Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AM2+ (quad cores) drop-in with AM2; *AND* cheap path to AM3

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 28, 2006 2:17:49 AM

So far as I understand. Any further details from anyone appreciated.

Although there will be a 6000 AM2 chip coming, at some point all the new introductions will be AM2+.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/27/amd_desktop_roa...

One person says the main difference is mainly the upgraded HyperTransport, which isn't nearly so important as going from dual to quad core, of course. *Any* quad core will blow the doors off *any* dual core of any type, of course. This means your AM2 board has significant future upgradability, and will be able to be very strong thru 2007 into 2008 as AM2+ chips will have many steps upward presumably, and as the 65nm chips become better generally.

---------AM3 Upgrade Path Scenario ---------------

If I buy an new AM2+ chip to drop-in my AM2 board, and it's a fairly nice quad core am2+, I don't have to lose the value of that purchase when I upgrade again later!

I can just put the quad am2+ chip into a new AM3 board in another 8 months (or 12 if I'm happy meanwhile)! I'll recycle the oldest am2 chip back into the am2 board (and sell or give away the old computer, whatever). And then I'll have the new am3 board with the am2+ chip for another 8-12 months or whatever, as a transition, while the the newest am3 cpu prices improve in my favor.

I will have kept my costs low and my equipment fast. At no point will I have to pay for an entire system upgrade at once, neither will I be much out of date.

Meanwhile, before the am3 drop-in cpu, I'll be able to put AM3 type upgrades (ram, drives, graphics, etc.) into my new AM3 board, and get those future proofing advantages, while my total cpu costs over time remain quite low vs the modern higher performance I'll have!

That's what I want.

8) !
December 28, 2006 2:58:11 AM

Further details: There is some thought that says that AM3 chips will plug into AM2. This suggests an AM2 Build would have an unusual and amazing great deal of upgradeability. I wouldn't bank on the AM3, but..... just having the AM2+ drop-in to the AM2 is enough to constitute major long lasting upgradability.

Some details on the AM2+ differences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_AM2+
December 28, 2006 3:09:16 AM

Interesting interview I just found. This link is time sensitive, and I'm not sure how long it will work until you need a subscription for archived articles, but:

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20060628VL201.html

2 quotes:

"We, on the other hand, because of our early adoption of HyperTransport, have a very solid socket strategy. The lifecycle of the current socket was well accepted and actually praised by the industry. We're now introducing AM2, and of course AM2 will be quad-core compatible. So we have less churn in our infrastructure, and we're providing more stability. That actually has a very important effect on enterprise customers. They really like that approach."

and

"Q: Could you just briefly clarify what we'll be seeing in terms of the K8L. The K8L core will be a native quad-core processor, but I assume there will also be dual-core products based on the K8L architecture.

A: Our plan is to have both dual-core and quad-core K8L-based processors within the same timeframe. The K8L development, from the ground up, is a quad-core development. In the server space, we believe that in the same way the transition from single- to dual-core was fairly rapid, the transition from dual-core processors to quad-core parts could also be fairly rapid."
Related resources
December 28, 2006 3:29:51 AM

dude we knew the AM2 Sockets would work for the newer AMD Chips like.....6 months ago...

its is just old news with the same old news reiterated
December 28, 2006 3:35:29 AM

You're 100% right, but I thought it was worthwhile to post it anyway, since there is confusion, as evidenced by the recent thread where the originator thought otherwise. Also, just because you or I know something a year ago, and it was repeated 2 months ago doesn't mean that 50% of the forumz members have a clue about it! :?

Like consider all the redundant posts advocating Core2Duo, and the spare scarcity of posts (I did do 10 or so) pointing out that the hard drive is a lot more important to overall performance than whether you have a high end or low end dual core!

So, I made that point a few times, and it upset a few folks that I repeated it, while they themselves get to post redundant posts about 6600s over and over.....heh heh.

No one likes to think they missed what is more important, so I get why they didn't like that.

I think we need to repeat the most important stuff for the new, first build folks, and well.....it's just the way it is.
December 28, 2006 3:54:41 AM

Quote:
So far as I understand. Any further details from anyone appreciated.

Although there will be a 6000 AM2 chip coming, at some point all the new introductions will be AM2+.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/27/amd_desktop_roa...

One person says the main difference is mainly the upgraded HyperTransport, which isn't nearly so important as going from dual to quad core, of course. *Any* quad core will blow the doors off *any* dual core of any type, of course. This means your AM2 board has significant future upgradability, and will be able to be very strong thru 2007 into 2008 as AM2+ chips will have many steps upward presumably, and as the 65nm chips become better generally.

How fast will the 6000 AM2 CPU be :?:

Any ideas :idea: compared to C2D's.
December 28, 2006 4:12:47 AM

Quote:

How fast will the 6000 AM2 CPU be :?:

Any ideas :idea: compared to C2D's.



Good question. I don't need to know, since my upgrade strategy calls for emphasizing the hard drive and graphics now, with a lower cost dual core, like a 4400 for example, and then dropping-in a cpu upgrade in 12-18 months.

But you can figure it out roughly just by using the chip clock speed in the article ratio to some benchmarked chip like a 4400. Multiply the ratio, for the cpu comparison. But remember that the overall performance is about the particular task. Games need stronger graphics cards. Video encoding needs strong cpus. etc. Overall system general performance is limited mostly by the hard drive performance.
December 28, 2006 4:32:06 AM

The 6000+ is going to be a 3Ghz chip, right? So think 3Ghz K8 dual core. The 5400+ and 5600+ are more interesting as they are being put out to directly compete with the E6400 and E6600.

I would also like to point out that not every quad core will beat every dual core, that's ridiculous. dual-cores so far have had higher clock speeds than the quad-cores and perform better in a number of tasks. In encoding and such, the quad-core will definitely be better, but in less threaded apps it may do worse.
December 28, 2006 9:43:07 AM

Quote:

How fast will the 6000 AM2 CPU be :?:

Any ideas :idea: compared to C2D's.

It is a 3GHz K8 with 2x1MB L2.
It will perform little faster than C2D E6600, but slower than C2D E6700.
December 28, 2006 9:51:28 AM

Quote:

How fast will the 6000 AM2 CPU be :?:

Any ideas :idea: compared to C2D's.

It is a 3GHz K8 with 2x1MB L2.
It will perform little faster than C2D E6600, but slower than C2D E6700.

Giving an idea of the performance of a CPU that isn't even released. Idiot.
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2006 10:32:02 AM

lol wow c2q is too point being?

old news
December 28, 2006 10:51:29 AM

Quote:
The 5400+ and 5600+ are more interesting as they are being put out to directly compete with the E6400 and E6600.


Yes, and today US automakers announced that they will be racing Kia Rios and Hyundai Accents against Chev Corvettes and Dodge Vipers. :lol: 
December 28, 2006 11:33:04 AM

Quote:
...I would also like to point out that not every quad core will beat every dual core, that's ridiculous. dual-cores so far have had higher clock speeds than the quad-cores and perform better in a number of tasks. In encoding and such, the quad-core will definitely be better, but in less threaded apps it may do worse.


Elementary to you and me, but indeed the briefest accurate statement is to say that any low end quad core will indeed blow the doors off all types of dual cores. :)  Of course, only video editing currently can even use quad core power in common useages, although some scientific stuff can use quad core power now. Pointing out that a current game not designed from the ground up for multiple cores depends on clock speed is elementary to you and me :wink:
December 28, 2006 12:01:30 PM

Quote:

How fast will the 6000 AM2 CPU be :?:

Any ideas :idea: compared to C2D's.

It is a 3GHz K8 with 2x1MB L2.
It will perform little faster than C2D E6600, but slower than C2D E6700.


and this means that an OC-ed E6600 will kill AMD 6000+
December 28, 2006 12:32:02 PM

Not that I'll ever be doing that kind of benchmark oriented builds, but we can't assume the progression of 65nm chips will be exactly the same characteristics of the first off the line, so significant overclocking may well become possible with them. But that's a tempest in a teapot to me, since I am more interested in the 8800 GTX than in a overclocked 6600.
December 28, 2006 12:33:20 PM

Quote:
So far as I understand. Any further details from anyone appreciated.

Although there will be a 6000 AM2 chip coming, at some point all the new introductions will be AM2+.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/27/amd_desktop_roa...

One person says the main difference is mainly the upgraded HyperTransport, which isn't nearly so important as going from dual to quad core, of course. *Any* quad core will blow the doors off *any* dual core of any type, of course. This means your AM2 board has significant future upgradability, and will be able to be very strong thru 2007 into 2008 as AM2+ chips will have many steps upward presumably, and as the 65nm chips become better generally.

How fast will the 6000 AM2 CPU be :?:

Any ideas :idea: compared to C2D's.
The 6000 is a locked multiplier of what was to be the FX-64. IMO the 6000 should beat the E6400 performance in games and beat the E6600 in all other programs. That said the E6600 will beat the 6000 in games without question.
December 28, 2006 12:49:42 PM

Quote:
So far as I understand. Any further details from anyone appreciated.

Although there will be a 6000 AM2 chip coming, at some point all the new introductions will be AM2+.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/27/amd_desktop_roa...

One person says the main difference is mainly the upgraded HyperTransport, which isn't nearly so important as going from dual to quad core, of course. *Any* quad core will blow the doors off *any* dual core of any type, of course. This means your AM2 board has significant future upgradability, and will be able to be very strong thru 2007 into 2008 as AM2+ chips will have many steps upward presumably, and as the 65nm chips become better generally.

How fast will the 6000 AM2 CPU be :?:

Any ideas :idea: compared to C2D's.
The 6000 is a locked multiplier of what was to be the FX-64. IMO the 6000 should beat the E6400 performance in games and beat the E6600 in all other programs. That said the E6600 will beat the 6000 in games without question.

Overclockers will be overlookers of the X2 6000 part until AMD can get overclockability back into the equation (which might happen as 65nm matures).
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2006 1:04:20 PM

Quote:
The 5400+ and 5600+ are more interesting as they are being put out to directly compete with the E6400 and E6600.


Yes, and today US automakers announced that they will be racing Kia Rios and Hyundai Accents against Chev Corvettes and Dodge Vipers. :lol: 

haha

even if at stock its quicker intel has the overclocking advantage
December 28, 2006 2:10:31 PM

Are you aware the human eye cannot distinguish 150fps from 70 fps? I always want to remember that. The other thing I always want to think of first is: what upgrade matters more. The answer right now is very, very easy. If you have *any* dual core at all, what matters is not overclocking etc, but what graphics card you have!
December 28, 2006 2:16:36 PM

Quote:
Are you aware the human eye cannot distinguish 150fps from 70 fps? I always want to remember that. The other thing I always want to think of first is: what upgrade matters more. The answer right now is very, very easy. If you have *any* dual core at all, what matters is not overclocking etc, but what graphics card you have!


For gaming, yes, but multimedia work is another story. A low-end Pentium D would be massacred ruthlessly buy the QX6700 and the time saved can add up. Everyone knows the graphics card is more important for gaming, it's everything else that sells things to me, :) 
December 28, 2006 2:20:02 PM

So true. We have to write such long posts to include all the considerations! But I do think discussion of overclocking dual cores should come with a warning -- "This is about hot rod benchmarking and doesn't affect gaming much." :) 
December 28, 2006 2:50:54 PM

Quote:
The 5400+ and 5600+ are more interesting as they are being put out to directly compete with the E6400 and E6600.


Yes, and today US automakers announced that they will be racing Kia Rios and Hyundai Accents against Chev Corvettes and Dodge Vipers. :lol: 

haha

even if at stock its quicker intel has the overclocking advantage

I mean, come on, let's face it. Why does anyone knowledgeable select a CPU? Because it's fast! That is the only real bottom line. There are so many choices in the field right now that you can easily match budget to performance and get the best fit possible. Why anyone in their right mind (including AMD marketing dept.) would put the 5400+ and 5600+ up against the E6400 and E6600 is beyond me. You'll get trounced ten times out of ten!
December 28, 2006 2:54:10 PM

If someone is an AMD fan they can get their great performance cake and eat it too for about $210. :) 

See new thread on Overclocking AM2
December 28, 2006 2:55:22 PM

Quote:
If someone is an AMD fan they can get their great performance cake and eat it too for about $210. :) 

See new thread on Overclocking AM2



Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...oh, sorry... did somebody say something? I must have been... snoozing... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

:lol: 
December 28, 2006 3:00:51 PM

Perhaps we'll all wake up in a few months. :wink:
December 28, 2006 3:59:55 PM

AM3 is a ways off, and I don't think anyone building an AM2 board or thinking about AM2 should worry about late 2009 timeframe upgrades. The new AM2+ chips during 2008 are likely to be all the upgrade 99% of us here would want, since few of us want a motherboard past 3.5 years (say 8 months past your last upgrade). If you do want that, you'll have to be satisfied with the late AM2+ chips possibly in late 2008 I bet.
December 28, 2006 4:21:07 PM

Im the guy that posted about am2 and am2+ not being compatible, I justed posted what i read, perhaps it was irresponsible on my part, but lots of times xbitlabs is right.
December 28, 2006 5:06:03 PM

There are worse fates than having to use an opteron anyway :) 
December 28, 2006 5:29:39 PM

Quote:
The 5400+ and 5600+ are more interesting as they are being put out to directly compete with the E6400 and E6600.


Yes, and today US automakers announced that they will be racing Kia Rios and Hyundai Accents against Chev Corvettes and Dodge Vipers. :lol: 

haha

even if at stock its quicker intel has the overclocking advantage

I mean, come on, let's face it. Why does anyone knowledgeable select a CPU? Because it's fast! That is the only real bottom line. There are so many choices in the field right now that you can easily match budget to performance and get the best fit possible. Why anyone in their right mind (including AMD marketing dept.) would put the 5400+ and 5600+ up against the E6400 and E6600 is beyond me. You'll get trounced ten times out of ten!

I would disagree on the "bottom line" for everyone. I personally dont look for fastest speed. I look for performance/cost ratio above a minimum performance level.

If the A6000 follows current AMD pricing policy, it will cost a fair amount more than E6600 placing it below the E6600 in perfromance/price comparison, even IF all theses assumptions that it will outperform E6600 are correct. Now, if all the guessing turns out to be correct, and if AMD chooses to price the 6000 equivelent to E6600 prices, then a person building a new system would be a fool not to choose it.
December 28, 2006 6:30:35 PM

The 5600+ will cost almost exactly the same as the E6600 and I -think- on 65nm, i.e., use less power (marginally). It's really not as bad of a scenario as you're making it out to be. The E6600 will still take it to town in most / all benchies, but it shouldn't be a massacre.
December 28, 2006 6:58:16 PM

Quote:
The 5600+ will cost almost exactly the same as the E6600 and I -think- on 65nm, i.e., use less power (marginally). It's really not as bad of a scenario as you're making it out to be. The E6600 will still take it to town in most / all benchies, but it shouldn't be a massacre.



First, please notice, I used the word IF, in my original statements.

Second, Im not making anything out to be bad. Just like the Core 2 series pre-introduction, statements are being made with no proof to back them up. When the 5600 and 6000 are here, and when they've been benched and when they start getting into the consumers hands at retail prices, then we will have proof. Until such time everything else is conjecture.

And on that note, IF you have the bin prices and bench marks for the 5600 or 6000, by all means, please share with us.
Quote:

The 5600+ will cost almost exactly the same as the E6600

Otherwise your statement is pure conjecture, and not in keeping with the only information currently available, as of 22 dec, which places the cost of the FX62
Quote:
essentially identical X2 5600+...
at $560. A fair amount more than the E6600

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/12/22/price_performance_ana...
The chart and ARP from that article shows the data
December 28, 2006 7:15:15 PM

Quote:
The 5600+ will cost almost exactly the same as the E6600 and I -think- on 65nm, i.e., use less power (marginally). It's really not as bad of a scenario as you're making it out to be. The E6600 will still take it to town in most / all benchies, but it shouldn't be a massacre.



First, please notice, I used the word IF, in my original statements.

Second, Im not making anything out to be bad. Just like the Core 2 series pre-introduction, statements are being made with no proof to back them up. When the 5600 and 6000 are here, and when they've been benched and when they start getting into the consumers hands at retail prices, then we will have proof. Until such time everything else is conjecture.

And on that note, IF you have the bin prices and bench marks for the 5600 or 6000, by all means, please share with us.
Quote:

The 5600+ will cost almost exactly the same as the E6600

Otherwise your statement is pure conjecture, and not in keeping with the only information currently available, as of 22 dec, which places the cost of the FX62
Quote:
essentially identical X2 5600+...
at $560. A fair amount more than the E6600

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/12/22/price_performance_ana...
The chart and ARP from that article shows the data


I'll find the link to where I read that the 5600+ would be close to the price of the E6600 (I think, however, they were comparing CURRENT prices, and not after whatever price cuts Intel will put into effect after the new year, so even that is a bit skewed). I also hope I didn't confuse the E6600 pricing with the E6700 pricing, that would be embarrassing :oops: 

I think it's safe to say what the performance of the 5600 and 6000 will be like since there are no architectural changes. It's not anything grand or exciting, really, just clock speed boosts of otherwise known products trying to lessen the performance gap. OC a current X2 and -wham-, the performance of the new chips. Nothing special from AMD until Barcelona, everyone knows that.
December 28, 2006 7:30:02 PM

I think some people are slightly confused as to what is going on as far as compatibility is concerned...

As far as I have read, the situation is as follows:

AM2+ chips will work in:
AM2+ boards
AM2 boards

AM3 chips will work in:
AM3 boards
AM2+ boards (but not AM2 boards)
December 28, 2006 7:51:10 PM

Thanks for setting us straight on that. Therefore, this translates into AMD having

754
939
AM2
AM2+
AM3

sockets all during the time that Intel has held onto 775.

And people try to defend AMD's strategies and claim it isn't conducting the most irrational program in the history of CPU manufacturing. Hogwash.
a b à CPUs
December 28, 2006 8:25:14 PM

Quote:
Perhaps we'll all wake up in a few months. :wink:


perhaps a few years ;) 
December 28, 2006 8:27:39 PM

Quote:
Thanks for setting us straight on that. Therefore, this translates into AMD having

754
939
AM2
AM2+
AM3

sockets all during the time that Intel has held onto 775.

And people try to defend AMD's strategies and claim it isn't conducting the most irrational program in the history of CPU manufacturing. Hogwash.


But how many chipset changes has Intel made in that time...
December 28, 2006 8:32:24 PM

Yeah, but I can still get a motherboard to accept a P4 3.0 or an E6700.
December 28, 2006 8:39:06 PM

Quote:
Yeah, but I can still get a motherboard to accept a P4 3.0 or an E6700.


I dunno, i just find AMD's stratgey easier. Like if your processor fits in the socket then it works. Intel you have to check chipsets and that can get confusing for many people.

PS. When i just bought my asus crosshair and x2 3800 EE it was under the assumption that AM3 processors would drop in to my mobo, and only be deprived features like DDR3 and such. Thats not such a huge deal if thats not the case. As long as i can get a decent upgrade in 2-3 years.
December 28, 2006 8:39:54 PM

Quote:
Thanks for setting us straight on that. Therefore, this translates into AMD having

754
939
AM2
AM2+
AM3

sockets all during the time that Intel has held onto 775.

And people try to defend AMD's strategies and claim it isn't conducting the most irrational program in the history of CPU manufacturing. Hogwash.


But how many chipset changes has Intel made in that time...

And how many confusingly similar naming conventions have they had for those chipsets as well? At least with AMD, if you buy a socket754 processor, it will work on every socket 754 motherboard, and so on with the other sockets, with the worst problem being a *possible* bios update.

What if I buy a LGA 775 core2? Which motherboard can I get? There are many chipsets that LGA775 has, but relatively few that support core2.

The two companies are doing the same thing, just going about it differently. At least AMD is being up front about it.
December 28, 2006 8:48:07 PM

I dunno. I just recommended an Abit SG80 to some guy on another thread as he's on a budget and it's available for about $30 and will run any Pentium 4, D, or C2D. Sounds pretty good to me. What are you gonna get for $30 these days?
December 28, 2006 8:57:09 PM

Not much, but my point was that he'd have had a hard time finding which one to get, or at least a bit harder than with an AMD system.

Just for reference, what'd you recommend as a proc? Or did he already have one in mind?

PS
Its also kind of a crappy motherboard, don't you think? And where'd you find it for 30? Is it an older/used one? The sg-80DC is on newegg for 50 after shipping...
December 28, 2006 9:00:51 PM

He was stuck between a Pentium D and a basic C2D and wanted something cheap that he could later upgrade if he went the Pentium D route. I checked a few suppliers and found one brand new at $34.95. Can't remember which one, sorry. But it seems like a solid basic ultrabudget board for the price, especially if you can live with the onboard video and save yourself the cost of a vid card. If you're not gaming, you'll likely be fine with that.
December 28, 2006 9:09:16 PM

I definitely found it for that many Euros but I couldn't find it for that dollar amount though...

Another interesting point, who would pair a 200 dollar proc with a 30 dollar mobo? I know I wouldn't.

On the other hand, I would buy a $67 mobo (in my sig) and a $77 proc (opty 144), get away for less and have more fun with my system overclocking on a very small budget. Oh yeah, and have support for both 939 and AM2 processors with a $35 upgrade, plus anything that'll go in an AM2 slot, such as an AM2+, I believe. ASrock makes some pretty feature loaded boards...
December 28, 2006 9:18:02 PM

I think he had the Pentium D at 80 bucks or something...

Don't get me wrong, I'm running AMD right now and have for many years over many systems. But I'm just saving up for a 2xClovertown now. That's gonna be one hot machine! All I need to do is scam some little old ladies out of their pension funds... :twisted:
December 28, 2006 9:20:58 PM

Quote:
That's gonna be one hot machine! All I need to do is scam some little old ladies out of their pension funds... :twisted:


LOL, maybe you can get them to get you a phase-change cooling system for it too! Overclock the poop out of it and then have some real fun...
December 28, 2006 10:25:13 PM

Quote:
Thanks for setting us straight on that. Therefore, this translates into AMD having

754
939
AM2
AM2+
AM3

sockets all during the time that Intel has held onto 775.

And people try to defend AMD's strategies and claim it isn't conducting the most irrational program in the history of CPU manufacturing. Hogwash.


But how many chipset changes has Intel made in that time...


Bwhaaaaa!!!!??????

Are you kidding corvetteguy?

"Chevy changed the body style of the new camaro again, but ford hasnt changed the mustang in four years" "yeah, but how many times did ford change the headlamp specifications?"

If anyone wanted to count, Id be willing to bet that for a given period of time, the ratio of AMD compatable mobo chipset changes to Intel compatable mob chipset changes arent that different.

Addtionally, anyone buying a current 775 mobo has several years worth of backwards CPU compatabilty (though why they'd go backwards is beyond me)

I built a new 939 3800 for a guy at the begining of the year. I urged him to wait until at least march. Now, Im regretting that I didnt just club him over the head and lock him in a closet until june.
By the time he wants to upgrade, he will have 0 (thats ZERO) CPU upgrade options, and socket 939 was not that old.

Honestly, I am suprised Intel is drawing out 775 as long as they have, but "alas poor AM2, we knew him...not"
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2006 6:27:13 AM

Quote:
Yeah, but I can still get a motherboard to accept a P4 3.0 or an E6700.


I dunno, i just find AMD's stratgey easier. Like if your processor fits in the socket then it works. Intel you have to check chipsets and that can get confusing for many people.

PS. When i just bought my asus crosshair and x2 3800 EE it was under the assumption that AM3 processors would drop in to my mobo, and only be deprived features like DDR3 and such. Thats not such a huge deal if thats not the case. As long as i can get a decent upgrade in 2-3 years.

lol i suppose its like the first amds with 754 and 940, instantly replaced with 939 and now am2 (940) :oops: 

most pcs are pre made dells and hp's etc - all components are in a package, not older non c2d boards ;) 

most people upgraded from 775 (with agp) to 775 with pcie, no big deal there

they update the vrm so they can run the things at lower vcore and put out less heat, look at amds 90nm and 65nm comparison - same vcore almost cause there forced to use the same vrm ;)  and therefor no earth shattering diffrence in power/heat levels
December 29, 2006 6:40:59 AM

Quote:
Thanks for setting us straight on that. Therefore, this translates into AMD having

754
939
AM2
AM2+
AM3

sockets all during the time that Intel has held onto 775.

And people try to defend AMD's strategies and claim it isn't conducting the most irrational program in the history of CPU manufacturing. Hogwash.


But how many chipset changes has Intel made in that time...


Bwhaaaaa!!!!??????

Are you kidding corvetteguy?

"Chevy changed the body style of the new camaro again, but ford hasnt changed the mustang in four years" "yeah, but how many times did ford change the headlamp specifications?"

If anyone wanted to count, Id be willing to bet that for a given period of time, the ratio of AMD compatable mobo chipset changes to Intel compatable mob chipset changes arent that different.

Addtionally, anyone buying a current 775 mobo has several years worth of backwards CPU compatabilty (though why they'd go backwards is beyond me)

I built a new 939 3800 for a guy at the begining of the year. I urged him to wait until at least march. Now, Im regretting that I didnt just club him over the head and lock him in a closet until june.
By the time he wants to upgrade, he will have 0 (thats ZERO) CPU upgrade options, and socket 939 was not that old.

Honestly, I am suprised Intel is drawing out 775 as long as they have, but "alas poor AM2, we knew him...not"

Actually, if you really wanna be accurate, I should have added Socket F to that post, making it 6 to 1. :roll:

The main reason for a manufacturer keeping a socket for the better part of a decade is the confidence that inspires in the consumer. THG forumers who swap out components more often than they change their underwear represent a tiny fraction of PCdom. Most people find a PC a major investment and one that they want to amortize over a long period of time. They are not elated but frustrated by the constant swirl of specs and want to purchase a product that can stay effective and productive much longer than the current three-week product cycle. These are the people who can purchase a 775 system and have a reasonable expectation that they will be able to just swap out CPUs in the future, and not just be left with a big green chunk of circuitry that's only valuable as a YouTube explosion prop.

Quote:
That's gonna be one hot machine! All I need to do is scam some little old ladies out of their pension funds... :twisted:


LOL, maybe you can get them to get you a phase-change cooling system for it too! Overclock the poop out of it and then have some real fun...

Hot diggity dawg! OC a 2xClovertown. I'm afraid that if I do that, my PC might become self-aware and start WWIII. :lol: 
December 29, 2006 10:59:55 AM

Quote:

How fast will the 6000 AM2 CPU be :?:

Any ideas :idea: compared to C2D's.

It is a 3GHz K8 with 2x1MB L2.
It will perform little faster than C2D E6600, but slower than C2D E6700.

Giving an idea of the performance of a CPU that isn't even released. Idiot.
Heh, slow down! We know Core2 performance and K8 performance; it only takes an existing review, say of a 5200+ vs E6600 and a calculator for an appoximation well within 5%.
December 29, 2006 11:24:44 AM

Sometimes people forget Opterons...

The Opteron 1210 has 2 x 1MB cache, and overclocks well, and costs $175 (newegg)

People are getting 2.8+ GHz from them :D 

This will probably be my next upgrade :lol: 
!