AMD to ship "Fastest overclockable gaming CPU"
Posted by Daylene on 27 June 2005 - 15:47 · 68 comments & 4179 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Daylene
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Daylene
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(2 replies)
#1 Posted by Lasker on 27 Jun 2005 - 16:17
QUOTE The new chip is to be priced at $1031 USD, and is available directly through AMD, or at most PC stores.
damn $1031???? wtf
-
#1.2 Posted by Slugbait on 28 Jun 2005 - 17:12
- This entire thread is griping about the price, as if it were something new to them. The price for the FX has been in this range for a couple of years now. Oh sure, the FX-51 was only about $850 at launch, but that was also considered a little costly.
If you can't stomach $1031, go for the older FX-55. The price just dropped to less than $820 shipped from Newegg. You won't be able to brag that you have the fastest gaming rig, but an excellent CPU nonetheless. But buy it quickly...AMD only makes one FX processor available at any given time, so once stocks of the FX-55 runs out, you're SOL.
-
(11 replies)
#2 Posted by lotus22 on 27 Jun 2005 - 16:19
- how fast is this chip?
-
#2.2 Posted by Citizen Erased on 27 Jun 2005 - 16:35
- This chip is faster than that Intel one my friend. It's not all about the GHZ!
-
#2.4 Posted by SecretAgentMan on 27 Jun 2005 - 17:20
- Haha, Lasker is funny.
-
#2.5 Posted by raskren on 27 Jun 2005 - 17:27
- I think that was supposed to be a joke. Don't take everything you read so seriously.
-
#2.8 Posted by Hankyone on 27 Jun 2005 - 18:52
QUOTE 2.8ghz, Intel is by far superior with 3.6ghz
3.6 / 4 cuz the p4's sends 4 instructions for each cpu clock-
#2.9 Posted by Lunatic on 27 Jun 2005 - 20:00
- er no that would make it 3.6*4, not 3.6/4... 4 per clock would be 4/1, therefor 3.6*4. But the FX is still by far a better CPU.
-
#2.10 Posted by Hankyone on 27 Jun 2005 - 21:12
- intel is lying to us, their p4 are 900mhz but they send 4 instructions / clock so theorically they are 3.6 but its not their true clock speed
-
#3 Posted by Valkyre on 27 Jun 2005 - 16:47
- I would never pay that ****ing much for a chip.
-
#4 Posted by Azizan on 27 Jun 2005 - 16:54
- Actually, the FX-55 San Diego core was the first 90nm FX chip.
-
#5 Posted by Klownicle on 27 Jun 2005 - 16:54
- Bit rich my blood, most ill spend on a cpu is 300-400$ with shipping tax etc.. I can't belive I did almost 500 for a 6800GT...
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by machorro on 27 Jun 2005 - 17:16
- for that price, that proccesor has to make coffee, at least
that is damm pricey...
-
#7 Posted by Floyder on 27 Jun 2005 - 17:25
- just buy a 3000+ and overclock it to 2700-2800, ownz
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by haisdeaks on 27 Jun 2005 - 17:30
- that chip will run your central heating with all the heat it will produce...
it gotta be worth the cash for that little extra feature lol
however a grand for somethin you can fit it your poket seems a little worrying...
could buy a working car for that.. allbiet a rust-bucket
Last edited by 69688 on 27 Jun 2005 - 17:49 -
#8.1 Posted by Octol on 28 Jun 2005 - 01:39
QUOTE however a grand for somethin you can fit it your poket seems a little worrying...
Then I guess we can assume that you've never bought a decent quality 2 ct. diamond.
-
#9 Posted by Samoa on 27 Jun 2005 - 18:10
- Most I would pay for any cpu is 200.00, same for video card. Overclocking is the key factor that eliminates the need to spend more.
-
#10 Posted by Kushan on 27 Jun 2005 - 18:11
- I never thought I'd see the day when Intel became the "cheaper alternative". But at least in this case, the AMD chips ARE better...
-
#11 Posted by kitchenutensils on 27 Jun 2005 - 18:23
- yeah the AMD chip may be expensive but imagine where you could take that performance too (ignoring the recent introduction of dual core (even more xpensive))
-
#12 Posted by nic on 27 Jun 2005 - 18:33
- I'd dump my money into a better graphics card then a better CPU.
I suppose if you already have the very best graphics card to date and still need better performance and quality then going with this chip would be good. But damn is it expensive. Hopefully Intel will match them on this and bring the prices down through some competition.
-
(21 replies)
#13 Posted by feelgood13 on 27 Jun 2005 - 18:34
- should change the heading to "AMD to ship THEIR "Fastest overclockable gaming CPU". its probably comparable to an underclocked intel celeron M
-
#13.2 Posted by MajinDark on 27 Jun 2005 - 18:59
- LMAO feelgood13, never post again.
AMD's chips are proven to be faster than Intel's. Intel is playing catchup. I'd take a Pentium over an AMD if I were a bigtime image/video editor, since Pentiums seem to be better suited for that task. If I were a pure gamer, which I'm not, then I'd take an AMD no question. -
#13.3 Posted by feelgood13 on 27 Jun 2005 - 19:03
- if you were serious about gaming, then get decent video card, why do you have to degrade yourself and settle for amd?
-
#13.4 Posted by LTD on 27 Jun 2005 - 20:23
- Right.
After all, AMD IS the current leader in 64-bit cpu technology.
Why would you want anything from THEM?
lol. -
#13.5 Posted by Kushan on 27 Jun 2005 - 21:11
- feelgood13, the only person who has degraded themselves here is you.
You can't ignore the fact that AMD's Chips are faster than Intel's in nearly ALL fields these days, that's just stupid. If you were a serious gamer or even remotely serious about Computing, then you would pick what's best regardless of your stance against a certain company.
Oh and by the way, the only time a Pentium M has beatan an AMD FX chip was when it was overclocked to around 2.6Ghz, and that was an FX-55 at stock speed anyway.
In order to OC a P-M by that amount, you need one hell of a cooling system.
Go away and just stop posting, dude. -
#13.6 Posted by feelgood13 on 27 Jun 2005 - 21:19
- if you want to consider their HALF-ASSED 64bit solution as "technology", then go ahead. i think they TRIED to make a 64bit processor, but couldnt quite make it there so they just sold what they had. AMD marketing spun it so hard that amd fanboys just went goo goo ga ga over a 32bit processor with enhanced SIMD set
-
#13.7 Posted by Kushan on 27 Jun 2005 - 23:05
- I find it incredably ironic that you're calling AMD's 64bit tech half-assed whenever they designed their CPU around it, wheras Intel just hacked up the P4 to support it. You sir, are an idiot.
-
#13.8 Posted by MrCobra on 28 Jun 2005 - 01:43
- And lets not forget that Intel reverse engineered the Opteron to get the 64bit stuff that they hacked up the P4 to make.
-
#13.9 Posted by dhitb on 28 Jun 2005 - 03:00
- I think a testament to the Athy64's superiority is Intel being forced to use technologies that they were lambasting not too long ago. Soon Intel's chips will become A64 clones when they introduce the integrated memory controller and SOI with shorter pipelines. Since x86-64 is already in their chips, we're that much closer to seeing Intel Athlon 64's.
-
#13.10 Posted by Help on 28 Jun 2005 - 04:09
- and soon they'll both be like IBM's POWER5 processors..
-
#13.11 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 28 Jun 2005 - 05:06
- Can't figure out who's worse, the 13 year old, or the other 13 year olds responding.
-
#13.12 Posted by feelgood13 on 28 Jun 2005 - 06:38
- intel should have patented the 64bit processor but they were smart enough to let the AMD monkeys into the market because all that does it make them (intel) look better.
nothing new here, microsoft did the same with linux. it's my firm belief that microsoft spawned the linux project just so the people who tried it out can appreciate the windows operating system SOOO much more.
btw, squatsoft, shut your hoe pie. youre nothing but a god damn troll with nothing to input. -
#13.13 Posted by Kushan on 28 Jun 2005 - 16:03
- Feelgood, I'm utterly shocked that you even THINK what you just posted. You're saying that Intel didn't patent 64bit tech because then AMD wouldn't be able to get into the market - WRONG, Both AMD and Intel Patent each and every little bit of technology they come up with, it doesn't stop the other company from creating their own version of it that's just different enough to not infringe on said copyright.
Also, you're pretty much saying that Microsoft created Linux....a rival OS....
A rival OS created from Unix, which existed LONG before windows ever did. I reiterate my point: You sir, are the biggest idiot I have ever seen on Neowin and that's saying something. -
#13.14 Posted by feelgood13 on 28 Jun 2005 - 19:29
- you have ZERO concept of marketing; you only see what's thrown in front of you. to say you are naive is an understatement.
-
#13.15 Posted by Kushan on 28 Jun 2005 - 19:48
- Who the HELL mentioned anything about marketing? You jsut came off with a load of tripe that didn't make sense, I pointed out how it was wrong and now you're going on about marketing, wtf?
Marketing has NOTHING to do with creating a rival or allowing a rival to make a certain move in order to boost your own products image, go and ****ing learn about what marketing is.
Marketing consists of 4 areas:
Product - The thing that meets the needs of your customers
Price - Strategies with pricing, should you charge a premium or knock them out as cheap as you can etc.
Promotion - Advertising, sales, Public relations and so on
Place - Where the product is distributed (In stores, online etc.)
Now please oh mighty wise one, please tell me what the hell any of that has to do with Intel ALLOWING AMD to create 64bit tech or Microsoft creating a Rival Operating system that is superior to their own OS in some key fields (such as Clustering or Web servers). -
#13.16 Posted by feelgood13 on 28 Jun 2005 - 21:23
- marketing is about BUSINESS and PSYCHOLOGY. the product is a non-factor. AMD's got their fanbase on such a serious leash that they could sell them a mobo with integrated marshmallows.
-
#13.17 Posted by Kushan on 28 Jun 2005 - 23:26
- You're correct, Marketing IS about Business. And it just so happens that I studied Business at college. I hate to burst your little bubble, but I know more about business than you do and have the qualifications to prove it. Still gonig to argue?
-
#13.18 Posted by feelgood13 on 28 Jun 2005 - 23:36
- taking some course on accounting at your local community college does NOT make you some sort of authority on business
-
#13.19 Posted by Kushan on 28 Jun 2005 - 23:42
- Did I say accounting? No, I said business. Business studies. And Marketing was a VERY big topic on the whole course. Maybe if you actually went to school you'd learn how to READ.
-
#13.20 Posted by feelgood13 on 29 Jun 2005 - 00:38
- ohhh.. taking personal shots now are we?
-
#13.21 Posted by Kushan on 29 Jun 2005 - 15:46
- No, I'm just stating the obvious. You couldn't discern the differences between "accounting", "marketing" and "business" and just seemed to make up your own definitions for them, naturally I concluded that you did not finish school because even an 8 year old can read better.
-
#14 Posted by eilegz on 27 Jun 2005 - 19:04
- OMFG tought that amd processors are cheaper i guess it isisnt different than intel =/
-
#15 Posted by Colin-uk on 27 Jun 2005 - 19:16
- damn thats expensive lol...
-
#16 Posted by Zerbs on 27 Jun 2005 - 19:18
- wow... I can buy 25 AMD Duron 1.6 Ghz CPUs for less than that
-
(6 replies)
#17 Posted by Darknm on 27 Jun 2005 - 19:22
- I can build an entire low end gaming pc for that much
-
#17.1 Posted by coolchan on 27 Jun 2005 - 19:46
- low end gaming
you wrote it yourself!
This is only for those who want high end! -
#17.2 Posted by Darknm on 27 Jun 2005 - 22:52
- But really who would want to spend that much on a processor when it barly dose anything for gaming, i mean the reason most people buy AMD is for gaming right? why spend that much on a processor when you could spend a fraction of that on the processor and spend the rest on the video card like the new 7800GTX instead of waisting all the money on the processor. it wont give you THAT much of a preformance boost any ways.
-
#17.3 Posted by coolchan on 28 Jun 2005 - 00:32
- There are people who just want the latestest and fastest.
-
#17.5 Posted by MrCobra on 28 Jun 2005 - 01:46
- Depends on where you buy them at. I purchased an AMD X2 4800+ Saturday and paid $748 for it. A far cry cheaper than the $1,100 I've seen it elsewhere.
-
#18 Posted by coolchan on 27 Jun 2005 - 19:45
- Yes, it's expensive, but P4 EE is also expensive. It's only for those with enough in their wallet.
-
(1 reply)
#19 Posted by IPv6 on 27 Jun 2005 - 20:22
- $1031 USD ... forget it! Maybe in 6 years, when I upgrade again ...
-
#20 Posted by maudit on 28 Jun 2005 - 00:12
- Wow talk about expensive , I Would pay for it if I HAD the money to BURN on such a pricey, processor, although, by logic, shouldn't it's price come dome when dual cores are more mainstream?
-
(2 replies)
#21 Posted by TheSarge on 28 Jun 2005 - 00:21
- "The new chip is to be priced at $1031 USD"
That's insane. Hardly anyone is gonna buy this thing at that price.
Hell, for that price I could get four P4 640's (3.2Ghz, 64bit, 800Mhz FSB, 2MB Cache, Hyperthreading). If I put two of those chips on a two-CPU motherboard, I have two HT-cores working in concert (effectively quad-threaded), instead of one AMD core (one thread... period).
I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to see the problem with this new AMD chip. -
#21.1 Posted by MrCobra on 28 Jun 2005 - 01:48
- And that 800Mhz interconnect will severely degrade performance. Intel isn't even true dual core.
-
#22 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 28 Jun 2005 - 05:09
QUOTE AMD is also beating the crap out of Intel when it comes to power consumption and heat dissipation.
Remind me to never visit GD-Hardware again.
-
#23 Posted by Kushan on 28 Jun 2005 - 23:54
- I think I should point out that this kind of High-end chip isn't really for everyone, it's more of a slap in Intel's face so that AMD can say they have the fastest chip out there, also it may be expensive but it will sure as hell crunch the numbers for quite a few years.
Besides, the P4EE was around the same price when it first came out.
AMD has stated that it will be involved with the overclocking community. While overclocking the chip will still void the chip warranty, AMD has said that it wants to make the process safer by providing recommendations for heat-dissipation systems and other tools used by overclockers to ensure that the processor remains stable during operation. The FX-57 has a maximum thermal power rating of 104W at its official clock speed.
The new chip is to be priced at $1031 USD, and is available directly through AMD, or at most PC stores.
Key findings of the study include:
-Windows desktops cost 14 percent less to patch than Linux desktops.
-Windows servers cost 13 percent less to patch than Linux servers.
-Windows database servers cost 33 percent less to patch than Linux database servers.