AMD Athlon FX-64 on August 8th

[D_o_S]

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.

AMD 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.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Jimmy 2004]

Still don't think it will be enough to beat the mighty conroe. I don't really care who has the best processor - the important thing for me is who has the best value in my price range.

 

[jydie]

I agree. Just as Nvidia and ATI are always fighting for that TOP position... so do AMD and Intel. I have always liked AMD in the past because they offered the best performance in my low end price range. So, unless the Conroe is going to be in the $75-$150 dollar range, then I will just be reading about it for several years. For me it is all about the price/performance ratio.

Even so, it is fun to read about the new technology and check out the benchmarks on the upper end CPU's.

 

[NamesDontMatter]

Yeah I'm not sure how well the low end conroe will OC but its only a reach by $60 for your pricerange, which may well be worth it. I want to see how well all the Conroes OC before I get one.

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

 

[S7A88Y]

Problems with 2MB Conroe

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.

 

[NamesDontMatter]

The Conroe E6300 has been tested and it is commonly bested by a AM2 3800+

Commonly refers to more then one comparison under normal circumstances, I do not see any Solid sources that provide this comparison.

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!

 

[magibeg]

Whoa, leave the amd fanboy alone lol. They have to come up with some hope somewhere. In any event i think the main event as far as processors go in the next few minutes is going to be in the $300-500 dollar range anyway. Does anyone know if theres any real changes to the fx-64 over the 62? Or is it just a bump in clock speed to weaken the blow from intel?

 

[sinner33]

Whoa, leave the amd fanboy alone lol. They have to come up with some hope somewhere. In any event i think the main event as far as processors go in the next few minutes is going to be in the $300-500 dollar range anyway. Does anyone know if theres any real changes to the fx-64 over the 62? Or is it just a bump in clock speed to weaken the blow from intel?

I would think it's just a bump up in the clock rates, and more cherry picking. After all, a few weeks ago there was this site showing off the overclocked high end AM2 CPU, and the FX-62, pushing to clocks of 3.0ghz and 3.1ghz respectively with some added voltage on stock air cooling.

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.

 

[Jimmy 2004]

Whoa, leave the amd fanboy alone lol. They have to come up with some hope somewhere. In any event i think the main event as far as processors go in the next few minutes is going to be in the $300-500 dollar range anyway. Does anyone know if theres any real changes to the fx-64 over the 62? Or is it just a bump in clock speed to weaken the blow from intel?

AMD have hit the state of deperation that Intel came to when they released the P4 and started to just go in search of higher clock speeds for better performance. GHz means nothing nowadays.

 

[Steevo]

true.dat


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.

 

[Jimmy 2004]

unless the second two cores are hidden and the CPU does the task handling internally.

It would be so much better if it was managed internally rather than with software because then games could take advantage of the dual core performance without needing to be modified.

 

[magibeg]

I'ld assume it would be extremely difficult for that to happen though or else you'ld think they would have tried that first as opposed to trying to multi-thread all software on earth to get the benifits of it.

 

[KennyT772]

its already been done. intel is currently working on reverse ht and so is amd..

 

[S7A88Y]

Wow

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.

 

[BigD6997]

i have a feeling amd is holding back 65nm tech untill conroe is out... thats the 64's debut and the 65nm tech is going to push better clocks and be just a little more effecient, just enough to compete maybe not beat but compete... but i think amd put out am2 with these revised cores just so people have the platform, then new cores will come out that they are working on now but have kept under wraps... or maybe im just hopeing for the best....

 

[NamesDontMatter]

i have a feeling amd is holding back 65nm tech untill conroe is out... thats the 64's debut and the 65nm tech is going to push better clocks and be just a little more effecient, just enough to compete maybe not beat but compete... but i think amd put out am2 with these revised cores just so people have the platform, then new cores will come out that they are working on now but have kept under wraps... or maybe im just hopeing for the best....

I somewhat agree, My opinion is that AMD just wants to make cheaper cores, with 65nm tech you can make more cores per wafer, which means they can drop the prices while making more money. I think AM2 is meant more for people buying new systems rather then AMD users with 3000 and > CPUs it doesn’t provide any gigantic improvements, but many minor ones. Further making AM2 a more polished product, just before AMD turns to it's next line. AM2 is basically that snack you have between lunch and dinner, if you had a big lunch you can pass on the snack; and if you skipped lunch that snack may just be absolutely necessary for you. (Damn if I may say so that’s a pretty good metaphor)

 

[BigD6997]

I somewhat agree, My opinion is that AMD just wants to make cheaper cores, with 65nm tech you can make more cores per wafer, which means they can drop the prices while making more money. I think AM2 is meant more for people buying new systems rather then AMD users with 3000 and > CPUs it doesn’t provide any gigantic improvements, but many minor ones. Further making AM2 a more polished product, just before AMD turns to it's next line. AM2 is basically that snack you have between lunch and dinner, if you had a big lunch you can pass on the snack; and if you skipped lunch that snack may just be absolutely necessary for you. (Damn if I may say so that’s a pretty good metaphor)

yes very good metaphor... i completely agree, if the 939 x2's drop 50% in price next month then i will buy one to hold me over till ddr3 becomes avail and just wait this cpu turn out... but if they dont drop the 50% then ill just stick with my 3500

aslso cuz i need another cpu for a server i want to make

 

[wazzledoozle]

AMD is dropping the X2 3800 to $169 on July 24, which is a very good price IMO

The cheapest dual core conroe is going to be $316-
http://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-
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/02/09/intel_desktop_roadmap_feb_06/

 

[BigD6997]

does anyone know how well the x2 3800's oc?

 

[wazzledoozle]

Along with an increase in clocks, AMD is looking at 50% more speed per clock with the 65 nm transition-

"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."
- http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32322

 

[NamesDontMatter]

Along with an increase in clocks, AMD is looking at 50% more speed per clock with the 65 nm transition-

"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."
- http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32322

that would be impressive

 

[Azn Tr14dZ]

does anyone know how well the x2 3800's oc?

Someone on this forum made a thread about how he got his X2 3800+ @ 2.8.

 

[BigD6997]

thanx ill look for it