That's really nice but the Conroe E6600 and E6700 should be able to give the FX-66 a good run for the money. I hope for AMD's sake they bring down the price of the FX series. Otherwise only hardcore fanboys will be paying several hundreds of dollars more for a CPU that may only be marginally faster at stock speeds.
Sad imo... that by 3rd quarter 2007 the FX-66 will be the fastest AMD has to offer... I assume that to be simply a FX-62 but running at 3.2GHz x2...
That will still be slower than todays Conroes E6700, which will only cost $520... And Intel's roadmap indicates by then they will have much faster chips to contend with...
Sad imo... that by 3rd quarter 2007 the FX-66 will be the fastest AMD has to offer... I assume that to be simply a FX-62 but running at 3GHz x2...
That will still be slower than todays Conroes E6700, which will only cost $520... And Intel's roadmap indicates by then they will have much faster chips to contend with...
Since AMD and Intel come to the market with quad-core in 1Q2007 don't you think that the FX-66 will be quad core as well ?
Personally I would spend my money on AMD purely cause it's the underdog and cause they have shown in the past to come forward with surprisingly superiour tech.
Don't forget that the only benchmarks from Conroe are not really accurate and were done with a NON production type chip.
And since AMD has got to have it from fast memory (CAS 2) which is available in 1Q2007 I'm not too worried that AMD will have the last laugh...
Again, we must emphasize that our testing situation was not optimal, because the Intel system had been preconfigured and didn't represent the final version.
THG
Quote :
Server roadmaps shown by company executives confirmed that the company's Opteron processor will move to a quad-core architecture beginning in 2007, together with the ability to scale to 32 processors and above. Similar roadmaps presented for the company's desktop processor roadmap lacked the quad-core disclosure, however, which could indicate that quad-core, AMD-based PCs will arrive in 2008 or later.
Sad imo... that by 3rd quarter 2007 the FX-66 will be the fastest AMD has to offer... I assume that to be simply a FX-62 but running at 3.2GHz x2...
That will still be slower than todays Conroes E6700, which will only cost $520... And Intel's roadmap indicates by then they will have much faster chips to contend with...
The 5200+ will be the better choice but look how many people paid for 965EE, which is BARELY faster than my 4400+ and in a lot of cases gets whipped.
The 5200+ will be the better choice but look how many people paid for 965EE, which is BARELY faster than my 4400+ and in a lot of cases gets whipped.
No it will not be better choice, the Core2 Duo E6600 is faster and less expencive than the 5200+. Those who bought 965EE, paid a lot of money but that was in the past and they will not buy 965EE at the thime when 5200+ will be available. They will probably buy something more powerfull and competetive, like Conore.
Its funny reading some of this. What you people dont seem to understand is that you get what you pay for, no matter whether you pick Intel or AMD. The prices will be competative no matter which you buy, its as simple as that and thats the way Intel and AMD have been for 10 years. AMD is not going to sell a FX-64 for $1000 when a comparative performance conroe costs $300, it just doesnt work that way and it never will.
The 5200+ will be the better choice but look how many people paid for 965EE, which is BARELY faster than my 4400+ and in a lot of cases gets whipped.
No it will not be better choice, the Core2 Duo E6600 is faster and less expencive than the 5200+. Those who bought 965EE, paid a lot of money but that was in the past and they will not buy 965EE at the thime when 5200+ will be available. They will probably buy something more powerfull and competetive, like Conore.
Do I have to hold your hand all day? I meant OF COURSE a better choice than the FX66.
The 5200+ will be the better choice but look how many people paid for 965EE, which is BARELY faster than my 4400+ and in a lot of cases gets whipped.
No it will not be better choice, the Core2 Duo E6600 is faster and less expencive than the 5200+. Those who bought 965EE, paid a lot of money but that was in the past and they will not buy 965EE at the thime when 5200+ will be available. They will probably buy something more powerfull and competetive, like Conore.
Do I have to hold your hand all day? I meant OF COURSE a better choice than the FX66.
The 5200+ will be the better choice but look how many people paid for 965EE, which is BARELY faster than my 4400+ and in a lot of cases gets whipped.
No it will not be better choice, the Core2 Duo E6600 is faster and less expencive than the 5200+. Those who bought 965EE, paid a lot of money but that was in the past and they will not buy 965EE at the thime when 5200+ will be available. They will probably buy something more powerfull and competetive, like Conore.
Do I have to hold your hand all day? I meant OF COURSE a better choice than the FX66.
Well theres no details on how many Cores or How much Cache they will have or even Clock Speeed,But I guess we can guess. Wouldnt that 4X4 platform be out right along the lines of these proc's of Late Q4 06'-Q1 of '07, so at least one of them has to be Quad Core?
I Hope the 66 is, But Q3 of 07 will be "late" being as they probably wanna have them ready by Vistas launch to make it "the CPU of choice" dont they?Well I dunno, looks like well just have to wait and see, or at least get a couple more sources. I cant believe they even have 90nm set for Q3 of 07.
