bit-tech.net

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+

Comments 1 to 25 of 26

Reply
DougEdey 22nd February 2007, 12:36 Quote
Why on earth do AMD keep re-releasing current tech (that's all they are really doing IMHO, forcing reviews)?

They need to get a good competitor to C2D and Athlon is not cutting the mustard anymore.
DarkLord7854 22nd February 2007, 13:01 Quote
It's rather funny how AMD is the one playing catch-up now. Makes you wonder what they've been doing all these years they've been beating the P4s. You'd think they'd have been busy developping the next architecture to stay ahead.

They're bad procrastinators :)
r4tch3t 22nd February 2007, 13:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854
It's rather funny how AMD is the one playing catch-up now. Makes you wonder what they've been doing all these years they've been beating the P4s. You'd think they'd have been busy developping the next architecture to stay ahead.

They're bad procrastinators :)
Either that or the K8L will be quite a bit better (or at least a little bit) than the Core 2s.
AMD is used to playing the underdog, and I don't think their time in the limelight would alter their perception too much. They will come back again.
Releasing more products just helps people know they are still there and to compete with Intel at a price/performance ratio.
Mother-Goose 22nd February 2007, 13:26 Quote
I was more impressed with how the E6400 wasn't too far adrift in most cases and is significantly cheaper and has better energy/thermal properties.

Not an unimpressive attempted by amd but I would have personally not bothered.
DarkLord7854 22nd February 2007, 15:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by r4tch3t
Either that or the K8L will be quite a bit better (or at least a little bit) than the Core 2s.
AMD is used to playing the underdog, and I don't think their time in the limelight would alter their perception too much. They will come back again.
Releasing more products just helps people know they are still there and to compete with Intel at a price/performance ratio.

But don't they waste money by releasing more products? Since they have to keep those stocked. So logicaly that means they have to spend more on manufacturing and making the "new" CPUs, and commit more workforce to those, and possibly take away from the development of the next gen (since AMD isn't quite as large as Intel)
DougEdey 22nd February 2007, 15:03 Quote
They could probably sell these to people.
Tim S 22nd February 2007, 15:04 Quote
based on the fact that they're already for sale in many stores just a day after launch, I reckon AMD has been speed binning these chips for a while.
r4tch3t 22nd February 2007, 15:16 Quote
And aren't they all the same chips really, just the differing potential of each chip determines its name. So now that yields are quite high, they are getting quite a few good chips coming off the wafer that can be used as high end parts.
mclean007 22nd February 2007, 18:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by r4tch3t
And aren't they all the same chips really, just the differing potential of each chip determines its name. So now that yields are quite high, they are getting quite a few good chips coming off the wafer that can be used as high end parts.
Yup, pretty much. They fab the chips and speed test them almost literally into different 'bins' (grades), then, based on an analysis based on how many (say) X2 6000 chips and how many 4800s etc., the top performing chips get multiplier locked down to 15x 200MHz (3GHz = X2 6000), the next lot down get locked to the next step down etc. I'd imagine the top grade still goes to make the non-multi locked FX-62, despite the lower clock speed than the X2 6000 (very random that their 'premium' chip is slower at stock than a chip costing 33% less!?), so in general I'd expect you'd get better overclocks out of an FX-62 than an X2 6000 (even disregarding the fact you can push the FX-62's multi beyond 15x). Just my thoughts though.

Anyway, if they can grade chips to 3GHz, then they can justify a price premium over the lesser graded chips for what is, in essence, the same product. Or, they can justify bumping the prices down across the range to make room for the new bad boy, thereby improving price/performance and increasing unit sales (this seems to be their tactic in light of the fact that Core 2 Duo annihilates X2 across the board). Either way, they'll make more money than if they didn't release X2 6000, which gives more resources to throw at K8L.

Which, by the way, had better kick ass big time, if AMD doesn't want to spend the next 5 years playing second fiddle to Intel and scraping the bargain market barrel.
Tyinsar 22nd February 2007, 20:15 Quote
I saw a review on this on another site at least a day ahead of you guys but knew that if I waited Bit would have a similar article but with more depth. Even if I have to wait (& it's not like 24hours is a big deal anyway), the wait is usually worth it - it was this time. ;) Thanks Tim & crew
Tulatin 22nd February 2007, 20:35 Quote
*bangs my head on the desk* why, why, WHY are you sticking with the pedestrian, embarassing 200MHz FSB AMD? Push companies to get thier boards to do a 266MHz FSB like Intel or be different, and have things at 300x10, but for the love of (insert your favorite deity or fast food here) are we stuck at another round of DDR2-800
Tim S 22nd February 2007, 20:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyinsar
I saw a review on this on another site at least a day ahead of you guys but knew that if I waited Bit would have a similar article but with more depth. Even if I have to wait (& it's not like 24hours is a big deal anyway), the wait is usually worth it - it was this time. ;) Thanks Tim & crew
There was a screw up on the embargo - we were told the wrong date for some reason. :o
sl1xx 22nd February 2007, 22:08 Quote
interesting because this chip is okish on some task's,so there new line of chips should be pritty good !
Lenny_Nero 22nd February 2007, 22:31 Quote
I was only reading in Micro Mart the other day that AMD have been working on 65 and 45 nm for quite a while (seem a lot longer that most have thought) and 65 nm is only a short stepping stone to 45 which should be out by the end of 07.
Bbq.of.DooM 22nd February 2007, 23:19 Quote
You got a fact wrong

The first 3ghz amd chip is the opteron 156/256/856.
Jipa 22nd February 2007, 23:45 Quote
Tables have turned a big time. Now it's the AMD that has TDP over 100 W etc.

Kinda good to see AMD has even something to compete with C2Ds at stock speeds, but then again, it's more pricey and doesn't OC let alone OC at original cooler..

(I'm sorry if I got something terribly wrong..)
bubsterboo 23rd February 2007, 00:09 Quote
Good news for people who already have a AM2 system but want a faster chip.
Pookeyhead 23rd February 2007, 09:30 Quote
I think AMD are just earning as much revenue as they poissibly can off current tech. They didn't stay ahead for so lomg by being complacent, and it would make less sense for them to start doing that now. It wouldn't surprise me if they've got a large ace up a sleeve somewhere.

For now though.... no thanks. I'd not buy any AMD chip thank you very much. Coming from a long term AMD fanboy, that's saying something. C2D is just too attractive a prospect. AMD realise this, hence the massive price cuts. It won't do them much good though, because traditionally, AMD has had a more enthusiast following, and enthusiasts aren't usually bothered about value for money.

They've made a mistake for not reacting to Conroe, but I think Intel's glory will be shorter lived than they hoped for. I just cant imagine AMD letting go of all those years of market leadership amongst enthusiasts and gamers.

Good review tho. I hadn't seen any of the others released yesterday, so it was all news to me :-)
mclean007 23rd February 2007, 10:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookeyhead
...AMD realise this, hence the massive price cuts. It won't do them much good though, because traditionally, AMD has had a more enthusiast following, and enthusiasts aren't usually bothered about value for money...
I don't agree with this at all. There is a hard core of money no object bleeding edge enthusiasts to whom money is no object and price/performance is irrelevant - only raw performance counts. These guys will be buying X6800s and FX-62 / FX-74 platforms and overclocking the nuts off them.

But to your 'average' enthusiast (i.e. >90% of the people on this board), price/performance is absolutely key - you set your budget for an upgrade or a new rig, then you look at the options and buy the best your money can afford, in terms of features, power, upgradeability, compatibility with existing hardware (if you're only upgrading the CPU, it doesn't really matter what the other camp has to offer - you can only consider CPUs that match your motherboard), ergonomics, storage space, etc. That applies to any hardware purchase made by anyone, but I would argue that the more of an enthusiast you are, the more time you will be willing to dedicate to ensuring you make the best choice for your budget.

The price cuts will help to stem the exodus from A64 to C2D in the short term, should shift a fair few units as upgrade chips to drop in to existing AM-2 boards (though I agree, at anything but the lowest end, you get better value from C2D, especially if you plan to OC, and you'd be daft to buy a new AM-2 motherboard and CPU), and will hopefully shore up AMD's brand image a little until K8L hits. Which, as I said above, had better kick some serious butt if AMD wants to stay in the enthusiast arena at all.
[USRF]Obiwan 23rd February 2007, 12:24 Quote
I did not see any price drops on the socket 939 processors, they rising sky high :(
But it is still cheaper the buying a am2 mobo + ddr2 + processor. I wish they had put out more types on the 939 platform. I now have a s939 x2 4800 and that was the highest available for s939.

I dont want to give up my expensive deluxe sli mobo and expensive corsair 2gb ddr! Just to buy a faster processor. Its ridiculous really...
traderonline 2nd March 2007, 19:33 Quote
yeah, AMD is trying to beat Intel by reducing the price of the current models. Still nothing can beat a C2D. We have to wait till AMD release the native quad core chips. Let's see whats next ? AM3 and quadro with ddr3 :D
Argonautz 2nd March 2007, 21:22 Quote
amd's quad cores are gonna blow the intel quads out of the water
Tulatin 2nd March 2007, 21:22 Quote
If they're based on this current architecture, the only thing they'll be blowing is themselves.
Tyinsar 2nd March 2007, 23:14 Quote
Anandtech had a nice article about that http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2939
Lenny_Nero 7th March 2007, 20:57 Quote
I think AMD did the right thing with the price drop, because I built a new rig around a 4200 x2 skt 939 because I could do it so cheap, and then (that was Dec) the prices have dropped even more since. I gave £100 for the 4200 and could now get a 3800 for around £60, I can do the same with the AM2 as well, so I have thought about that as well because it gives me an easy intro to the newer process, if what has been said is true.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums