments.

This is all about fooling the average joe moron who buys Dell or HP and grew up on the great MHz race and sees the 3.0GHz as a giant Neon Billboard that says I'm the fastest and newest thing out and worth the money buy me! Yet has no grasp on IPC since it's to complex for the majority of non-pc users to bother thinking

To bad you guys are to wrapped up in you own little fanboy egos to think clearly.

I own an AMD s939 i got it in June of 06 it's more then enough for me. My next upgrade will be to Dual-core AM2 after the QCs come out. Why am I buying a slower AMD system? Because the performance difference isn't worth the extra $40+ to me. I have better things to spend money on since I don't get off on having an uber gaming box of DOOOOM.


By mindless1 on 1/28/2007 9:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
It's not about fooling anybody. How hard can it be to understand this very simple truth to CPUs?

They have a roadmap and release new products to extend their current line until they are nearer ready to move on. They have to wait for yields enough to support the perceived market demand for the product, and it's price reflects it's product position and scarcity (at the highest speed(s)).

It is no secret plan, no trick, no scheming relative to anything. There's no average joe that that is going to be fooled looking at the type of CPU, it's rating relative to other same family, and price. Joe has internet access now and has probably heard of Google. He'll be checking on this chip before putting over $500 on it.


By Lord 666 on 1/28/2007 6:45:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
By your logic any company releasing a new product despite another company having better ones at the time is 'desperation'


After AMD's stock lost 8.6% and reported a 574 million dollar loss (most of it for acquiring ATI), bringing positive news to the forefront would be in their best interest as Wall St's opinion weighs heavily.

http://yahoo.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan...

AMD PR news being 3.0ghz cpu and their upcoming quad-core. Intel's PR of 45nm process using breakthrough engineering processes, two fabs will be using it mid-2007, and Sun now uses Intel CPUs rings a bit louder.

With big companies like AMD, their product releases are large coordinated efforts between the marketing, distribution, etc. For a product to become available (in hands no less) about one month prior to embargo date, the financial department and executives were involved in the escalation.

Intel and AMD have an ebb and flow when it comes to design cycles and performance leaders. Intel is obviously concerned about AMD's quad core, that is why they are reducing the price of the Q6600 to $530 Q2. AMD cannot compete financially in a price war for an extended period of time with Intel as noted by AMD's recent financial statement.

Disclaimer: Lord 666 does not currently own any AMD processors. Additionally, does not hold AMD or Intel Stock


By TomZ on 1/28/2007 8:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
By your logic any company releasing a new product despite another company having better ones at the time is 'desperation'

The problem with AMD's strategy, as has been pointed out with others, is their price point is way out of line. Only a fool would pay $600 for that processor in the current pricing environment. Faster Intel processors can be had for much less cost.


RE: A couple of questions for Dailytech Idiots.
By wallijonn on 1/29/2007 4:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
[quote]There will come a point where lame-o onboard graphics just don't cut it anymore. [/quote]

It's called Vista. And buying Vista for us on built in graphics is a waste.


RE: A couple of questions for Dailytech Idiots.
By mino on 1/29/2007 5:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to disagree.

RS485, C51G, not to mention RS690 are more than capable to handle Aero.

As for gamig, that has nothing to do with Vista.


By mino on 1/29/2007 5:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
At the same time.
Buying Vista is a waste on itself.

Or buing Vista on an OEM machine for that matter.


By CorporalGaydar on 1/28/2007 3:38:42 AM , Rating: 5
Time to rip them apart? Did you actually read them? Sure, you have to upgrade the 775 everytime a new processor is released, and yes, that does suck. However, who in their right mind would run an AM3 processor on an AM2 motherboard?

I appreciate that it would be useful for those who need to upgrade slowly / part by part, but for your average enthusiast, they're not going to want to halve the HT link just for the sake of expediency.

I don't like Intel, and I don't like Conroe - I think that despite its very impressive credentials, I think it's dull, and uninspiring: whether or not AMD use Z-RAM or not, I admire them for trying to do something interesting, just in the same way I admire Intel for pushing quad-core.

As much as I like AMD, the fact is that Conroe is better : and you can't logically prove that AMD has a response to that. Of course, a 6600 is better than pretty much anything AMD could do right now, and the fact that you may have to buy a new motherboard doesn't really change that. And like the guy said, if you can buy a E6600, motherboard, and 2GB of DDR2 for the same price as this AMD processor, with enough change left over for a fancy heatsink, I can't see how that can be a criticism of Intel. Especially seeing as the 6600 would probably win.


RE: A couple of questions for Dailytech Idiots.
By mino on 1/29/2007 5:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
Would you care to explain to us what benefit except q few watt power reduction and expensive DDR3 memory does it bring to the table?

FYI even 600MHz HT link gets saturated on current systems...

For servers? yhea bring it on! For desktops? well, it is nice to have while for free...


By mino on 1/29/2007 5:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
"FYI even 600MHz HT link gets saturated on current systems..."

does NOT get saturated, ofcourse


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

Related Articles
I'm Dreaming of a 3.0GHz Athlon 64 X2
January 24, 2007, 1:14 PM
AMD Announces Quad FX Platform
November 29, 2006, 9:10 PM













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