Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD X2 5000

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 7, 2006 7:42:54 PM

Anyone have any word on these chips? I odered mine on 8/1/06 and still nothing from Buy.com. any1 else use Buy.com? Let me know

More about : amd 5000

August 7, 2006 10:29:11 PM

Hello!!!! Baron Matrix. Here's a question for you....the expert on x2 5000+(or so you like to think). Honour us with your witt and wisdom, oh jack-of-all-trades.
August 7, 2006 10:43:51 PM

yea baron! i dont even know you buy I dare you to answer this question
Related resources
August 8, 2006 12:07:46 AM

Quote:
yea baron! i dont even know you buy I dare you to answer this question



They are in the hands of Dell and other system builders. DO a search for "Will a $500 5000+ be the chip to beat." on here.

I said more than a month ago that every system builder and their mother would want these for systems. They canmake more selling the system than just the chip.

I haven't gone through the purcahse process but MonarchComputer is offering them in their Furia systems.

1Tanker doubted me. I knew they would disappear. Just like the 3600+. It is around but only for systems - at least they are earmarked for it.
August 8, 2006 1:45:13 AM

Quote:
Hello!!!! Baron Matrix. Here's a question for you....the expert on x2 5000+(or so you like to think). Honour us with your witt and wisdom, oh jack-of-all-trades.



I think he (baron) answered this question fairly well
August 8, 2006 2:20:01 AM

Quote:
yea baron! i dont even know you buy I dare you to answer this question



They are in the hands of Dell and other system builders. DO a search for "Will a $500 5000+ be the chip to beat." on here.

I said more than a month ago that every system builder and their mother would want these for systems. They canmake more selling the system than just the chip.

I haven't gone through the purcahse process but MonarchComputer is offering them in their Furia systems.

1Tanker doubted me. I knew they would disappear. Just like the 3600+. It is around but only for systems - at least they are earmarked for it.

I just searched Dell, no info on X2 5000+, then I searched HP and tried to put a system together (AMD's closest OEM partner on DT and 2nd closest on server), a 5000+ is not even listed as an option, try it yourself, try to configure a d4500e series computer with a 5000+ --- not possible, why they don't list it as an option on the cusomization pages.

Hmmm --- voodoo must have it... yep listed there, buy one for 5000 bucks. I could not find the 5000+ option on alienware either... weird so many system builders actually do not have it

http://www.alienware.com/product_pages/desktop_all_defa...
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/computer_ser...

EDIT: Apologies, I finally found one http://www.alienware.com/configurator_pages/Aurora_7500...


I think I mentioned MonarchComputer, not HP. Dell is set to ship AMD according to Forbes and others. One would think they woul dwant the biggest bang for the buck and a $325 5000+ with every level of mobo is pretty tempting.

Obvioualy Monarch wasn't one of the people who were offering CRAP for the chips. AMD said they turned down a lot of business.

Go to this page and scroll past the ads:

Furia


You will see that they have the OEM 5000+ (why not make a few bucks for an HSF) for $382, much less than the "OWNING" $500 I quoted in my oh so eloquent post.

There are ODMs that I have never heard of who are now building AMD systems(Quanta, Mitac - ever heard of Google) so they will more than likely be ready for the Sept rush.

Lenovo has apparently picked up desktops, too. Companies that size DON'T buy at the last minute they make these things called orders for parts. Sometimes it's 1 year 2 million parts, sometimes it's 5 year 30 million parts.

Lenovo is selling in mainland China so there's so much more of a market that Google would cut American throats to get it. :oops:  (over 1 billion now)


I am just glad that I don't need 5000+ 4x4 right now. Demand seems to be incredible. As i tell everyone, you can find the 4600+ and the FX62 in retail. Why the conspicuous absence?


System builders.

But then I could be wrong.
August 8, 2006 2:22:55 AM

Quote:
Hello!!!! Baron Matrix. Here's a question for you....the expert on x2 5000+(or so you like to think). Honour us with your witt and wisdom, oh jack-of-all-trades.



I think he (baron) answered this question fairly well

He's blowing smoke as usual....

Of course, by the time Dell gets around to shipping DTs with AMD, and a 5000+ appears on the config. pages, he will scream "I was right, I was right..."


Because of my actual low key demeanor it would be moreso, I figured that according to the signs.
August 8, 2006 2:58:25 AM

this thread fails after baronBS posts

"There are no such thing as X2 5000+! the americans are telling you a lie!" bagdad bob
August 8, 2006 7:04:58 AM

Quote:
Hello!!!! Baron Matrix. Here's a question for you....the expert on x2 5000+(or so you like to think). Honour us with your witt and wisdom, oh jack-of-all-trades.


I prefer not to be associated :) My sincerest apologies Jack. How thoughtless of me? :wink:
August 8, 2006 7:19:36 AM

Hey BM i think the 4600 EE is now a better deal thats its available. I'm getting one and for now gonna overclock it to 2.6ghz and keep the same voltage so it will still be EE. Maybe later take it up to 2.8 8)
August 8, 2006 8:12:22 AM

There are probably a few factors at work here. Low bin yield combined with the great value of the x2 5000 would make sense. Not many people want to pay 800 dollars for the FX-62 that is only slightly better than the 5000. That and anything less than the 5000 is available on s939 (unless you want EE versions, of course). So this would make the 5000 a unique, highly sought after CPU.

I know my reason for wanting one is that I have an FX-55 and the 5000 would basically be like having two of those for far less than I paid for the FX-55.

I just hope AMD gets more out there soon, or more people might jump ship to Intel. :?
August 8, 2006 8:34:17 AM

Quote:
this thread fails after baronBS posts

"There are no such thing as X2 5000+! the americans are telling you a lie!" bagdad bob


Get use to it, Baron craps most threads....
=/ no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 8, 2006 11:44:34 AM

Quote:
this thread fails after baronBS posts

"There are no such thing as X2 5000+! the americans are telling you a lie!" bagdad bob


Get use to it, Baron craps most threads....


Why because I speak with confidence? Because I usually am right? Or perhaps because I don't think Core 2 is the second coming?

I belive it's that you can't be Mr. KnowItAll. So I'll letyou have this thread and come back to count on topic posts.
August 8, 2006 12:32:43 PM

PAPER LAUNCH!!
August 8, 2006 3:12:06 PM

It's okay cause I'm reporting you for the expletive in your sig. From now on, if any of you make a colorful change in my name, derail a thread, whatever, I will moan like you do.
August 8, 2006 3:16:05 PM

Quote:
There are probably a few factors at work here. Low bin yield combined with the great value of the x2 5000 would make sense. Not many people want to pay 800 dollars for the FX-62 that is only slightly better than the 5000. That and anything less than the 5000 is available on s939 (unless you want EE versions, of course). So this would make the 5000 a unique, highly sought after CPU.

I know my reason for wanting one is that I have an FX-55 and the 5000 would basically be like having two of those for far less than I paid for the FX-55.

I just hope AMD gets more out there soon, or more people might jump ship to Intel. :?



So you mean that they can get 2.4GHz and 2.8GHz but can't get 2.6GHz? Doesn't that sound odd? The 5000+ is the only AM2 not available in retail.
August 9, 2006 2:01:53 AM

Quote:
It's okay cause I'm reporting you for the expletive in your sig. From now on, if any of you make a colorful change in my name, derail a thread, whatever, I will moan like you do.


why you dont like women?
August 9, 2006 2:38:36 AM

Quote:
There are probably a few factors at work here. Low bin yield combined with the great value of the x2 5000 would make sense. Not many people want to pay 800 dollars for the FX-62 that is only slightly better than the 5000. That and anything less than the 5000 is available on s939 (unless you want EE versions, of course). So this would make the 5000 a unique, highly sought after CPU.

I know my reason for wanting one is that I have an FX-55 and the 5000 would basically be like having two of those for far less than I paid for the FX-55.

I just hope AMD gets more out there soon, or more people might jump ship to Intel. :?


Yeah, it is a supply/demand --- price drops brought demand up to out strip supply agreed. I will address Baron shortly.

UhOH... here comes a 100 link, 20 000 word essay on why BM is wrong... duck :p  :wink:
August 9, 2006 2:41:38 AM

Quote:
Because I usually am right?


Usually right? I thought you were 'very rarely wrong'?

Quote:
So you mean that they can get 2.4GHz and 2.8GHz but can't get 2.6GHz? Doesn't that sound odd? The 5000+ is the only AM2 not available in retail.


What don't you look at the quantities that each of those is sold in then check the price of each. :wink:
August 9, 2006 4:00:15 AM

Quote:
Because I usually am right?

Usually right? I thought you were 'very rarely wrong'?


Somewhere on a sunny day, the dogs are barking, birds chirping, and children playing in the park. Baron is walking down the sidewalk and my warning is stay away because on a clear blue day a lightening bolt will emerge from nowhere and strike the ground upon which he walks.
:) 

Too late. It already happened. It wasn't a sunny day and I ducked at the last second.
August 9, 2006 4:25:13 AM

Why do you have an Isaac Newton quote in your sig? Are you comparing yourself to him?
August 9, 2006 4:54:50 AM

Maybe you need to dumb it done like this. 2.6ghz is the same clock speed as the FX 60. The FX 62 is sold in limited quantities whilst the X2 5000 would sell a lot more because of its price and they can't sell FX 60's at that sort of price.

Hmm not dumbed enough for him, perhaps we need finger puppets.
August 9, 2006 6:47:56 AM

Quote:
To really explain it he would need to understand supply side economics 101 coupled with a natural bell shape curve --- but this is whooooshhh, over his head.
I think that's what he was ducking, instead of said lightening bolt. :wink:
August 9, 2006 7:21:34 AM

8O ......




woooooooowwwwwww

if only amd had as many fabs as intel.
if only i had a x2 :( 
if only.....



jumping jack ftw!@!!
btw, how do u get so many posts in like? ....5 months?
August 9, 2006 7:25:40 AM

wow lol then they must really make alota shit up xD


woooooooo!
August 9, 2006 7:29:09 AM

haha xD

btw, wat will happen when amd reaches the 9000+ mark? will they? lol
4.5ghz maybe? iunno lol

prolly add an x like ati when they reached 10000 with the radeons

from 9800 to x1000's xD

btw the 8800gtx sounds REALLY gay ...

* ineed to stick to forum subjects lol ><'' *
August 9, 2006 7:34:31 AM

Quote:
haha xD

btw, wat will happen when amd reaches the 9000+ mark? will they? lol
4.5ghz maybe? iunno lol

prolly add an x like ati when they reached 10000 with the radeons

from 9800 to x1000's xD

btw the 8800gtx sounds REALLY gay ...

* ineed to stick to forum subjects lol ><'' *
It won't be ATI anymore, by then.
August 9, 2006 7:44:52 AM

aww :) 

in response to 1tanker:

haha yeah i 4got about the merge... well if not ati... prolly.... AmdTI
btw does ati even stand for anytign?

in respsonse to jack:

....so....wat if an intel engineer gives info to amd... then amd mIgHt make faster processors/...? iunno..
i think its harder for amd cause they got an onbaord mem controller?
maybe amd should make one exectly like intel structure eg, no ht, nb mem controller so maybe then we can do direct mhz to mhz comparision?

bleh lol im soo n00b at this..
August 9, 2006 8:13:29 AM

Quote:
Now since I am fairly certain you are likely not capable of using a library, I will link a related document by the same authors that pertains to the same information
Not true. Didn't you hear????? Baron Matrix was a librarian too. :wink:
August 9, 2006 8:14:43 AM

Quote:
Now since I am fairly certain you are likely not capable of using a library, I will link a related document by the same authors that pertains to the same information
Not true. Didn't you hear????? Baron Matrix was a librarian too. :wink:

i wonder why he doesnt work in a library anymore ;) 
August 9, 2006 8:16:25 AM

Quote:
Now since I am fairly certain you are likely not capable of using a library, I will link a related document by the same authors that pertains to the same information
Not true. Didn't you hear????? Baron Matrix was a librarian too. :wink:

i wonder why he doesnt work in a library anymore ;) He probably e-mailed all the living authors and argued with them.
August 9, 2006 8:16:34 AM

yes yes lower yields on faster CPUs, we all know that, but why lower yield on 2.6GHz than 2.8GHz?
August 9, 2006 8:19:20 AM

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

I fear part three... 8O :twisted:
August 9, 2006 8:26:08 AM

thanks for helping out teh_newbiezoR

and ill wait patiently for more 'stuff' ^^
August 9, 2006 11:14:35 AM

Quote:
yes yes lower yields on faster CPUs, we all know that, but why lower yield on 2.6GHz than 2.8GHz?


Ha ha, they don't --- the 2.8 GHz yield lower -- much lower, it's just the 2.8 GHz are still 800-1000 bucks --- and I am not sure Baron understands that. :)  Besides, I am certian he will ignore it --- nonetheless, some other forum readers may find the info interesting.

Jack

I think you are right there. I saw a table somewhere with AMD projecting something like less than 20,000 FX-62s a quarter for the second half of 2006.
August 9, 2006 11:40:59 AM

Quote:
yes yes lower yields on faster CPUs, we all know that, but why lower yield on 2.6GHz than 2.8GHz?


Ha ha, they don't --- the 2.8 GHz yield lower -- much lower, it's just the 2.8 GHz are still 800-1000 bucks --- and I am not sure Baron understands that. :)  Besides, I am certian he will ignore it --- nonetheless, some other forum readers may find the info interesting.

Jack

I think you are right there. I saw a table somewhere with AMD projecting something like less than 20,000 FX-62s a quarter for the second half of 2006.

We'll see, I guess. Now you say the yields on FX62 are low too, but they sell so few that it's better to lose the money on chips just sitting there than to grade them 5000+ and actually sell some.
August 9, 2006 12:03:47 PM

Very rarely wrong to usually right to very rarely right.
August 9, 2006 4:14:14 PM

Australian stores are crawling with x2 5000's, now the market there is more robust than here? Nah. So AMD is throttling supplies intentionally?


5000
August 9, 2006 4:52:00 PM

Quote:
yes yes lower yields on faster CPUs, we all know that, but why lower yield on 2.6GHz than 2.8GHz?


Ha ha, they don't --- the 2.8 GHz yield lower -- much lower, it's just the 2.8 GHz are still 800-1000 bucks --- and I am not sure Baron understands that. :)  Besides, I am certian he will ignore it --- nonetheless, some other forum readers may find the info interesting.

Jack

I think you are right there. I saw a table somewhere with AMD projecting something like less than 20,000 FX-62s a quarter for the second half of 2006.


We'll see, I guess. Now you say the yields on FX62 are low too, but they sell so few that it's better to lose the money on chips just sitting there than to grade them 5000+ and actually sell some.
Typical, and you still do not understand how it works -- don't worry you will. I will follow later this evening... heading to work.



That's the logic you used. You sid the 2.6GHz and 2.8GHz are yielding low but they are only releasing FX62 (it's EVERYWHERE in RETAIL) because it's better to have a chip few people can afford rather than marking those as 5000+.

I guess it's a good thing you and the nitwit crew aren't in charge of any businesses.
August 9, 2006 5:13:22 PM

Each retailer probably only has 2 or 3 FX-62s - they don't keep more than 12 month's supply.
August 9, 2006 9:41:04 PM

Quote:
That's the logic you used. You sid the 2.6GHz and 2.8GHz are yielding low but they are only releasing FX62 (it's EVERYWHERE in RETAIL) because it's better to have a chip few people can afford rather than marking those as 5000+.


The FX 62 is selling for $800 whilst the X2 5000's price is meant to be ~$300. Is that hard to understand?

Quote:
I guess it's a good thing you and the nitwit crew aren't in charge of any businesses.


To add to your ever growing list of drops you're now a business manager, you can do it all can't you.
August 9, 2006 9:43:28 PM

Quote:
That's the logic you used. You sid the 2.6GHz and 2.8GHz are yielding low but they are only releasing FX62 (it's EVERYWHERE in RETAIL) because it's better to have a chip few people can afford rather than marking those as 5000+.


The FX 62 is selling for $800 whilst the X2 5000's price is meant to be ~$300. Is that hard to understand?

Quote:
I guess it's a good thing you and the nitwit crew aren't in charge of any businesses.


To add to your ever growing list of drops you're now a business manager, you can do it all can't you.

Win.

BaronBT fails
August 10, 2006 2:10:52 AM

Quote:
It is good thing you do not run the AMD business --- this thought process is reminiscent of Jerry Sanders, and they stayed in the red most of his tenure.


Pwnt.

BM future AMD CEO?
August 10, 2006 2:12:43 AM

Quote:
It is good thing you do not run the AMD business --- this thought process is reminiscent of Jerry Sanders, and they stayed in the red most of his tenure.


Pwnt.

BM future AMD CEO?

now if that happens. AMD shares will fall by 2 dollars an hour
August 10, 2006 2:15:51 AM

More like go up 2 dollars per minute. Barons strategy is second to none. I can't believe no-one has thought of it till now.
August 10, 2006 3:15:04 AM

Quote:
More like go up 2 dollars per minute. Barons strategy is second to none. I can't believe no-one has thought of it till now.


Orly? tell me more plz
August 10, 2006 4:12:15 AM

Quote:


That's the logic you used. You sid the 2.6GHz and 2.8GHz are yielding low but they are only releasing FX62 (it's EVERYWHERE in RETAIL) because it's better to have a chip few people can afford rather than marking those as 5000+.

I guess it's a good thing you and the nitwit crew aren't in charge of any businesses.


Baron, not only was I certain you would not understand but evidently your reading comprehension is on about the same level.

This is what I said:
Quote:
So what does this mean, well the fastest possible chips are also the fewest in number… hmmmm let’s let that sit a little.


This is typical AMD fanaticism posting by persons such as yourself who cannot formulate an argument, thus read into a conclusion other than what the conclusion really is and ultimately put their own slanted view of what they want the conclusion to be veiled in a circular argument that makes absolute nonsense. 9-inch does this routinely, you do it most of the time.

The concept that the high bins parts are less in number than the lower bin parts is not an opinion, nor is it my personal logic, it is the fact of the trade and I provided you with the details (non-Inquirer like and published technical papers).... I have the third and final 'installment' to wrap up the arugment which you apparently do not understand, nonetheless it is important that I close out the point.

Before I do so, I will side track slightly and address your 'concern' than AMD just 'down bin' an FX-62 --- this is aburd on along two different lines of reasoning.

1. A company is utterly foolish to have a functional part testing out at a higher bin and not put it on the market at the higher price. Down binning as you would think they should do is like taking money off the table. This is the same as asking you to go grab a wad of one hundred 20 dollar bills and use a green marker and convert them to 5 dollar bills.

A CPU has value, the ability to run faster at higher bins adds value as people will pay more for performance. AMD doesn't give a rats behind about whether you, BaronMatrix can afford an FX-62, they care about making money, making money, making alot of money. A CPU is not a CPU to AMD, it is dollars and to realize those dollars they want to sell it for as much as the market will bare.

2. The FX-62 is unlikely to be rebranded for the simple reason it is a 1x2 meg part, not only are they taking money off the table, but it costs them more to make as it is roughly 27% larger die size. This is just insane... an FX-62 is likely an Opty 285 reject that failed some of the more stringent testing but pass the more lenient and less robust desktop specs, as AMD has long since abandoned any manufacture of the 1x2 meg DT processors.

It is good thing you do not run the AMD business --- this thought process is reminiscent of Jerry Sanders, and they stayed in the red most of his tenure.
EDIT: Typo's fixed.


It took you all day for that response? The short bus must be fun. Now your argument is that because the FX62 is a 1MB part like the FX60, it stands to reason that the 512KB version of the FX60 would be as troublesome while the Opteron is easily sailing at 2.6GHz (285/885 - the same arch) on MS' servers .The Opteron even has twice the L2.

I guess those darn DDR2 pads are preventing it, huhn?

I figured that the 5000+ would be a system builders part. Monarch has them for systems, and I believe ABS does also.

And for those EE people the Shuttle systems will be the way to go until the 939/AM2 1MB masks disappear from FAB38. WIth a Q2 EOL, they had obviously started the process which may be why they are higher cost as demand is outstripping supply.

They may even only be contracting Chartered for those, but I would think they would use Chartered for the smaller chips. A delivered 512 mask would save them sq miles in die.

I have no vested interest either way as I don't like to gamble, but it owuld seem that the 5000+ will show up in retail after school starts back up. By then the system builders will have gotten their money's worth for systems and barebones.

Configurable ABS with no stock delay on 5000+


Configurable Monarch with no stock delay on 5000+


Of course I expect that there will be shortages IN CERTAIN AREAS - mainly retail - I do remember pondering the question about it's popularity.
August 10, 2006 4:54:29 AM

Quote:
Unlike you I work for a living, and you are still missing the point. All tell tale signs are the bins are not giving enough 5000+, yes they are popular this is due to the price drop and it simply exposed the weakness of the 90 nm process producing enough 2.6 GHz parts.

You insistence that AMD does not want to put the higher end parts on the shelves is just ridiculous --- do you think they want to lose money?
Jack.......If Hector Ruiz told Baron the exact same thing you did, Baron still wouldn't believe it(because you said it). :?
August 10, 2006 5:05:48 AM

Quote:
It took you all day for that response? The short bus must be fun. Now your argument is that because the FX62 is a 1MB part like the FX60, it stands to reason that the 512KB version of the FX60 would be as troublesome while the Opteron is easily sailing at 2.6GHz (285/885 - the same arch) on MS' servers .The Opteron even has twice the L2.


Baron how many opterons do AMD sell and how much do they cost?
August 10, 2006 5:42:35 AM

Quote:
It took you all day for that response? The short bus must be fun. Now your argument is that because the FX62 is a 1MB part like the FX60, it stands to reason that the 512KB version of the FX60 would be as troublesome while the Opteron is easily sailing at 2.6GHz (285/885 - the same arch) on MS' servers .The Opteron even has twice the L2.


Baron how many opterons do AMD sell and how much do they cost?

He wouldn't know... he thinks AMD is hording CPUs until school start :) .... I nearly busted a gut laughing on that one.


And he still insists Core 2 is a paper launch, but x2 5000 is not.
Ive seen a bunch more Core 2's in stock, than I have 5000's
!