Friday, June 12th 2009

AMD Preparing Phenom II TWKR for Enthusiast Market

AMD tasted a bit of success with its Phenom II series of processors, which reflected in recent market share figures, where the company's share grew by around 5 percent, despite a fall in sales throughout the PC processor industry. Leading its pack currently, is the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition, which holds a full-featured 45 nm Deneb core with unlocked bus multiplier, and AM3 platform support. It seems like AMD isn't stopping at this. The company is preparing a new model targeted at the enthusiast segment, called Phenom II TWKR ("tweaker").

High-end PC manufacturer Maingear PC has reportedly received this chip in a display model form, and looks forward to incorporating it in its lineup of PCs. Very little is known at this point in time, about this chip, beyond the point that it will provide better clock-speeds compared to the Phenom II X4 955. We can tell that it retains the AM3 socket package from the looks of it, and comes in a pretty jewel-case. AMD is yet to announce the chip, or disclose more about how it plans to sell it, and at what price.

Source: Softpedia
Add your own comment

98 Comments on AMD Preparing Phenom II TWKR for Enthusiast Market

#1
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
fps_dean said:
I do too, paying $1000 for good CPUs is ridiculous where AMD would charge $250-300 for the same thing if they had it.
Negative. If AMD had a CPU architecture superior to Intel's it would ask for $1000 the way it did with its Athlon64 FX, back in its day, and how the first Athlon64 X2 chips would cost anywhere between $270 and $800.
Posted on Reply
#2
Paulieg
The Mad Moderator
btarunr said:
Negative. If AMD had a CPU architecture superior to Intel's it would ask for $1000 the way it did with its Athlon64 FX, back in its day, and how the first Athlon64 X2 chips would cost anywhere between $270 and $800.
Yeah, it's amazing how short peoples memories are. I remember just 5 years ago, paying $300 for a single core 754 4000+ clawhammer. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#3
TheGuruStud
Paulieg said:
Yeah, it's amazing how short peoples memories are. I remember just 5 years ago, paying $300 for a single core 754 4000+ clawhammer. :laugh:
I paid 400 when the 3500+ came out.

But you know, it was worth every penny at the time. Intel's are never worth the markup.
Posted on Reply
#4
fps_dean
btarunr said:
Negative. If AMD had a CPU architecture superior to Intel's it would ask for $1000 the way it did with its Athlon64 FX, back in its day, and how the first Athlon64 X2 chips would cost anywhere between $270 and $800.
Incorrect. The FX-60 was the only one to hit 4 digits, the FX-57 was maybe $800 at launch and that dropped very fast to $500ish and the fastest non-FX Socket 939 Athlon64 X2 was the 4800+ which sold for $400 TOPS. I know, I bought one when it first came out and I signiticantly less than that. If you paid that much for a X2 you didn't shop around. And not too long after the FX-60s launch I got one of those for $400 too, brand new from the store.

And to further support my point, Intel was countering with the Pentium 4/Ds at the time which were vastly inferior (AMD had a far greater lead than Intel does now at the time) and still charged the same or more for the Extreme and regular CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#5
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
fps_dean said:
Incorrect. The FX-60 was the only one to hit 4 digits, the FX-57 was maybe $800 at launch and that dropped very fast to $500ish and the fastest non-FX Socket 939 Athlon64 X2 was the 4800+ which sold for $400 TOPS. I know, I bought one when it first came out and I signiticantly less than that. If you paid that much for a X2 you didn't shop around. And not too long after the FX-60s launch I got one of those for $400 too, brand new from the store.

And to further support my point, Intel was countering with the Pentium 4/Ds at the time which were vastly inferior (AMD had a far greater lead than Intel does now at the time) and still charged the same or more for the Extreme and regular CPUs.
You didn't get the idea, did you? When AMD was on the top, it had the same practice of asking whatever it wanted for its best offering. Yes, Athlon64 FX chips were $1000. You had FX-55, 57, and 60 in that range. It went down with 62.

Here are the launch prices of Athlon64 X2: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x2_3.html


For FX 57, and 55 (notice that 57 displaced 55 from its price)

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Nzg3

For FX 60:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-athlon-64-fx60-processor-/

Get your facts straight.
Posted on Reply
#6
fps_dean
If those prices were legit retail prices, they still actually sold for a whole lot less within a couple weeks after launch. However does it not strike you as odd that the FX-60 and the X2 4800+ are about the same price? Because I can assure you, that certainly was not the case. No one should have paid nearly that much if they're willing to shop around a little.

More than that, Intel priced their Extreme Editions in the $1k+ range and their regular lines at comprable prices at the same era and their CPUs couldn't even begin to compete.... and you'd actually pay that too. So you get the idea?

Plus, AMDs marketing plans have changed since then if you've been following (you haven't). The idea now is to release chips that are affordable, and in the event that their next chip puts them on top, it will be cheap to produce, and in turn will be a whole lot cheaper to buy.
Posted on Reply
#7
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
fps_dean said:
If those prices were legit retail prices, they still actually sold for a whole lot less within a couple weeks after launch.
Maybe you got lucky where you live, but their global prices pretty-much stayed at those. You seriously believe that AMD got generous with a $1000 processor and sold it for even 80% its price in a matter of weeks? It's like how the global price of Core i7 920 is $279.99, but a consumer can have it for $200 if he looks in the right place, or even cheaper if he's part of the supply chain and wants to make use of the retailedge programme.
Posted on Reply
#9
Melvis
I bought my 3700+ 939 for $325 and that was the best i could find back then, 1.5yrs later i got the FX-57 on ebay for $175 ;) (seller stuffed up the number on the chip, 3500+ lol) but back then yes the FX-57 and FX-60 was around and over $1000 even when i did get my FX-57 it still sold at stores here for $600 :wtf: Im sure i found a FX-55 the other week for over $500 :shadedshu

Edit: Correction its over $1200 :eek:

http://www.i-store.com.au/product/?productid=5472
Posted on Reply
#10
fps_dean
btarunr said:
Maybe you got lucky where you live, but their global prices pretty-much stayed at those. You seriously believe that AMD got generous with a $1000 processor and sold it for even 80% its price in a matter of weeks? It's like how the global price of Core i7 920 is $279.99, but a consumer can have it for $200 if he looks in the right place, or even cheaper if he's part of the supply chain and wants to make use of the retailedge programme.
Why are you even arguing? It takes a couple weeks for stores to get them -- not everyone has them at launch, in which case they start appearing cheaper. You should NEVER expect to pay retail price. If you paid close to $1000 for a FX-57 you seriously overpaid!

I have to shop online, at the same stores that everyone else has available to them... I can't even buy a CPU so it has nothing to do with getting lucky.
Posted on Reply
#12
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
fps_dean said:
It takes a couple weeks for stores to get them -- not everyone has them at launch, in which case price wars start.

And where I live you can't even buy a CPU. I have to shop online, at the same stores that everyone else has available to them. If you paid anywhere close to $1000 for a FX-5 at any point in history, you seriously overpaid.
It did not take "a couple weeks" for FX 5x CPU to go from its $1000 base price to anywhere close to even three quarters (75%) its price. It is only when an FX 5x CPU is succeeded by two models in the FX series, or when Intel Core 2 arrived, that a $1000 FX CPU could be had for something like $250. Stop distorting facts and using exaggerated claims. Throughout its product-lifetime AMD maintained its base price at launch prices (for an FX model). It's only that retailers introduced cuts on their side to compete with each other. The contention stays. When AMD was at the top, it did the very same thing Intel is doing/has done. Just as Intel has been doing "speed-bumps" with its Core 2 Extreme and now Core i7 Extreme series, AMD indulged in the very same practice. Why are you even arguing?
Posted on Reply
#13
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
TheGuruStud said:
I paid 400 when the 3500+ came out.

But you know, it was worth every penny at the time. Intel's are never worth the markup.
Intel's core2 was worth more than AMD's offerings at the time and phenom I. It wasn't until phenom II did they become better and even at that core 2's can still compete with them.
Posted on Reply
#14
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
fps_dean said:
Why are you even arguing? It takes a couple weeks for stores to get them -- not everyone has them at launch, in which case they start appearing cheaper. You should NEVER expect to pay retail price. If you paid close to $1000 for a FX-57 you seriously overpaid!

I have to shop online, at the same stores that everyone else has available to them... I can't even buy a CPU so it has nothing to do with getting lucky.
no if you spent $1000 on a P4 extreme you overpaid because the $400 3700+ outperformed it at stock the FX57/55 were the two fastest chips on the market and were sold as such. its called marketing if you have an issue with that walk into wallmart and tell them you want everything they have housebrand without the 100% markup on it
Posted on Reply
#15
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
DrPepper said:
Intel's core2 was worth more than AMD's offerings at the time and phenom I. It wasn't until phenom II did they become better and even at that core 2's can still compete with them.
Exactly, the same logic should apply now. While being only $50 more expensive than a Phenom II 955, the Core i7 920 is more than worth paying the extra $50.
Posted on Reply
#16
fps_dean
btarunr said:
It did not take "a couple weeks" for FX 5x CPU to go from its $1000 base price to anywhere close to even three quarters (75%) its price. It is only when an FX 5x CPU is succeeded by two models in the FX series, or when Intel Core 2 arrived, that a $1000 FX CPU could be had for something like $250. Stop distorting facts and using exaggerated claims. Throughout its product-lifetime AMD maintained its base price at launch prices (for an FX model). It's only that retailers introduced cuts on their side to compete with each other. The contention stays. When AMD was at the top, it did the very same thing Intel is doing/has done. Just as Intel has been doing "speed-bumps" with its Core 2 Extreme and now Core i7 Extreme series, AMD indulged in the very same practice. Why are you even arguing?
Now who's exaggerating? Please, learn to read, and stop distorting facts yourself and then accusing me of doing so. I am telling you what I paid and that is a fact on the contrary to anything you've provided other than skewing numbers and takign things out of context, and if you don't like it then stfu.
Posted on Reply
#17
fps_dean
cdawall said:
no if you spent $1000 on a P4 extreme you overpaid because the $400 3700+ outperformed it at stock the FX57/55 were the two fastest chips on the market and were sold as such. its called marketing if you have an issue with that walk into wallmart and tell them you want everything they have housebrand without the 100% markup on it
That's what they were charging however for a good while after the Athlon64s launch, and even after the X2's launch before Intel had a dual core to answer with, which is the point I'm trying to make. And yes anyone who bought Intel at the time was an idiot, but Intel has had a history of charging a whole lot more going back 20 years ago.
Posted on Reply
#18
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
fps_dean said:
Now who's exaggerating? Please, learn to read, and stop distorting facts yourself and then accusing me of doing so. I am telling you what I paid and that is a fact on the contrary to anything you've provided other than skewing numbers and takign things out of context, and if you don't like it then stfu.
What you paid for bears no relevance to the fact that AMD priced its processors high, the way Intel is pricing its processors now. Among us, you're the only one distorting facts. Move along. Next time think twice before asking someone to "stfu".
Posted on Reply
#19
fps_dean
btarunr said:
What you paid for bears no relevance to the fact that AMD priced its processors high, the way Intel is pricing its processors now. Among us, you're the only one distorting facts. Move along. Next time think twice before asking someone to "stfu".
First, it has every bit of relevance whether you like it or not. Second, I'm not distorting any facts -- simply stating them. And third, I'm not asking you to stfu, I'm telling you to. Notice I did not write "will you please stfu?"
Posted on Reply
#20
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
bta's right. Also please be civil you can't force him to stfu because he has a different opinion or disagree's with you.

When AMD was on top those FX's were going for $1k. I'm sure not long ago those Socket F FX's for quadfather were selling at those prices.

Fact is that when these companies; Intel and AMD, get the chance they will sell those cpu's for as much as they can because someone will buy them.
Posted on Reply
#21
fps_dean
DrPepper said:
bta's right. Also please be civil you can't force him to stfu because he has a different opinion or disagree's with you.

When AMD was on top those FX's were going for $1k. I'm sure not long ago those Socket F FX's for quadfather were selling at those prices.

Fact is that when these companies; Intel and AMD, get the chance they will sell those cpu's for as much as they can because someone will buy them.
My point is... well nobody listens. And apparently no one is old enough to remember anything pre Athlon64 either so whatever...

However bta is NOT right as my experience has proven him wrong. Talk to me about retail prices all day I could care less, but unless you're so rich you just don't care you shouldn't expect to pay them anyway.
Posted on Reply
#22
HammerON
The Watchful Moderator
fps dean
My first build was in 2004 with a Athlon 64 3200. I remember that year and for the next couple years that AMD's FX processors were out of my reach monetarily. I remember that the cost of a FX cpu was over a $1,000.00 and I dreamed of being able to afford those processors. So I do not understand what you are referring to.
Posted on Reply
#23
Wile E
Power User
fps_dean said:
My point is... well nobody listens. And apparently no one is old enough to remember anything pre Athlon64 either so whatever...

However bta is NOT right as my experience has proven him wrong. Talk to me about retail prices all day I could care less, but unless you're so rich you just don't care you shouldn't expect to pay them anyway.
Only your experiance says otherwise, not the general experience of the times. I'm 32, well old enough to remember the A64 days (and well before it). All of the FX chips that released near $1k at launch, stayed that way for months. If you got one cheap, it was because you happened into a great deal at the time, which in no way was a reflection of the norm.

fps_dean said:
I do too, paying $1000 for good CPUs is ridiculous where AMD would charge $250-300 for the same thing if they had it.
This is what you said. So, even if FX-57 was $500-800 (which it wasn't), it is still a far cry more than what you are claiming.

If AMD had a cpu that could compete at the highest level, they would still be charging $1000 for them. But the fact of the matter is, they do not have a cpu capable of competing up top, so they can only charge what the market is willing. And as the i7 920 is faster than all of the current AMD offerings, they have no choice but to charge what they are currently.

The only one wrong and out of line here is you.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment