Friday, June 23rd 2006
AMD Athlon FX-64 on August 8th
AMD Athlon FX-64 will be available to system integrators in the UK at a price point of $999 per CPU from the 8th August 2006.
Source:
Hexus.net
HexusAMD raised the performance bar by launching its AM2 Athlon FX-62 back on the 23rd May and at the time we said it would have to do something special to compete with Intel's Conroe, which we exclusively reported about here. It looks like this ramp in performance is AMD's best shot at the moment against the big, bad Intel processor.
22 Comments on AMD Athlon FX-64 on August 8th
Even so, it is fun to read about the new technology and check out the benchmarks on the upper end CPU's.
60 may seem like alot, but when you breakdown an entire PC, you can make a budget PC with that processor for about 600 and have a wicked system.
Conroe E6300 1.86GHz/1066MHz 2MB Q3'06 $210
The Conroe E6300 has been tested and it is commonly bested by a AM2 3800+, with price drops the 3800+ will be the better buy for the price range, also it seems that it will cost around 1200 USD for the top of the line Conroe, and Intel was criticizing AMD of having that cost.
I doubt that. . . can you provide some SOLID proof? . . . You honestly don't know what your talking about $1200 is for the Extreme Edition (and its $999 get the facts straight (And yes being off by $200 is a rather large lump of cash)), notice how the highest price non-EE processor is $530 for the E6700, which is the one everyone was comparing to the AMD FX-62, which the Conroe Beats, for half the price.
Also with AMD's Current lineup notice how The lowest costing Dual Core is approx. $300 USD. Intels is approx. $130. Notice how AMD has not made a substantial price cut in quite some time, which is why Intel claims they have ridiculously high prices, because they do. It has just taken Intel too long to craft a formidable opponent to AMDs dual cores. It's not rocket science figuring out why AMDs stocks have been doing so well for the past year or so.
I suggest better first impressions when you are new to forums . . . If your going to take a side, you better have rock solid proof or else another member of TPU or myself will tear your post to shreads (please excuse my viciousness). Oh and by the way, I can back up all this information especially with most of it being common knowledge to enthusiasts.
by the way Welcome to TPU!
So if we take those results to heart, and the topper at 3.1ghz for FX-62, than it wouldn't be much of a stress to lower the clock resulting in 3.0ghz, while running on less than 1.5volts.
My personal opinion is that this is too much of a rush to be a whole new core compared to the rest.
That and adding more cores. XP Pro is limited to 2 last I checked so the HT dual core Intel units are useless unless you wnat to buy server 03. So will a quad core solution unless the second two cores are hidden and the CPU does the task handling internally.
Besides I already have almost 3Ghz and a little more gains little for the large heat-risk gains too.
I was joking, the Core 2 is better then CURRENT AMD offerings. About the post saying Intels working on it, so is AMD (and there closer), plus IBM has already done it. Since AMD and IBM's R&D team are sleeping together then I would say AMD will have it out first.
aslso cuz i need another cpu for a server i want to make
The cheapest dual core conroe is going to be $316-
images.dailytech.com/nimage/1023_large_conroe_pricing.jpg
The 2mb chips are single core, while the 4mb are dual core, according to this and other articles-
www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/02/09/intel_desktop_roadmap_feb_06/
"This process encompasses embedded SiGe with dual stress liner and stress memorization technology on silicon on insulator- or e-SiGe with DSL and SMT on SOI for those so inclined. AMD and IBM have stated publicly that this technology allows for a 40% faster switching transistor than from a standard 65 nm design without all the three letter acronyms (TLA’s). In a complex design like a CPU this could mean a theoretical 50% overall clockspeed increase going from AMD’s 90 nm process to AMD/IBM’s 65 nm process all the while staying within the same power envelope."
- www.theinquirer.net/?article=32322