AMD Launches Four New Phenom X4 Processors

[DanishDevil]

What he said ^^

[Greatpumkin628]

well the sweet spot is fading quick if I have to get a 790FX for 100$ more and the Q6600 is coming down in price.. I guess I'll empty my shopping cart then and wait for the dust to settle.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813127034
and the 8400 wolfdale for $220 kinda kills the buzz considering 4.0 GHZ on air no prob. I really don"t want to go to big evil blue but damm...

[BumbRush]

greatpumkin, check the biostar ta770, its a hell of a little board, shold do the trick, people at RH and PcPer love them

[ISMurphy]

Originally Posted by [I.R.A]_FBi

thats a personal choice and not a intelligent consumer decision. AMD for you.

how is this not AN intelligent consumer decision?

- more money into a lower marketed company that produces solid technology will add more to their ability to lower that price even more, force compeition from the advertising frenzy of consumer knowledge based on those who watch them on TV so want them. Less mass advertising $$$ spent = lower chip prices.

- support in a company that is the underdog, but still provdies a proven, solid, and great working technology, keeps the big dog companies from running a monopoly, hence swinging the market to whatever they want at what prices they want.

- niche or mainstream support of products forces a more rapid increase or research into further advancing technology in that class ( CPU's ), offering more solutions in that niche or stream of consumerism ( i.e. triple cores, lower priced CPU's, and the like ) increases not only the advnacement of said tech, but a wider product base and an initiation of the " follow the leader " marketing process of one company following suit of the other to provide the same solutions at lower cost. This is what AMD does and IS doing and as of late are coming first to market with it and evening the playing field in both the CPU and GPU market right now. without support and even that " extra $10 " to fuel this kind of fire, wed all be paying $700 for a Q6600 because we'd have nothing else offered.

i'd gladly offer up $10 extra at release for one of those and am sound in both my freedom of decision as a consumer and user of their technology which has never failed me opposed to the competition and happy to support their efforts to bring more tech, for better prices, to a more equal playing field.

but thats just me, to each their own.

[Braveheart]

Originally Posted by [I.R.A]_FBi

erm, the q6600 is dropping to 225 dollars next month, at that price who would want a phenom?

me. the Q6600 is old.

[suraswami]

Originally Posted by ISMurphy

how is this not AN intelligent consumer decision?

- more money into a lower marketed company that produces solid technology will add more to their ability to lower that price even more, force compeition from the advertising frenzy of consumer knowledge based on those who watch them on TV so want them. Less mass advertising $$$ spent = lower chip prices.

- support in a company that is the underdog, but still provdies a proven, solid, and great working technology, keeps the big dog companies from running a monopoly, hence swinging the market to whatever they want at what prices they want.

- niche or mainstream support of products forces a more rapid increase or research into further advancing technology in that class ( CPU's ), offering more solutions in that niche or stream of consumerism ( i.e. triple cores, lower priced CPU's, and the like ) increases not only the advnacement of said tech, but a wider product base and an initiation of the " follow the leader " marketing process of one company following suit of the other to provide the same solutions at lower cost. This is what AMD does and IS doing and as of late are coming first to market with it and evening the playing field in both the CPU and GPU market right now. without support and even that " extra $10 " to fuel this kind of fire, wed all be paying $700 for a Q6600 because we'd have nothing else offered.

i'd gladly offer up $10 extra at release for one of those and am sound in both my freedom of decision as a consumer and user of their technology which has never failed me opposed to the competition and happy to support their efforts to bring more tech, for better prices, to a more equal playing field.

but thats just me, to each their own.

Slight Change - "we would all be paying $700 for a worthless POS celeron"

[ISMurphy]

correction noted. its is ore than just price vs power vs perception, but i go for companies that do things for consumer interest and not the interest of their pocketbooks. albeit Intel DOES produce quality processors, the manufacturing costs of said chips are much more salvageable than what they release the initial pricing at, that is not, at all, a good invetment for a consumer.

if you let them charge you for it, and then you pay it, you are just allowing them to then say " well how much farther can we make you open that wallet? " if you flip the bird and say " i'll try these guys then " they are much more apt to ( as we have seen ) plummet pricing down to compete. this to me is just an insult to the buyer saying, " yeah we could have charged you this much to begin with, but there were more than enough suckers out there willing to pay it so... that's YOUR bad Mr. Joe Consumer "

[fullinfusion]

Hmmm.... let me think?????? makin a six figure income, I REALLY DON'T CARE....It's what keeps a company going PS AMD is dropping prices this week coming.... So keep yo coments to yourself....

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

Originally Posted by ISMurphy

how is this not AN intelligent consumer decision?

- more money into a lower marketed company that produces solid technology will add more to their ability to lower that price even more, force compeition from the advertising frenzy of consumer knowledge based on those who watch them on TV so want them. Less mass advertising $$$ spent = lower chip prices.

- support in a company that is the underdog, but still provdies a proven, solid, and great working technology, keeps the big dog companies from running a monopoly, hence swinging the market to whatever they want at what prices they want.

- niche or mainstream support of products forces a more rapid increase or research into further advancing technology in that class ( CPU's ), offering more solutions in that niche or stream of consumerism ( i.e. triple cores, lower priced CPU's, and the like ) increases not only the advnacement of said tech, but a wider product base and an initiation of the " follow the leader " marketing process of one company following suit of the other to provide the same solutions at lower cost. This is what AMD does and IS doing and as of late are coming first to market with it and evening the playing field in both the CPU and GPU market right now. without support and even that " extra $10 " to fuel this kind of fire, wed all be paying $700 for a Q6600 because we'd have nothing else offered.

i'd gladly offer up $10 extra at release for one of those and am sound in both my freedom of decision as a consumer and user of their technology which has never failed me opposed to the competition and happy to support their efforts to bring more tech, for better prices, to a more equal playing field.

but thats just me, to each their own.

thanks for pointing out a grammatical error, everything else is just opinion and "what ifs"

So if AMD wasnt in this position they wouldnt get lazy, hike prices and put out junk? Thats exactly what happened when Intel put out the C2D, AMD were there raking in profits, laughing about the p4 too busy to mind or care what was going on, i am not in this game for any big company (whether or not there is an underdog doesnt matter they are still big companies in thier own right). You guys an pull the sob story with someone else, or at least someone who cares to hear that stuff. I have my bucks, i want thier performance, its a simple as that. If it wasnt for the C2D's we wouldnt have these cheap AX2 chips now would we? The worst liar is the liar who lies to himself.

BTW i left a few grammatical errors for you to correct, so at least you can do the only thing you do right.

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

Originally Posted by Braveheart

me. the Q6600 is old.

you would buy something because its new and not because it is better?

better gets my money ...

[tkpenalty]

Originally Posted by [I.R.A]_FBi

thanks for pointing out a grammatical error, everything else is just opinion and "what ifs"

So if AMD wasnt in this position they wouldnt get lazy, hike prices and put out junk? Thats exactly what happened when Intel put out the C2D, AMD were there raking in profits, laughing about the p4 too busy to mind or care what was going on, i am not in this game for any big company (whether or not there is an underdog doesnt matter they are still big companies in thier own right). You guys an pull the sob story with someone else, or at least someone who cares to hear that stuff. I have my buck, i want thier performance, its a simple as that.

BTW i left a few grammatical errors for you to correct, so at least you can do one thing right.

+1. QFT. Intel is doing that at the moment, slacking off the quality of their products, examples, like the E8xxx manufacturing quality variation and the lack of investment for cooling.

[Bluefox1115]

Weee for AMD.

[candle_86]

Well from what ive seen the new B3's do out preform the Q6600 @ stock at least the 9850's do and are cheaper, so thats a point for AMD, and the Tri Cores are gonna cause Intel to sweat

[pentastar111]

Why are people arguing over this?? Fact of the matter is this...Intel puts out the fastest proc's right now. That is apparent...But...Is their top of the line affordable to the average joe? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! That's like comparing a Ferrari to the 66 Chevelle I used to own. Sure the Ferrari will go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds vs my Chevy's 5 second 0 to 60 time. BUT the Ferrari also costs 240,000 dollars more than that Chevy.... Does it mean the Chevelle was any less fun to drive? Hell no!!...That motherf&%ker was an abslolute blast to drive...high 11's, low 12's in the quarter isn't so bad either, all from a car that cost me less than $5000.. The same can be said about these chips...Sure the "top dog" Intel is the fastest but it also cost over a grand....If you got the fat wallet and are willing to spend the cash...by all means do it...Personally, I like the fact that AMD is finally pulling it together....As it has been pointed out, good compitition whether it be at the high-end or the mid-range, benefits everyone. ( By the way I've got a 67 Fury in the works that in about 2 to 3 years I hope to get low 10's in the quarter)...F^ck Ferrari. lol

[jpierce55]

Wow Newegg dropped the old Phenom down to $170, it is not a great processor, but not bad at that price.

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by Braveheart

me. the Q6600 is old.

Lol @ Old, my next door neighbour has a 1992 Ferrari 456GT, it delivers 440BHP and has a top speed of 310KPH or 190MPH, it's old........but it's still one of the fastest cars on the road! An example of 16 year old engine technology still beating 16 month old engine technology......if the quality is right (and thats the important thing) then age is less important......take me for example

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by candle_86

Well from what ive seen the new B3's do out preform the Q6600 @ stock at least the 9850's do and are cheaper, so thats a point for AMD, and the Tri Cores are gonna cause Intel to sweat

But the Tri cores are ONLY going to OEM not retail (certainly initially).

[jbunch07]

Originally Posted by pentastar111

Why are people arguing over this?? Fact of the matter is this...Intel puts out the fastest proc's right now. That is apparent...But...Is their top of the line affordable to the average joe? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! That's like comparing a Ferrari to the 66 Chevelle I used to own. Sure the Ferrari will go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds vs my Chevy's 5 second 0 to 60 time. BUT the Ferrari also costs 240,000 dollars more than that Chevy.... Does it mean the Chevelle was any less fun to drive? Hell no!!...That motherf&%ker was an abslolute blast to drive...high 11's, low 12's in the quarter isn't so bad either, all from a car that cost me less than $5000.. The same can be said about these chips...Sure the "top dog" Intel is the fastest but it also cost over a grand....If you got the fat wallet and are willing to spend the cash...by all means do it...Personally, I like the fact that AMD is finally pulling it together....As it has been pointed out, good compitition whether it be at the high-end or the mid-range, benefits everyone. ( By the way I've got a 67 Fury in the works that in about 2 to 3 years I hope to get low 10's in the quarter)...F^ck Ferrari. lol

ha i agree with pretty much everything you just said!
and damn those are some good ass times! gotta love muscle!
one of my best friends has got a gs400 that does high 10's low 11's
its a beast!

but yea i totally agree i don't understand why intel feels the need to slap a $1000+
price tag on a processor, imo for that price they should beat amd's top of the line by a much bigger margin!

[hat]

Given the choice between a Q6600 for $225 for a Phenom 9850 for the same price I would go with the Q6600. Yeah I like AMD but the Q6600 is better... =\

[jbunch07]

Originally Posted by hat

Given the choice between a Q6600 for $225 for a Phenom 9850 for the same price I would go with the Q6600. Yeah I like AMD but the Q6600 is better... =\

as of now your right! the q6600 is imo the best chip intel ever put out but why the hell the jump from $225 to $1000+ when you can just oc the q6600?

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

Originally Posted by jbunch07

as of now your right! the q6600 is imo the best chip intel ever put out but why the hell the jump from $225 to $1000+ when you can just oc the q6600?

Originally Posted by jpierce55

Wow Newegg dropped the old Phenom down to $170, it is not a great processor, but not bad at that price.

double +1

[hat]

Originally Posted by jbunch07

as of now your right! the q6600 is imo the best chip intel ever put out but why the hell the jump from $225 to $1000+ when you can just oc the q6600?

Umm... the 9850 won't be $1000+

[jbunch07]

i know i was refering to intel why do they think the qx9650 is worth $1000 bucks and the qx9775 goes for 1600?

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

Originally Posted by jbunch07

i know i was refering to intel why do they think the qx9650 is worth $1000 bucks and the qx9775 goes for 1600?

the 1600 is to match the fsb

[ISMurphy]

Originally Posted by [I.R.A]_FBi

thanks for pointing out a grammatical error, everything else is just opinion and "what ifs"

So if AMD wasnt in this position they wouldnt get lazy, hike prices and put out junk? Thats exactly what happened when Intel put out the C2D, AMD were there raking in profits, laughing about the p4 too busy to mind or care what was going on, i am not in this game for any big company (whether or not there is an underdog doesnt matter they are still big companies in thier own right). You guys an pull the sob story with someone else, or at least someone who cares to hear that stuff. I have my bucks, i want thier performance, its a simple as that. If it wasnt for the C2D's we wouldnt have these cheap AX2 chips now would we? The worst liar is the liar who lies to himself.

BTW i left a few grammatical errors for you to correct, so at least you can do the only thing you do right.

lol, so defensive, just stating that saying it is bad consumer decision is YOUR opinion and what if, i justified my reasoning, you sling insults, to each their own. you don't wanna hear it, don't read a forum based off peoples input and opinions. So enjoy your bucks and your intel, more power to you.

BTW, i left a little SERIOUS BUSINESS in there for you, so at least you can do the only thing you do right.