Advanced Micro Devices plans to return its premium class FX-series processors to the market sometime in the middle of next year. The question is whether the new central processing units (CPUs) will truly be capable of successfully competing against rivals. AMD Athlon 64 FX processors were first release back in 2003 to address the market of computer enthusiasts and gamers, however, when Advanced Micro Devices lost its performance crown on the x86 chip market in 2006, the firm had to cease production of “FX” parts since they were not competitive against Intel Corp.’s products. There were no new “FX” chips in 2007 and in 2008, but AMD hopes that in mid-2009 the “FX” will return.The code-named Deneb FX microprocessors that are projected to be launched sometime in the middle of next year will feature four processing engines, shared level-three cache, dual-channel DDR2 (up to PC2-8500, 1066MHz) and DDR3 (up to PC3-10666, 1333MHz) memory controller, according to sources with knowledge of AMD’s plans. The new chips are projected to utilize AM3 form-factor, which means better system flexibility.
View: The full story @ Xbit-Labs
No.
Stop what?
Competition in the marked? you really want only intel on the marked? Then i guess you will love paying 3 months salary for CPU's.
Or,let's see it this way; if you are a Intel fanboy(because of whatever reason,beeing faster or anything), why would you even CARE if AMD releases new CPU's? You will only buy Intel.
So, please, Just stop it (posting stupid comments).
Edit; seems you are a MAC fanboy, so you already love overpriced things :p
Last edited by morphen on 02 Sep 2008 - 13:15
You should learn to follow your own advice! Not all of us Mac fanboys like to blindly part with our hard earned cash
I've always been an AMD fan and have used their processors in home builds since the K5 - they did truely have the edge for a while but it's hard not to be impressed with Intel's latest chips - even to the point where if I was to do another home build, I don't think I'd be going with AMD.
But as I say - it's in everyones interest for AMD to keep up. We need them for competition and to push Intel into making the very best processors they can. And it helps keep the prices down.
4.0 and 4.4Ghz seem like a great answer to Nehalem imo.
In the past, processors with the "FX" marketing have sold in the upper tier for $999 on the top models. The product range is targeted to an audience with too much money to spend conservatively in building a high-end gaming platform. The enthusiast who knows anything about building a high-end gaming rig on a budget will turn to the Opteron models running the same core and cache (but with a locked multiplier) for a third to quarter of the price of an "FX". To place this product at the same pricing as the mainstream would go against the grain of milking the top binned processors, these will compete with Intel's Quad Extreme (QX) lineup.
i think we should all realise that recession is here to stay. in the EU and in the US.
people are looking carefully at what they want to buy and why.
i think the biggest market in the next few years will be the one for efficient parts, not high-performers at all costs.
im still having fun with my dual core opteron, and can play almost anything with a decent video card (AGP)
I wonder why would you want a quad core (intel or AMD) at the moment?
And since quad cores are under-used, you really think most people will be spending the money for a corei7 (and the mobo, and the DDR3..)?
Underused..... well, maybe for some people. I have a quad (Q6600) and let me tell you, I could use 40 more cores. I do number crunching for World Community Grid, and for the past 4 months my computer has only seen hours of downtime; it's always using 100% of my CPU 24/7.... Unless I turn it off to exchange parts, dust or what ever.
So to say people don't need/can't use 4 or more cores is naive.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.