Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD SOCKET AM2 ETAIL PRICES EMERGE

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 25, 2006 6:24:51 PM

Quote:
The rest of the CPUs are more expensive and dual-core. The cheapest is AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Sockel-AM2 boxed, 2x 2.00GHz, 2x 512kB Cache based on Brisbane core, F stepping and is set to cost €299.94. Its maximal thermal dissipation should be around 89W while it also supports AMD 64, Cool'n'Quiet, NX Flag, SSE 3 and Pacifica marchitecture.


http://theinquirer.net/?article=31233
April 25, 2006 6:32:46 PM

Hmm.

€299.94 = $370.96

Froogle shows the s939 is currently about $287-$310 for a retail box depending on where you buy.

How is that a price reduction again?

I'm psyched that these are being released, it should be a nice step forward for the platform, but what you said is just plain wrong.
April 25, 2006 6:41:10 PM

Quote:
Hmm.

€299.94 = $370.96

Froogle shows the s939 is currently about $287-$310 for a retail box depending on where you buy.

How is that a price reduction again?

I'm psyched that these are being released, it should be a nice step forward for the platform, but what you said is just plain wrong.


Yeah, you're right. Sorry for that.
I was going to edit my post but you beat me on it. :wink:

Ohh boy, too bad AM2 will be more expensive, but I do hope S939 processors to be a lot cheaper thanks to this shift.

I'll cross my fingers.
Related resources
April 25, 2006 6:44:59 PM

Indeed, it is great when newer and better products come out, prices tend to drop rapidly on the older kit, and we can swoop in for the deals!
April 25, 2006 7:01:16 PM

I'm not EXACTLY sure, but won't that convert a little lower to US$ because of all the taxes that are built into European prices? Wiki pegs the min standard VAT at 15% and Max at 25%. And isn't it taxed multiple times at different levels of production?

Bah.....to hell with that VAT stuff..

Any how....I think in US dollars they should release a bit lower than standard conversion.
April 25, 2006 7:05:07 PM

Quote:
I'm not EXACTLY sure, but won't that convert a little lower to US$ because of all the taxes that are built into European prices? Wiki pegs the min standard VAT at 15% and Max at 25%. And isn't it taxed multiple times at different levels of production?

Bah.....to hell with that VAT stuff..

Any how....I think in US dollars they should release a bit lower than standard conversion.


I'll also cross my fingers on this one.
April 25, 2006 7:40:54 PM

Right on, mabey this will lower the current Prices for this generation. It'll make for some sweet deals. 8)
a b à CPUs
April 25, 2006 7:59:14 PM

Where is Action Man? lol
April 25, 2006 8:23:22 PM

get a life action man.. :/ 

Anywayz on topic - 299 euro is the same like 299 dollars for computerhardware.. (i know since i just buy stuff from the US @_@)
April 25, 2006 8:53:10 PM

Great job 9-inch and dont listen to actionman!(now time for another random quote)
Quote:
I can't hold her much longer sir!
April 25, 2006 9:05:56 PM

Quote:
Don't have an orgasm here. Go to your bathroom!

LOL.

Random.
I quoted star trek! (random qoute time)
Quote:
Anger leads only to the Darkside of the force
April 25, 2006 9:09:27 PM

Quote:
Hmm.

€299.94 = $370.96

Froogle shows the s939 is currently about $287-$310 for a retail box depending on where you buy.

How is that a price reduction again?

I'm psyched that these are being released, it should be a nice step forward for the platform, but what you said is just plain wrong.


After the Conroe flooded the market, the situation will change. :lol: 
April 25, 2006 9:38:40 PM

Wish I could have held off getting a new rig, and have waited for AM2, but oh well, all it cost me labor and head achs.
April 25, 2006 10:02:55 PM

I'm still pissed that AMD isn't selling OEM processors anymore. I don't want their heatsink, I'd rather save the $20 or whatever the price difference was and buy a good one that I want, not the one they deem I should pay for. Now I've got some crap heatsink laying around I don't need...That's one thing intel is going to keep doing right apparently...
April 25, 2006 10:34:34 PM

It's not just the HS/fan the retail has, it's a much longer warranty. Unless you're planning to do some serious OCing, nothing wrong with stock HS/fan. In fact, the newer Opterons have an excellent setup.
April 26, 2006 12:41:08 AM

Quote:



Word.
April 26, 2006 4:30:37 AM

Quote:



Word. Word to your motha!
April 27, 2006 12:48:43 AM

Quote:



Word. Word to your motha!

Word.
April 27, 2006 1:15:24 AM

Quote:



Out of his thousand posts more than half of them is this
April 27, 2006 1:42:19 AM

Shut up noob. :roll:
April 27, 2006 1:52:11 AM

Quote:



Word. Word to your motha!

Word. Worder
April 27, 2006 2:05:07 AM

Quote:
Shut up noob. :roll:
Technically i'm a noob too cause i joined in february.
April 27, 2006 2:07:39 AM

Quote:
sphincter




freakin

lmao
April 27, 2006 2:43:14 AM

I think it's AMD's way of reducing returned CPU's due to being fried. They ship a fan that it guarranteed to work properly with the processor.
April 27, 2006 3:02:36 AM

Sweet. AM2! We get to pay (€ 299.94 = 371.835618 U.S. dollars) for an AMD X2 that has no more performance than its $299 counterpart! WHO'S EXCITED?
Oh, oh, I CANT WAIT TO BUY ME A $1500 FX62
April 27, 2006 3:25:18 AM

Just like prescott and northwood people bought prescott expecting soemthing better but got ripped off!
April 27, 2006 3:56:47 AM

Quote:
Just like prescott and northwood people bought prescott expecting soemthing better but got ripped off!

Woot AMD has become teh intel11
Seriously though, AM2's will be prescotts. Old 90nm tech, higher clock speeds, same architecture...
April 27, 2006 4:33:18 AM

Quote:
Just like prescott and northwood people bought prescott expecting soemthing better but got ripped off!

Woot AMD has become teh intel11
Seriously though, AM2's will be prescotts. Old 90nm tech, higher clock speeds, same architecture... Exactly 8O
April 27, 2006 4:38:09 AM

Why are you agreeing with me? As an AMD fanboy, isn't your job to defend them regardless of whether or not they screw up?
April 27, 2006 4:45:30 AM

Quote:
Why are you agreeing with me? As an AMD fanboy, isn't your job to defend them regardless of whether or not they screw up?
I'm agreeing with you cause it's logical i only was an amd fanboy when intel fanboy's could'nt (or would'nt) admit that prescott sucked but since i heard one of them say these words.
Quote:
I admit that netburst architecture was bad and that prescott was a let down for all of us.
And thats why i think logically it seems that all this time i only wanted an intel fanboy to admit this in order to stop my amd fanboyism. I still like amd but i do think that conroe is gonna level the playing field.
April 27, 2006 5:06:24 AM

Netburst could have kicked ass, it just needed 65nm on release. The Cedar-Mill 65nm single-core chips by Intel are incredibly efficient, fast and actually somewhat energy efficient (not to mention 5.0ghz overclockers). That being said, Prescott was a great chip if you could cool it enough to overclock it far, but other than that, it was a complete flop.
April 27, 2006 1:35:45 PM

Quote:
Netburst could have kicked ass, it just needed 65nm on release. The Cedar-Mill 65nm single-core chips by Intel are incredibly efficient, fast and actually somewhat energy efficient (not to mention 5.0ghz overclockers). That being said, Prescott was a great chip if you could cool it enough to overclock it far, but other than that, it was a complete flop.
Dude thats the same statement that drove me to amd fanboyism! prescott was too hot compared to amd 90 nanos and even 130 nanos and it was too slow compared to k7 and k8 now northwood was okay cause it could keep up with my athlon xp 3200 at speeds up to 400 mhz over my athlon. My cuz has a 2.4 ghz northwood i have a 2.2. ghz barton my proc traded blows with the northwood and won but oc it to 2.6 ghz and the they were tied any further oc to 2.7 ghz the northwood won every time. So what i'm trying to say is that northwood was good and prescott sucked compared to k7 and k8! (and dont call this a fanboy post its my personnal experience with both intel and amd chips)
April 27, 2006 1:39:34 PM

:? for a second, I saw a glimpse of maturing in your posting... a glimpse that is! :wink: :wink:
April 27, 2006 1:52:26 PM

Quote:
:? for a second, I saw a glimpse of maturing in your posting... a glimpse that is! :wink: :wink:
Where?
April 27, 2006 2:07:25 PM

Quote:
Hmm.

€299.94 = $370.96

Froogle shows the s939 is currently about $287-$310 for a retail box depending on where you buy.

How is that a price reduction again?

I'm psyched that these are being released, it should be a nice step forward for the platform, but what you said is just plain wrong.

The price antireduction is in the double price you will have to pay for DDR2-800 CL4, compared to the price of DDR-400 CL2 needed for s939.

Scarry prices, 1260 euros for FX-62....WOW
April 27, 2006 2:15:32 PM

Quote:



Out of his thousand posts more than half of them is this

Lol thats so true!

he used to have only one joke, a keyboard! :lol:  :roll: now he has a slinky too, what next??? a mouse? printer? ooo i just can't wait
April 27, 2006 2:18:10 PM

Quote:
Netburst could have kicked ass, it just needed 65nm on release. The Cedar-Mill 65nm single-core chips by Intel are incredibly efficient, fast and actually somewhat energy efficient (not to mention 5.0ghz overclockers). That being said, Prescott was a great chip if you could cool it enough to overclock it far, but other than that, it was a complete flop.

Netburst was the biggest miss in Intels history, that costed them a lot of time, money, nerves and the result was lost market, reputation and abandoned unsuccessfull technology.
If Netburst was not that much bad, they will continue producing it.
The Cedar-Mill is 65nm Precott with 2MB of L2, just another waste of pipeline stages with great instruction/clock unefficiency that produces less heat. Overclocked or not, it is just too slow and uncompetetive and was leading the things in wrong direction where Intel can lose very fast, everything that they have achieved for many years. Intel beated their Netburst doublecore chips with their less than half clocked Core dualcore chip. They proved to them selves and to the audience who do understand what Netburst is, that was their biggest mistake.
April 27, 2006 2:29:23 PM

Quote:
Netburst could have kicked ass, it just needed 65nm on release. The Cedar-Mill 65nm single-core chips by Intel are incredibly efficient, fast and actually somewhat energy efficient (not to mention 5.0ghz overclockers). That being said, Prescott was a great chip if you could cool it enough to overclock it far, but other than that, it was a complete flop.
Dude thats the same statement that drove me to amd fanboyism! prescott was too hot compared to amd 90 nanos and even 130 nanos and it was too slow compared to k7 and k8 now northwood was okay cause it could keep up with my athlon xp 3200 at speeds up to 400 mhz over my athlon. My cuz has a 2.4 ghz northwood i have a 2.2. ghz barton my proc traded blows with the northwood and won but oc it to 2.6 ghz and the they were tied any further oc to 2.7 ghz the northwood won every time. So what i'm trying to say is that northwood was good and prescott sucked compared to k7 and k8! (and dont call this a fanboy post its my personnal experience with both intel and amd chips)
I realize that Prescott was hot and a pain in the ass to manage, but if you could cool it down really far you could get excellent performance.
April 27, 2006 2:32:52 PM

I tell you they are making a mistake with these prices. I might have went on and jumped from my 754 to the AM2 this summer if the prices were the same or cheaper than the current 939s but if they are more Ill just wait for intel to beat them around some this fall and pick up the best bang for the buck system thats out on the market at the time. Either AMD will drop their prices or they will lose their market share they have worked so hard to get recently.
April 27, 2006 2:35:02 PM

Quote:
Netburst could have kicked ass, it just needed 65nm on release. The Cedar-Mill 65nm single-core chips by Intel are incredibly efficient, fast and actually somewhat energy efficient (not to mention 5.0ghz overclockers). That being said, Prescott was a great chip if you could cool it enough to overclock it far, but other than that, it was a complete flop.
Dude thats the same statement that drove me to amd fanboyism! prescott was too hot compared to amd 90 nanos and even 130 nanos and it was too slow compared to k7 and k8 now northwood was okay cause it could keep up with my athlon xp 3200 at speeds up to 400 mhz over my athlon. My cuz has a 2.4 ghz northwood i have a 2.2. ghz barton my proc traded blows with the northwood and won but oc it to 2.6 ghz and the they were tied any further oc to 2.7 ghz the northwood won every time. So what i'm trying to say is that northwood was good and prescott sucked compared to k7 and k8! (and dont call this a fanboy post its my personnal experience with both intel and amd chips)
I realize that Prescott was hot and a pain in the ass to manage, but if you could cool it down really far you could get excellent performance.
Dude prescott was a peice of crap why cant you admit that? It was hot slow and underperforming! Even with proper cooling the power drin ws immense!
April 27, 2006 2:36:11 PM

Quote:
Netburst could have kicked ass, it just needed 65nm on release. The Cedar-Mill 65nm single-core chips by Intel are incredibly efficient, fast and actually somewhat energy efficient (not to mention 5.0ghz overclockers). That being said, Prescott was a great chip if you could cool it enough to overclock it far, but other than that, it was a complete flop.
Dude thats the same statement that drove me to amd fanboyism! prescott was too hot compared to amd 90 nanos and even 130 nanos and it was too slow compared to k7 and k8 now northwood was okay cause it could keep up with my athlon xp 3200 at speeds up to 400 mhz over my athlon. My cuz has a 2.4 ghz northwood i have a 2.2. ghz barton my proc traded blows with the northwood and won but oc it to 2.6 ghz and the they were tied any further oc to 2.7 ghz the northwood won every time. So what i'm trying to say is that northwood was good and prescott sucked compared to k7 and k8! (and dont call this a fanboy post its my personnal experience with both intel and amd chips)
I realize that Prescott was hot and a pain in the ass to manage, but if you could cool it down really far you could get excellent performance.
Dude prescott was a peice of crap why cant you admit that? It was hot slow and underperforming! Even with proper cooling the power drin ws immense!
At 5/6 ghz, it is a beast of a processor. The power drain is the problem, yes, but any decent power supply can manage it.
April 27, 2006 2:38:46 PM

Quote:

At 5/6 ghz, it is a beast of a processor. The power drain is the problem, yes, but any decent power supply can manage it.


If your PSU can handle 600W+ :lol: 
Also the chip can withstand 200'C :lol: 
April 27, 2006 2:45:38 PM

Provided that an overclocked 955 takes around 400 WATT with a full system intact, so I doubt you would need a 600w PSU unless you are dualing video cards.
April 27, 2006 3:08:17 PM

Quote:
Netburst could have kicked ass, it just needed 65nm on release. The Cedar-Mill 65nm single-core chips by Intel are incredibly efficient, fast and actually somewhat energy efficient (not to mention 5.0ghz overclockers). That being said, Prescott was a great chip if you could cool it enough to overclock it far, but other than that, it was a complete flop.
Dude thats the same statement that drove me to amd fanboyism! prescott was too hot compared to amd 90 nanos and even 130 nanos and it was too slow compared to k7 and k8 now northwood was okay cause it could keep up with my athlon xp 3200 at speeds up to 400 mhz over my athlon. My cuz has a 2.4 ghz northwood i have a 2.2. ghz barton my proc traded blows with the northwood and won but oc it to 2.6 ghz and the they were tied any further oc to 2.7 ghz the northwood won every time. So what i'm trying to say is that northwood was good and prescott sucked compared to k7 and k8! (and dont call this a fanboy post its my personnal experience with both intel and amd chips)
I realize that Prescott was hot and a pain in the ass to manage, but if you could cool it down really far you could get excellent performance.
Dude prescott was a peice of crap why cant you admit that? It was hot slow and underperforming! Even with proper cooling the power drin ws immense!
At 5/6 ghz, it is a beast of a processor. The power drain is the problem, yes, but any decent power supply can manage it. Listen to yourself what if amd made prescott would you be dissing them?
April 27, 2006 3:10:42 PM

I judge a chip by a chip, not by the company that makes it. I could care less who makes me a Conroe. The point I am making is that Intel has the best extreme overclocking chips on the market, while AMD really doesn't have any chips that scale extremely well with cooling other than FX series which are insanely expensive.
April 27, 2006 3:21:13 PM

Quote:
Sweet. AM2! We get to pay (€ 299.94 = 371.835618 U.S. dollars) for an AMD X2 that has no more performance than its $299 counterpart! WHO'S EXCITED?
Oh, oh, I CANT WAIT TO BUY ME A $1500 FX62


Nobody is asking you to upgrade your 3200. Sit on it until the 65nm chips come out in early 2k7. That's what I'm going to do, and I'm running a 2.8 prescott right now. May as well actually get something for it if I'm going to change the whole system out...
April 27, 2006 3:26:25 PM

Umm...To the guy who is bragging about 5ghz...Let's look at something for a minute. I have an intel, 3.2 cedar mill in my media computer, yeah it's nice, still gets pretty hot with stock cooling. I have an amd 3800+x2 in my gaming machine, stays relatively cool with stock cooling, runs at 2.0 ghz. Since when has clock speed mattered that much? So what if you could get a prescott to 5ghz, what's going to actually use all 5ghz of the clock? Even when I'm playing 3 games at a time on my intel or amd the cpu useage is barely at 45-50%. That's where netburst was wrong, they sacrificed smaller pipelines for higher clock speeds. Now with the 65nm technology, there probably will be smaller pipelines with higher clockspeeds which will be great, but unfortunately somethings gotta USE the power of the processor for it to actually be effective. Hell, you have to patch windows just to get it to recognize more than 512mb cache on an amd...
April 27, 2006 4:11:01 PM

If all you care about is overclocking, and in the end paying more for cooling and a good psu, and extra for a really good case, and extra in cooling your house.... then the prescott was great..... The fact is yeah, you can scale it with extreme cooling.... but it is not practical, and you reside in the lower half of one percent of everyone that buys cpu's..... prescott was a flop, that was only good if you OC'ed the crap out of it..... but why should I HAVE to do that to get a good cpu? What is I want it to be fast out of the box, run cool, and not use much power? You know 130W total system draw from the outlet.... maybe 150..... not bad if you ask me..... in comparison to a cpu that alone draws that much power....
!