Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quad FX shows up on Newegg

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 28, 2006 4:24:36 AM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

$429 motherboard
+$100 from official AMD pricing of CPUs
Not 2 CPUs in a box as previously reported.
You can also get a $20 discount by combining it with the motherboard, a case, and a single CPU :lol: 

More about : quad shows newegg

December 28, 2006 4:31:59 AM

Well, least SLI shouldn't be a problem. Wonder if there's a PSU for 12 SATA drives? 8O

If the board wasn't so expensive, might actually be a decent system to go for right now.
December 28, 2006 4:34:38 AM

Quote:
Well, least SLI shouldn't be a problem. Wonder if there's a PSU for 12 SATA drives? 8O

If the board wasn't so expensive, might actually be a decent system to go for right now.
And the 1000w+ PSU. :wink:
Related resources
December 28, 2006 4:37:27 AM

It's really the cost of the motherboard that is killing it. If it were around $200-250 they'd definitely sell more. At $200 for a motherboard it would be a cheap way to get quad-cores.

edit - wait...does anyone see anywhere there where it says BOTH processors come in that one box?
December 28, 2006 4:38:48 AM

Posh.

Just means you've got a replacement in case a dual socket Xeon motherboard's PSU decides to go. :lol: 
December 28, 2006 11:29:49 AM

Wow. It's almost as if Baron was wrong and everything is selling over MSRP.

$430 for a motherboard? You've got to be kidding me.
$700 for a pair of measly weak FX-70s?
$900 for a pair of mediocre FX-72?
$1,100 for a pair of can't hack it FX-74s?


This brought a smile to my face. I hope Baron is around to give his view on this.

QUAD FX = FAILURE
December 28, 2006 11:37:47 AM

Regular folks should just build their AM2 dual core now, and upgrade to drop-in AMD quad core K8L chips in 8 months or so, if they feel the need for all that cpu horsepower. But even more regular folks should wait even longer I think, and buy the quad core AM2 drop-in in 2008, because buying at the high end of the price curve is only for some people.
December 28, 2006 11:52:51 AM

Good god 8O

$400 mobo
$$$ for the high spec memory it needs
$$$$$ for the 1kw PS
$1000 for the CPUs
$$$$$ added to your power bill

= BAD DEAL :evil: 

If you are going to waste this much $ ... just go for dual socket server Opteron rig and be done with it!
December 28, 2006 11:58:04 AM

Why can't they do the same for Intel?
December 28, 2006 12:07:33 PM

Quote:
If you are going to waste this much $ ... just go for dual socket server Opteron rig and be done with it!


DING! AMD sucessfully recreated their own wheel and made it more expensive. But then again, you can't put a price on PLATFORMANCE for MEGATASKERS.
December 28, 2006 12:18:45 PM

Quote:
It's really the cost of the motherboard that is killing it. If it were around $200-250 they'd definitely sell more. At $200 for a motherboard it would be a cheap way to get quad-cores.

edit - wait...does anyone see anywhere there where it says BOTH processors come in that one box?


At the price of that mobo I see "Asus Stryker". There doesn't seem to be any true benefit to this AMD setup over a possibly better performing, less expensive C2D or Xeon setup...other than keeping AMD alive...which is indeed important.
December 28, 2006 12:27:23 PM

AMD obviously did that platform for certain specialized types of stuff, like scientific, where they will be able to get to 8 cores on that motherboard. It isn't for mainstream use in any sense. Fortunately for you and me and anyone building or buying a computer in 2008, AMD will still be around, so Intel and AMD prices will be pleasant for us.
December 28, 2006 12:31:58 PM

Quote:
AMD obviously did that platform for certain specialized types of stuff, like scientific, where they will be able to get to 8 cores on that motherboard. It isn't for mainstream use in any sense.


It is meant for the enthusiast. If scientists need eight cores they'll buy Opteron or Xeon. Don't forget that it's not like we haven't had servers with 8 sockets and 2 cores per socket etc...
December 28, 2006 12:54:29 PM

Quote:
Well, least SLI shouldn't be a problem. Wonder if there's a PSU for 12 SATA drives? 8O

If the board wasn't so expensive, might actually be a decent system to go for right now.


Don't worry. Newegg always applies a premium for the first few weeks. C2Q was $1500 for a good while. By the time Vista launches, they will be the quoted prices.
December 28, 2006 1:00:18 PM

Quote:
Good god 8O

$400 mobo - (The 680i ASUS Striker for C2Q is ~$400 - oh yeah it's Intel)
$$$ for the high spec memory it needs (667 works just fine)
$$$$$ for the 1kw PS (That's ONLY FOR SLI)
$1000 for the CPUs(FX70 is set to be $599 for two)
$$$$$ added to your power bill( So does Dual sockets of any variety)

= BAD DEAL :evil: 

If you are going to waste this much $ ... just go for dual socket server Opteron rig and be done with it! (Opteron memory is twice the price in some cases and only supports DDR2 667)
December 28, 2006 1:05:17 PM

Dude,you're looking at a DUAL CORE processor.Check the specs to the right hand side and you'll see what I mean.I believe the mix-up is that these processors were meant for the quad father setup.Two dual core cpu's running together on one motherboard.But a quad core they are not.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.4 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7800GT IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE
WD300GIG HD
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
ACE 520WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
December 28, 2006 2:00:27 PM

Good point. It begs the question what that platform is for. But perhaps the idea was just to put it out there and hope for innovative uses. I have to admit the idea of gpu drop-ins that AMD is talking about is intriguing. We'll be able some day to really configure our systems for specific strengths.
December 28, 2006 2:37:30 PM

Quote:
Good god 8O

$400 mobo - (The 680i ASUS Striker for C2Q is ~$400 - oh yeah it's Intel)
$$$ for the high spec memory it needs (667 works just fine)
$$$$$ for the 1kw PS (That's ONLY FOR SLI)
$1000 for the CPUs(FX70 is set to be $599 for two)
$$$$$ added to your power bill( So does Dual sockets of any variety)

= BAD DEAL :evil: 

If you are going to waste this much $ ... just go for dual socket server Opteron rig and be done with it! (Opteron memory is twice the price in some cases and only supports DDR2 667)


Baron,

Quad FX has ONE motherboard choice. Core 2 Quad don't have to use an equivilent board, they have a WIDE variety of boards to choose from.

I highly doubt these will sell at or below MSRP until after the next Quad FX processor is released (if that ever happens).

Baron, I'm not saying this to cheese you off, you need to know it: You were wrong. Your presented Quad FX speculation as gospel truth. The $430 price tag on the motherboard makes you and AMD look silly.
December 28, 2006 2:58:34 PM

I will go on the record as saying i want Quad FX to be successful and i'm pulling for it.

BUT

That is a poorly designed motherboard.
1) the last two PCI-e slots. they're so close to each other you need two reference single slot cooled cards to fit them in there, so you can scratch Quad-SLi in 4 card configurations, you're still stuck with two 7950's or till the next dual card-single slot solution comes out.
2) it was definitely designed for stock CPU heat sinks, or ones that sit higher than the memory, and can fit the confined space.

i give Asus an A for effort, and a D+ for design

I guess we wait for DFI to make one. and i'm sure it'llc ost more be worth the price
December 28, 2006 3:14:06 PM

Quote:
Good god 8O

$400 mobo - (The 680i ASUS Striker for C2Q is ~$400 - oh yeah it's Intel)
$$$ for the high spec memory it needs (667 works just fine)
$$$$$ for the 1kw PS (That's ONLY FOR SLI)
$1000 for the CPUs(FX70 is set to be $599 for two)
$$$$$ added to your power bill( So does Dual sockets of any variety)

= BAD DEAL :evil: 

If you are going to waste this much $ ... just go for dual socket server Opteron rig and be done with it! (Opteron memory is twice the price in some cases and only supports DDR2 667)


I'll have to side with Baron here and say given what this is designed for there are probably two CPU's in that box. I couldn't see anything to say either way on the website. Once someone buys a box and opens it we'll know.

Given that I still think the whole thing is a huge waste of time and effort on AMD's part and a huge waste of expense on any enthusiast.
December 28, 2006 3:14:49 PM

wow that is expensive
December 28, 2006 3:38:51 PM

Quote:
Wow. It's almost as if Baron was wrong and everything is selling over MSRP.

$430 for a motherboard? You've got to be kidding me.
$700 for a pair of measly weak FX-70s?
$900 for a pair of mediocre FX-72?
$1,100 for a pair of can't hack it FX-74s?


This brought a smile to my face. I hope Baron is around to give his view on this.

QUAD FX = FAILURE


You're an idiot. Newegg was charging $1500 for the first C2Qs.
December 28, 2006 3:39:51 PM

Quote:
This kinda puts a dent in this article:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/12/22/price_performance_ana...

It would appear he is placing the single CPU price but reporting the dual CPU performance (geometric weighted average). This is very decieving. Something just isn't adding up.... I tried to find the same data from Pricegrabber which he references, no CPUs are showing up there...he should be shot. :wink:
Good call. That article seemed a bit "shady" to me when I read it. Maybe Tom's is getting pressure from AMD and is trying to avoid a lawsuit. :D 
December 28, 2006 3:41:10 PM

Exactly! Thats why is NOT sold out!

People have recently spent thousands on Core 2 Duos, NVIDIA boards and videocards. They are broke for AMD stuff now (add to that the premium prices)

I wonder why AMD said they were gonna give 2 for the price of 1 when Newegg actually is selling them in singles...
December 28, 2006 3:42:54 PM

Quote:
Good god 8O

$400 mobo - (The 680i ASUS Striker for C2Q is ~$400 - oh yeah it's Intel)
$$$ for the high spec memory it needs (667 works just fine)
$$$$$ for the 1kw PS (That's ONLY FOR SLI)
$1000 for the CPUs(FX70 is set to be $599 for two)
$$$$$ added to your power bill( So does Dual sockets of any variety)

= BAD DEAL :evil: 

If you are going to waste this much $ ... just go for dual socket server Opteron rig and be done with it! (Opteron memory is twice the price in some cases and only supports DDR2 667)


Baron,

Quad FX has ONE motherboard choice. Core 2 Quad don't have to use an equivilent board, they have a WIDE variety of boards to choose from.

I highly doubt these will sell at or below MSRP until after the next Quad FX processor is released (if that ever happens).

Baron, I'm not saying this to cheese you off, you need to know it: You were wrong. Your presented Quad FX speculation as gospel truth. The $430 price tag on the motherboard makes you and AMD look silly.


You can't cheese me off. How many new products ever release at the MSRP? 8800GTX debuted at Newegg at $650, it's now down to under $600.
C2Q debuted at $1500, it's now down to $1100
December 28, 2006 3:43:41 PM

Quote:
Wow. It's almost as if Baron was wrong and everything is selling over MSRP.

$430 for a motherboard? You've got to be kidding me.
$700 for a pair of measly weak FX-70s?
$900 for a pair of mediocre FX-72?
$1,100 for a pair of can't hack it FX-74s?


This brought a smile to my face. I hope Baron is around to give his view on this.

QUAD FX = FAILURE


You're an idiot. Newegg was charging $1500 for the first C2Qs.
I don't think your an idiot TC, but Baron actually does have a pretty valid point here. CPUs always seem to "ding" the early adopters a bit for the first couple months.

Plus, saying in big letters "QUAD FX = FAILURE" doesn't really prove anything and is bound to lead to flaming.
December 28, 2006 3:45:18 PM

I think they were using AMD's pricing and not actual pricing because they weren't yet available. Nothing really shady about it.
December 28, 2006 3:49:16 PM

Quote:
You're an idiot. Newegg was charging $1500 for the first C2Qs.


What makes me an idiot? When Core 2 Duo was selling for that much on NewEgg you gladly pointed that out as a point for debate and you did that rightfully so.

My point is that all of your AMD fanboyism has made you look silly. You spouted out so much speculation. You did cost/performance comparisons of Intel VS. AMD using Intel's MARKET price against AMD's MSRP price, which isn't a fair.

You know what is a fair comparison? Current Quad FX prices VS. Current Core 2 Quad prices!

Face it, Quad FX is inventing new ways to fail with it's $430 motherboard that you have no choice but to use.
December 28, 2006 3:54:57 PM

In my point of view, is not bad that companies release good cpus or good motherboards. The point is that this affect the prices of others!!!

For example

If you want this motherboard, You would need minimum 600watts to run it with basic stuff. Now couple of months ago we used to buy $70 psu's or a little more... but now if we want this kind of stuff, we need to buy $200 psus! or even more expensive!

I think AMD released this stuff in a really bad time, this should have be here before the 680i and all the main events.

Plus, doesnt matter if this FX;s are cheaper than a kentsfield itself, kentsfield proved to be faster and doesnt need an EXTENDED ATX MOTHERBOARD.
December 28, 2006 4:06:42 PM

Quote:
Wow. It's almost as if Baron was wrong and everything is selling over MSRP.

$430 for a motherboard? You've got to be kidding me.
$700 for a pair of measly weak FX-70s?
$900 for a pair of mediocre FX-72?
$1,100 for a pair of can't hack it FX-74s?


This brought a smile to my face. I hope Baron is around to give his view on this.

QUAD FX = FAILURE


Is fanboy forgetting you can put in two quad cores in a few months??
They will draw the same power as 2 duals.

In a few months? For some extra cash you could have a pair of Quad core Xeons, right now.
December 28, 2006 4:06:49 PM

Quote:
You're an idiot. Newegg was charging $1500 for the first C2Qs.


What makes me an idiot? When Core 2 Duo was selling for that much on NewEgg you gladly pointed that out as a point for debate and you did that rightfully so.

My point is that all of your AMD fanboyism has made you look silly. You spouted out so much speculation. You did cost/performance comparisons of Intel VS. AMD using Intel's MARKET price against AMD's MSRP price, which isn't a fair.

You know what is a fair comparison? Current Quad FX prices VS. Current Core 2 Quad prices!

Face it, Quad FX is inventing new ways to fail with it's $430 motherboard that you have no choice but to use.

BS. I knew they would carry a premium for awhile. I said it several times. The current price is FX70 $700, FX72 $900, FX74 $1100. That means only FX74 is even near the same price. You can still get the FX70 and mobo for the price of C2Q.

The mobo will drop in price pretty quick, then you'll only have the power to complain about . I find it amazing that the wit exhibited against AMD was not existent against Intel when FX60 was setting the gaming standard.

It's like you guys said, "Damn, Intel is screwing me again. I'm going to buy AMD until they get it right and if they release a faster part I'm going to piss on AMD for giving me a choice."
December 28, 2006 4:09:05 PM

Quote:
You can still get the FX70 and mobo for the price of C2Q.


The Core2Q is also faster and uses less power, whats your point?
December 28, 2006 4:11:11 PM

Quote:
I find it amazing that the wit exhibited against AMD was not existent against Intel when FX60 was setting the gaming standard.


I don't see why not... the FX60 was a lot better than the P4 EE.
December 28, 2006 4:32:33 PM

Quote:
I find it amazing that the wit exhibited against AMD was not existent against Intel when FX60 was setting the gaming standard.


I don't see why not... the FX60 was a lot better than the P4 EE.

No doubt, Baron was just trying to show that there is a general Intel bias here. Sometimes there is, sometimes it doesn't seem that way. It depends who's posting.
December 28, 2006 4:45:08 PM

I don't really see an Intel bias. I don't know anybody that's like "P4 was better than A64". It's just not true. I think Intel wasn't surviving based on the enthusiast market in the days of P4 as much as they were on the OEMs.
December 28, 2006 4:46:38 PM

Quote:
Wow. It's almost as if Baron was wrong and everything is selling over MSRP.

$430 for a motherboard? You've got to be kidding me.
$700 for a pair of measly weak FX-70s?
$900 for a pair of mediocre FX-72?
$1,100 for a pair of can't hack it FX-74s?


This brought a smile to my face. I hope Baron is around to give his view on this.

QUAD FX = FAILURE


Is fanboy forgetting you can put in two quad cores in a few months??
They will draw the same power as 2 duals.

Is FanBiatch forgetting that you can get 16 core processors in a few years?
December 28, 2006 5:10:31 PM

Quote:
Wow. It's almost as if Baron was wrong and everything is selling over MSRP.

$430 for a motherboard? You've got to be kidding me.
$700 for a pair of measly weak FX-70s?
$900 for a pair of mediocre FX-72?
$1,100 for a pair of can't hack it FX-74s?


This brought a smile to my face. I hope Baron is around to give his view on this.

QUAD FX = FAILURE


Is fanboy forgetting you can put in two quad cores in a few months??
They will draw the same power as 2 duals.

Mike,

Absolute, positively pure and unadulterated speculation. Once again, the 'genius' of 'spend $3000 now, to facilitate spending another $1000-2000 6 months down the road'. Thats the kind of 'advanced' planning that landed a bunch of folks at ENRON in jail.

Oh, BTW Mike, you, of all people, refering to anyone as "fanboy", is ludicrous
December 28, 2006 5:13:38 PM

Quote:
You can still get the FX70 and mobo for the price of C2Q.


The Core2Q is also faster and uses less power, whats your point?

The point is 1970~ NYC economics---get less for more
December 28, 2006 5:17:15 PM

Quote:
Is fanboy forgetting you can put in two quad cores in a few months??
They will draw the same power as 2 duals.


Same TDP is not the same thing as power, if recent Clovertown benches are able to tell us anything. Something tells me that doubling the cores is going to more than negate the power savings of 65nm. Though they can always use 1 chipset instead of 2 :lol: 
December 28, 2006 5:33:45 PM

Happy Holidays Baron :D 
December 28, 2006 5:37:21 PM

Wow turpit, you've really whipped this thread in to shape! ;) 
December 28, 2006 5:44:44 PM

Quote:
No doubt, Baron was just trying to show that there is a general Intel bias here. Sometimes there is, sometimes it doesn't seem that way. It depends who's posting.


I sincerely doubt the presence of Intel bias at all. Before July 27th, no one questioned the unmatched performance of the Athlon 64 X2s.
December 28, 2006 5:57:52 PM

Quote:
No doubt, Baron was just trying to show that there is a general Intel bias here. Sometimes there is, sometimes it doesn't seem that way. It depends who's posting.


I sincerely doubt the presence of Intel bias at all. Before July 27th, no one questioned the unmatched performance of the Athlon 64 X2s.
Agreed. I kept wondering "what is Intel focusing their energy on anyway?" because they were getting their rear-ends kicked in price/performance and power/performance. Now I guess I know. :D 
December 28, 2006 6:27:19 PM

Quote:
No doubt, Baron was just trying to show that there is a general Intel bias here. Sometimes there is, sometimes it doesn't seem that way. It depends who's posting.


I sincerely doubt the presence of Intel bias at all. Before July 27th, no one questioned the unmatched performance of the Athlon 64 X2s.
Agreed. I kept wondering "what is Intel focusing their energy on anyway?" because they were getting their rear-ends kicked in price/performance and power/performance. Now I guess I know. :D 

Add my vote to the response.

I get sick of linking to THG articles praising AMD over Intel, and pointing out the names of AMD using posters/fans here in the forum.

I have been a devout user of AMD for years. For years AMD offered greater performance for lower investment. This summer AMD's products fell behind Intel both in level of performance and price per unit of performance. This is fact. Stating this fact does not make me, THG, or the THG forums "Intel biased". However, rejecting that fact and clinging to the false notions that AMDs current offerings outperform Intel’s does raise question as to the accuser's bias. Desperately digging for obscure metrics with which to bolster AMDs current position in comparison to Intel’s also raises questions.

THG is no more Intel or AMD biased than NASCAR is ford or chevy biased. Casting accusations at an independent body and labeling them "biased" because of the results of competitive enterprises is indicative of a "spoilsport" defamatory counter tactic, usually employed by individuals or concerns who are in reality themselves the biased parties.
December 28, 2006 6:36:04 PM

Well I certainly won't be buying a Quad FX system. :lol: 
December 28, 2006 6:39:55 PM

It's sort of like the jock in school that spends all of his time bullying other kids and calling them gay that turns out to be gay himself. Right? :lol: 
December 28, 2006 6:41:02 PM

Quote:
Wow. It's almost as if Baron was wrong and everything is selling over MSRP.

$430 for a motherboard? You've got to be kidding me.
$700 for a pair of measly weak FX-70s?
$900 for a pair of mediocre FX-72?
$1,100 for a pair of can't hack it FX-74s?


This brought a smile to my face. I hope Baron is around to give his view on this.

QUAD FX = FAILURE


You're an idiot. Newegg was charging $1500 for the first C2Qs.

That was because of the high demand. Thats how newegg's pricing system works. Other places were selling them cheaper. Demand for 4x4? Lets hope not...It would make the price even more stupid!
December 28, 2006 6:44:07 PM

Quote:
C2Q debuted at $1500, it's now down to $1100


It didn't...The price rose because of the lack of stock.
You could get them over here in the uk for around the equivilent of $1300 and trust me we always pay more than the US.

Get over it. 4x4 sucks.


Quote:
I find it amazing that the wit exhibited against AMD was not existent against Intel when FX60 was setting the gaming standard.


I don't see why not... the FX60 was a lot better than the P4 EE.

No doubt, Baron was just trying to show that there is a general Intel bias here. Sometimes there is, sometimes it doesn't seem that way. It depends who's posting.

The only bias is for the best processors which are currently made by Intel.
If AMD making something better than Core2 i'll happily buy it.
December 28, 2006 6:52:02 PM

Quote:
Wow. It's almost as if Baron was wrong and everything is selling over MSRP.

$430 for a motherboard? You've got to be kidding me.
$700 for a pair of measly weak FX-70s?
$900 for a pair of mediocre FX-72?
$1,100 for a pair of can't hack it FX-74s?


This brought a smile to my face. I hope Baron is around to give his view on this.

QUAD FX = FAILURE


You're an idiot. Newegg was charging $1500 for the first C2Qs.

That was because of the high demand. Thats how newegg's pricing system works. Other places were selling them cheaper. Demand for 4x4? Lets hope not...It would make the price even more stupid!
Wait... I found another place selling it for cheaper!!!!

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?Product...

:twisted:
December 28, 2006 6:53:47 PM

Quote:
Well I certainly won't be buying a Quad FX system. :lol: 


Me neither. I'm waiting till there is a 16-chip AMD solution that's almost as fast as a native quad Intel. I'm hoping that the little dial on my power meter will shear off its shaft, frisbee across the lawn and decapitate my neighbor. Imagine the bling factor of having a 4-cubic foot PC with 16 Zalman 9700s with red LEDs and enough heat output to melt the Antarctic icecap. Progress, baby, I'm an UltraMegaTasker!
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!