Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Where's my price-cut FX-57?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 24, 2006 7:15:54 PM

what was the logic behind not making any cheapo high-speed AMD single-core processors, like the FX-57? Why not put out a 2.8GHz single-core 512k cache puppy?

More about : price cut

July 24, 2006 7:21:54 PM

the logic behind is it that fx processors rarely go down in price too much. about 100-200 dollar at the most and even with that kind of price cut it still is high.

note: never buy a fx processor. just a waste of money in my opinion. stick with an amd processor that is not fx.
July 24, 2006 9:42:46 PM

I got this feeling like they're into making these bulky tanks. They don't overclock easily. You say less cache, but take a look at how much L3 cache future AMD owned quad core will have. It's as if they want for you to loose viable data and crash. 'L3 Cache = cache thrashing'

buyer beware


It looks like Intel will go back and make some single core processors as well in Q1 07, They'll just split the current conroe in half for consumption to reduce power spending = savings.

-Why does AMD make single core processors?
Sure I've seen a few that are power saving

-Again, Why does AMD make single core processors?
I think it through, and I don't find it cute. waste of shelf space.

emptor caviat

All I know is that some one will be spending lots of time at the drawing board and I'll still be skeptical about obtaining their product. Never had and never will.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
July 24, 2006 9:46:24 PM

I'm not 100% sure but I don't think 939s are getting the ~50% price cut that AM2s are getting.
July 24, 2006 9:50:03 PM

Quote:
I'm not 100% sure but I don't think 939s are getting the ~50% price cut that AM2s are getting.


939s pretty much got the same price cuts too. It's just the FX series didn't get cut much for either socket.

Yeah, I was hoping to see a bit more of a price drop on the FX-60 too. But I understand, it's the flagship product, so no such luck. But the price difference between a 4600 and a FX-60 is just too insane for the small jump in performance.
July 24, 2006 9:55:03 PM

You know, you're right. Afterall, do they just expect us to show up at the store on thursday and pay a bit more for something that gives us much less? I bet not. They are still playing their dirty game, staling if you will. I say it's a bluff and in no time you'll see AMD cut more and more prices till the price of everything they make is well under the cost price of a dirty Ipod.
July 24, 2006 9:56:14 PM

OK, But how about Opteron? I was planing on getting the 180 which is an s939, should I hope for someting? :?
I already saw the Athalon 4800 X2 @ $350 at monarchcomputers.com
The 180 and the 4800+ are the same chip
July 24, 2006 9:57:33 PM

Quote:
what was the logic behind not making any cheapo high-speed AMD single-core processors, like the FX-57? Why not put out a 2.8GHz single-core 512k cache puppy?


The logic is that the whole CPU market is moving towards multi-core CPUs. Single-cores will stick around for a while, but they'll be in budget computers, which will just be used for internet, word processing, etc. AMD isn't going to deeply discount the FX CPUs because that would ruin their image.
July 24, 2006 10:02:54 PM

Quote:
what was the logic behind not making any cheapo high-speed AMD single-core processors, like the FX-57? Why not put out a 2.8GHz single-core 512k cache puppy?


The FX series (below FX60) has been cancelled as it's a single core chip. The FX55 is $600 at Newegg. The reason they haven't dropped much is because those are still the fastest SINGLE CORE CHIPS you can get.

The 5200+ will be what you'll get at 2.8. All single core has been cancelled.
July 25, 2006 5:16:33 AM

Another interesting thought. AMD's FX single core chip didn't drop in price while Intel is releasing core 2 duo. Only some of the AMD single core processors that aren't so important were lowered in price while most of the cut happened on the dual core side. Notice that Intel itself lowered a lot of their own prices and had mostly dual cores to begin with. This has got to be elimentary economics. While a price on a good falls, a substitute good also drops in price. What is even more interesting that AMD did less price cuting than Intel had, if you consider all of fixed and variable costs of puting core 2 duo on the shelf vs. being AMD today. Computer Gaming is going to happen anyway, weather AMD likes it to or not. It's just that Intel perfers to put more into your pocket for the buck. Thus by decreasing the demand for their good, AMD is not doing us any good and is in fact a bad business.
!