- Feb 15, 2006
- 722
- 0
- 18,980
"FX-64 To Be Released The 8th Of August"
- Thread starter 9-inch
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Power Supplies
gOJDO
Distinguished
- Mar 16, 2006
- 2,309
- 1
- 19,780
Rustol3um
Distinguished
- Jan 26, 2006
- 187
- 0
- 18,680
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5990
cool, i will not buy it
don't think I will either...its time for a new Intel Machine I think......however I will prolly buy AMD again....just dont know when
Action_Man
Splendid
- Jan 7, 2004
- 3,857
- 0
- 22,780
elbert
Glorious
- Jan 11, 2005
- 9,704
- 6
- 46,965
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5990
Thats cool so I guess the FX-62 to be in the low $800 to high $700. I think AMD is replacing its X2's with the FX's and its single core 64's with the X2's. Price wise its sounding good.
The FX-64 should outperform the E6600 which is somewhat out of the price range but will have to wait an see. AMD needs a CPU to combat the E6700 and X6800 extreame. I would guess atleast a FX-68 will be needed to even get pass the E6700 which isn't good news.
kuff_kuff
Distinguished
- May 19, 2006
- 133
- 0
- 18,680
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5990
Thats cool so I guess the FX-62 to be in the low $800 to high $700. I think AMD is replacing its X2's with the FX's and its single core 64's with the X2's. Price wise its sounding good.
The FX-64 should outperform the E6600 which is somewhat out of the price range but will have to wait an see. AMD needs a CPU to combat the E6700 and X6800 extreame. I would guess atleast a FX-68 will be needed to even get pass the E6700 which isn't good news.
What are you smoking, AMD cannot replace the X2 series with FX chips, FX denotes the best, having 4 versions of "the best" doesnt make sense, especially when they will still be beaten by "regular" Intel Cpus.
plus the FX-64 is probably going to be a 3Ghz chip, which might finally allow it to compete with a E6600, and it will be lower in yield than the FX-62 given the increased clock.
AMD is not going to be producing more than 1 dual core FX chip for the AM2 platform, what you might see is a 512K cache 2.8ghz 5200+ or something.
maxtoons
Distinguished
- May 16, 2006
- 69
- 0
- 18,630
Do you see this guys? in the past 3 month we got FX-60, FX-62 and now FX-64.
They are seeping up their production, espacilly when we think that the move from FX-51 to FX-57 took almost 2 years!
They are speeding up, higher speeds might be their only diffence from Conro.
If the FX-64 is 3.0, how high can it OC?
It might not be such a blood bath for AMD after all, but it is a must that they lower their prices.
OH man, I want a 939 FX-60 so bad and I might be able to buy it after all
They are seeping up their production, espacilly when we think that the move from FX-51 to FX-57 took almost 2 years!
They are speeding up, higher speeds might be their only diffence from Conro.
If the FX-64 is 3.0, how high can it OC?
It might not be such a blood bath for AMD after all, but it is a must that they lower their prices.
OH man, I want a 939 FX-60 so bad and I might be able to buy it after all
computertech82
Distinguished
- Mar 26, 2006
- 1,362
- 0
- 19,860
A bit funny reading about the "cpu battle" Funny how a Intel is so much better, but cannot be bought. It's like nonne actually reads TOMS HARDWARE, just blabs.
By the time the Intel is out in force with their new cpu, AMD probably will be using the 65nm. Just the change to 65nm will kill the advantage of the new Intel cpu. I'll wait for the cpus to actually start shipping (both 65nm AMD/Intel cpus).
Ever read, "Don't count your chicks before they hatch?"
By the time the Intel is out in force with their new cpu, AMD probably will be using the 65nm. Just the change to 65nm will kill the advantage of the new Intel cpu. I'll wait for the cpus to actually start shipping (both 65nm AMD/Intel cpus).
Ever read, "Don't count your chicks before they hatch?"
RichPLS
Champion
- Aug 24, 2004
- 15,886
- 0
- 50,780
Do you see this guys? in the past 3 month we got FX-60, FX-62 and now FX-64.
They are seeping up their production, espacilly when we think that the move from FX-51 to FX-57 took almost 2 years!
They are speeding up, higher speeds might be their only diffence from Conro.
If the FX-64 is 3.0, how high can it OC?
It might not be such a blood bath for AMD after all, but it is a must that they lower their prices.
OH man, I want a 939 FX-60 so bad and I might be able to buy it after all
Answer, not very much at all, similar to the FX-60 and FX-57...
Overclocking is not the FX series strongpoint... for you are already buying AMD's top chip overclocked... just done at the factory...
ches111
Distinguished
- Feb 4, 2006
- 1,958
- 0
- 19,780
Do you ever read what you type?
You are hoping to afford an FX-60?
How about as soon as the conroe E6600 ships buy that for MUCH cheaper "since for you and me the money does count" and performs as well or better at stock speeds and then can overclock like mad!!
Why buy an FX-60 for the sake of saying I own an FX-60? Is this a badge for an AMD fan or something? Just curious?
Why not buy what is affordable and has the best perfomance? Be it AMD or Intel?
I just will never understand the "Brand Loyalty" thing?
You are hoping to afford an FX-60?
How about as soon as the conroe E6600 ships buy that for MUCH cheaper "since for you and me the money does count" and performs as well or better at stock speeds and then can overclock like mad!!
Why buy an FX-60 for the sake of saying I own an FX-60? Is this a badge for an AMD fan or something? Just curious?
Why not buy what is affordable and has the best perfomance? Be it AMD or Intel?
I just will never understand the "Brand Loyalty" thing?
ches111
Distinguished
- Feb 4, 2006
- 1,958
- 0
- 19,780
Master, Teeee Heeeee
What about his comments points to a significant increase in performance? A die shrink may result in better power handling but the Uarch is the same isn't it?
Did I miss something? Does a die shrink to 65nm magically mean they can be that much faster?
Please enlighten me OH Master Teeee Heeee!
What about his comments points to a significant increase in performance? A die shrink may result in better power handling but the Uarch is the same isn't it?
Did I miss something? Does a die shrink to 65nm magically mean they can be that much faster?
Please enlighten me OH Master Teeee Heeee!
MU_Engineer
Splendid
- Feb 18, 2006
- 3,868
- 4
- 23,165
Here's what I think AMD will have at Conroe's real widespread launch late this year:
Athlon 64 Line:
3500+ (2.2 GHz, 2x512K) $80-100
3800+ (2.4 GHz, 2x512K) $110-130
X2 Line:
3800+ (2.0 GHz, 2x512K) $150
4200+ (2.2 GHz, 2x512K) $200
4600+ (2.4 GHz, 2x512K) $250-300
5000+ (2.6 GHz, 2x512K) $325-400
5400+ (2.8GHz, 2x512K) $450-550
5800+ (3.0 GHz, 2x512K) $600-750
FX Line:
FX-64 (3.0 GHz, 2x1MB) $850-900
FX-66 (3.2 GHz, 2x1MB) $999
The AMD chips will be a roughly as expensive clock-for-clock as the Core 2s, but I bet these will be the prices and offerings that are out there and will sell at an okay rate.
Athlon 64 Line:
3500+ (2.2 GHz, 2x512K) $80-100
3800+ (2.4 GHz, 2x512K) $110-130
X2 Line:
3800+ (2.0 GHz, 2x512K) $150
4200+ (2.2 GHz, 2x512K) $200
4600+ (2.4 GHz, 2x512K) $250-300
5000+ (2.6 GHz, 2x512K) $325-400
5400+ (2.8GHz, 2x512K) $450-550
5800+ (3.0 GHz, 2x512K) $600-750
FX Line:
FX-64 (3.0 GHz, 2x1MB) $850-900
FX-66 (3.2 GHz, 2x1MB) $999
The AMD chips will be a roughly as expensive clock-for-clock as the Core 2s, but I bet these will be the prices and offerings that are out there and will sell at an okay rate.
capnbfg
Distinguished
- Jun 10, 2006
- 146
- 0
- 18,680
Somehow that's precisely what came to mind as soon as I saw the topic. I'll pass on the FX64 and grab something more reasonable like the E6600.
I've been a big fan of AMD for a while now, but it's pretty much set that I'll soon be the proud owner of a Cornrow rig, and that fact gets more firmly cemented every time I read a new article about it. As an engineer, my purchase decisions are based on a combination of performance and overall quality of design, and from what I have seen so far there's just no denying that intel's engineers really stepped it up and created a quality product. Even more appealing is the fact that ATi seems to have created a top-notch chipset to go along with it. I've been given every reason to go all out with this computer build 8)
hiddendog
Distinguished
- Apr 9, 2006
- 42
- 0
- 18,530
elbert
Glorious
- Jan 11, 2005
- 9,704
- 6
- 46,965
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5990
Thats cool so I guess the FX-62 to be in the low $800 to high $700. I think AMD is replacing its X2's with the FX's and its single core 64's with the X2's. Price wise its sounding good.
The FX-64 should outperform the E6600 which is somewhat out of the price range but will have to wait an see. AMD needs a CPU to combat the E6700 and X6800 extreame. I would guess atleast a FX-68 will be needed to even get pass the E6700 which isn't good news.
What are you smoking, AMD cannot replace the X2 series with FX chips, FX denotes the best, having 4 versions of "the best" doesnt make sense, especially when they will still be beaten by "regular" Intel Cpus.
plus the FX-64 is probably going to be a 3Ghz chip, which might finally allow it to compete with a E6600, and it will be lower in yield than the FX-62 given the increased clock.
AMD is not going to be producing more than 1 dual core FX chip for the AM2 platform, what you might see is a 512K cache 2.8ghz 5200+ or something.
I believe at 1 point the single core 64's were "the best" and they got replaced. All the FX denotes to me is higher amounts of cache and "the best" FX chip is in question. The FX-57 kicks the crap out the FX-60 or FX-62 in games.
I really dont see them making 1 chip only for the 4X4 mobo because that will kill the 4X4 from the start. Answer me this why is the sempron over taking the single core 64's for? Change is a comming. What is the differance between the FX-62 and X2 5200? The cache and when the CPU hits the Ghz limit AMD will increase the Cache for more performance. I see AMD making for FX CPU's because the X2 are as close to the Ghz limit as the FX's.
Are you serious, I hope you do know that switching from process technologies gives no tangible performance boost. AMD wont be winning any time soon no matter what you think. The FX 62 is maxed out, the overclockability of the chip is simply lame. The FX64 isnt going to be a marvel. Have you forgotten about the 3.2 ghz XE conroe ?, the lead will be even bigger, and intel has an overclocker on their hands. Theres alot more overhead. I personally say intel should max out the conroe, to its absolute limit, and pound amd while they are down, thats competition not releasing products which they could on launch but dont. They will have a great lead, make that lead bigger, and keep hitting hard.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram