Most if not all 1MB Cache AMD's are being discontinued!

[ikjadoon]

I know, I know, like WTF?!? I was asking around, and Monarch is only one who answered. Exact Wording:

Monarch: The 4000 AM2 is being discontinued, along with the other 1MB L2 cache cpus.
Ibrahim: what?!?!?!
Monarch: That is per AMD.
Ibrahim: No way! You are kidding right? That is why some other companies don't have them either.
Ibrahim: Wow, major blow...
Ibrahim: Did they give any reasons?
Monarch: one moment
Ibrahim: OK
Monarch: take a look here
Monarch: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32452

Same thing with Newegg; look at the site, none. Only that $$$$ FX-62...Curses! I guess I'm going with the X2 3800+ after all...

~Ibrahim~

 

[falloutman]

Damn, I was hoping to pick up a 1mb 2.0ghz DC and OC it to 2.5 oh well. the price of the FX-62 is supposed to drop signifigantly when conroe hits.

 

[MrsD]

Thats old news. It doesnt surprise me, with Intel pulling all the rabbits out of their hat to try to make things hard for AMD that they have to switch their priorities. I wouldnt be surprised if 939 dissappears quickly.

And too those of you ( you know who you are :lol: ) who said AMD could never sell the FX-62 for $500, just wait and see when Conroe is released. You will eat those words. 8O

Lots of change going on, and it's great for us, the consumer cause we pay less.

 

[RichPLS]

Yes it will too drop, but I do not ever expect it to be below $800+ USD, and at that price, a C2D 2.66GHz Conroe costing $530 USD will blow the FX-62 in every way, in initial cost, in stock performance, in overclocked performance, in energy consumption, in heat, and stability...
That puts users in the know that still buy AMD chips after 7/23/2006 in the catagory of diehard fanboi's, stockholders, or Intel haterz to the extreme they are willing to pay more for less...
Got any Strawberries?

 

[casewhite]

The reason is that AMD has orders from the likes of DARPA, European Supercomputing Center in Lucerne, Boeing and others that will require 100% of the 1mb cache chip production so they are going into enterprise grade opterons. These are chips that have a wholesale price between $800 and $2200 a piece. The desktop with sub $100 wholesale prices don't justify the diversion. Dollarwise the supercomputing market is worth 10 times the total enthusiast market even if every enthusiast spent $900 per cpu per year. As the IRS criminal investigators say you follow the money.

 

[theaxemaster]

Exactly correct, and couple that with the fact that, as the article stated, AMD's chips don't overly benefit from the extra cache (5 frames in fear, 2 seconds in video encoding, etc.) it is a relatively smart move for them in a business sense. The next architecture might take advantage of more cache, in which case you'll probably see the return of 1mb+ cache sizes on AMDs. Intel, meanwhile, is getting crazy with the cache size...

 

[sailer]

If the FX-62 goes to $500. I'll get one. Until that day happens, I won't be counting any chickens before they hatch. It hurts to see AMD giving up the 1 mg cache. Don't like to see progress going backward. I understand economics and all that, but still, they worked so hard to get into the desktop market that its a wonder to give up what helped get them there.

 

[RichPLS]

They have no choice so that is why they are cutting the cache... They wish they did not have to, but survive, try must they.

 

[sailer]

Yeah, I do really understand the economics of it. What was it that MacArthur said, "We're not retreating. We're advancing to the rear" or something like that. Sometimes a retreat is necessary. Then its time to regroup and go forward again.

 

[ikjadoon]

The performance hit, if any, is minimal, yes, but ,however small the increase is, it still seems to be going backwards. Hopefully AMD can regroup quickly enough, before Conroe has an excellent reputation, the way AMD has now.

Why would AMD continue to sell a slower product (FX-62) on all fronts at a higher premium? Surely, they would have to lower prices to be competitive and not be nearly boycotted. Of course, there are those few diehard fanboys, but we are going to ignore them for now.

~Ibrahim~

 

[MG37221]

The performance hit, if any, is minimal, yes, but ,however small the increase is, it still seems to be going backwards. Hopefully AMD can regroup quickly enough, before Conroe has an excellent reputation, the way AMD has now.

Why would AMD continue to sell a slower product (FX-62) on all fronts at a higher premium? Surely, they would have to lower prices to be competitive and not be nearly boycotted. Of course, there are those few diehard fanboys, but we are going to ignore them for now.

~Ibrahim~

I'd expect the FX-62 to have a rather short lifespan. It barely performs better than the FX-60 "sometimes". But AMD needed a new flagship processor to lead their AM2 line. 65nm processors are already testing. Then AMD will begin to ramp up the clocks, incrementally of course, but expect an AM2 FX-64 before too long at 3.0GHz and at that speed (and above), DDR2 will begin to show some real benefits also.

I'll probably just go with an FX-60 and try to make it last for as long as I c an.

 

[ikjadoon]

The 65nm's are already being tested? Wow, quicker than I expected. Can we assume a Q4/Q1 06/07 launch?

Hmm...3.0GHz sounds pretty damn impressive, but it also has a bad side. Isn't 3-4GHz where Intel hit the GHz barrier? I hope that because of the new process, 65nm, that they barrier may not be as black and white as it is now. And it isn't that black/white right now...This may sound stupid, but is Conroe 65nm?

~Ibrahim~

 

[MG37221]

Sometime in the first half '07 is when I'd think they'll start shipping. AMD will have to get on the ball if Conroe actually proves itself worth the hype it's getting, which I rather doubt. Oh it'll probably be a good CPU though and may well take back the crown. AMD'll be on the defensive and should expedite if Conroe negatively affects AMD's sales. BIG if here though.

 

[SuperFly03]

I think your engaging in wishful thinking if you expect Q4 launch. In all reality I don't see them being launched until Feb. or so, depending on what issues present themselves during the testing process (feel free to disagree with me).

Right now it seems AMD really really pissed off Intel and awoke a sleeping giant. Not your everday sleeping giant that comes at you with both barrels firing, but one that comes with both barrels, NAVY seals, sniper details, amphibious assault, F-22's, B-2's, Bunker busters, and hold thier trigger finger over an aresenal of nuclear weapons burried somewhere in the mountains below several hundred feet of rock, contrete, and fortified launch doors.

Yes, Intel brings all that against AMD and AMD is just sitting there in the corner with a pellet gun screaming "OH GOD WHAT HAVE WE DONE!?"

Don't get me wrong I still am an AMD fan but if Conroe holds true, AMD is in real trouble in the consumer CPU segment.

 

[falloutman]

people need to find out that teh cpu doestn really matter in games anymore. Once you have a decently clocked DC CPU, you need to drop a ton of money on your graphics card. When i OCed my 3200 to 2.4 ghz i only gained 5 fps in games, but whne i oced my GeForce 6600LE from 400mhz memory and 300mhz core, i gained another 7 fps. remember, once you have a good cpu, it wont do you any good if you have a crappy GC. I'll always stick with AMD because thats all i really know. I can OC it, plus the NForce chipsets really kick ass. I doubt anyone can say otherwise.

 

[Heyyou27]

I have 2x1MB L2 cache.

 

[SuperFly03]

I have 2x1MB L2 cache.

I hate you... just for the official record :tongue:

 

[theboomboomcars]

Don't get me wrong I still am an AMD fan but if Conroe holds true, AMD is in real trouble in the consumer CPU segment.

AMD isn't really focusing on the consumer market right now. They are going after the servers with a vengence. If I am remembering right a few months ago there was an interview with an AMD rep on THG where he said that they are going to focus on the server for now, that is there current priority.

So the desktop will get the rejects from the server chips, which means the 1MB cache server chips must be selling so we get the 512kb chips.

 

[MrsD]

Don't get me wrong I still am an AMD fan but if Conroe holds true, AMD is in real trouble in the consumer CPU segment.

How do you back that up? Have you forgotten that AMD has been the little guy playing catchup since day one of their existence and look at them now. How is taking second again in the desktop segment going to put them in trouble? :roll:

 

[sailer]

I have 2x1MB L2 cache.

So do I, but I think my graphics card does more than the cache does. Best thing I see about the 2x1mg cache is when I'm doing some research stuff that tries its best to slow the cpu down.

 

[RichPLS]

I'll always stick with AMD because thats all i really know. I can OC it, plus the NForce chipsets really kick ass. I doubt anyone can say otherwise

AMD's do overclock, but imo their top chips are and have been simply their mainstream chip factory overclocked... so this leaves less headroom for enthusiast overclocking...

Intel seems to be more conservative about clocking, leaving more enthusiast headroom for overclocking... so, imo, Intel would generally give more satisfaction by enabling you to overclock higher percentage wise than AMD... It is common for Intel chips to get a 1000MHz overclock and beyond on air cooling alone, with AMD, this is a rare thing...

An illustration would be the X2-4800 stock at 2.4GHz stock, usually lucky if you get 2.8GHz stable overclock 24/7... a delta of 400MHz increase...
Yet a Pressler 950 stock at 3.4 can usually achieve 4.1GHz stable overclock 24/7... a delta of 700MHz increase...

 

[BadTrip]

Did you forget about the mobile market also?

Oh, and by the way second place out of two competitors is LAST place. :lol:

 

[TurricaN_BEL_]

I'll always stick with AMD because thats all i really know. I can OC it, plus the NForce chipsets really kick ass. I doubt anyone can say otherwise

AMD's do overclock, but imo their top chips are and have been simply their mainstream chip factory overclocked... so this leaves less headroom for enthusiast overclocking...

Intel seems to be more conservative about clocking, leaving more enthusiast headroom for overclocking... so, imo, Intel would generally give more satisfaction by enabling you to overclock higher percentage wise than AMD... It is common for Intel chips to get a 1000MHz overclock and beyond on air cooling alone, with AMD, this is a rare thing...

An illustration would be the X2-4800 stock at 2.4GHz stock, usually lucky if you get 2.8GHz stable overclock 24/7... a delta of 400MHz increase...
Yet a Pressler 950 stock at 3.4 can usually achieve 4.1GHz stable overclock 24/7... a delta of 700MHz increase...

OK there but let me tell you that a 400 Mhz increase on the AMD will bring more performance gains then the 700 of your intel chips .
Remember A64's do more work per clock cycle , and we're not talking about Intel's A64 buster Conroe here but about Netburst crapola ... :lol:

 

[TurricaN_BEL_]

Double Post , sorry :roll:

 

[SuperFly03]

They aren't in trouble in a business sense, just in the consumer CPU segment. If I can buy an Intel chip thats better for about the same $ I will go with that. I realise they have been playing catch up but being #2 is still being #2, I am not going to intentionaly buy an second rate chip.

Just like AMD has been winning most of the battles over the past months, now it will flip, its a cycle I know. So yes they will be in trouble and they will come back, it is just going to take time and if that timing isn't right my next CPU will be an intel (OH NO NOT INTEL lol j/k)