Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom X4 9700 at 2.4GHz to cost $329.99

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 4, 2007 4:11:32 PM

http://www.it4profit.com/ecatalog/userend/shopITProdLit...

Look quite attractive at that price if they turn out to be somewhat overclockable.

I don't know how AMD is going to make a decent profit given their low desktop and server K10 prices.
November 4, 2007 4:28:46 PM

What is the point of this post, there are no x4,x3, or any prices for the new k10 cpu's
November 4, 2007 4:32:36 PM

Quote:
http://www.it4profit.com/ecatalog/userend/shopITProdLit...

Look quite attractive at that price if they turn out to be somewhat overclockable.

I don't know how AMD is going to make a decent profit given their low desktop and server K10 prices.

Dang $288 for the X4 Phenom 9700 I just wonder if its price per 1000 units. Price is going to near that of the Q6600 either way.

Some of the K10's are $1000 for 2GHz 4s systems and $300 price range is were most of money is made in CPU's. IE $300 is high sales range.
Related resources
November 4, 2007 4:33:13 PM

Quote:
What is the point of this post, there are no x4,x3, or any prices for the new k10 cpu's

Its on the 51 to 100 sheet.
November 4, 2007 4:34:21 PM

Quote:
http://www.it4profit.com/ecatalog/userend/shopITProdLit...

Look quite attractive at that price if they turn out to be somewhat overclockable.

I don't know how AMD is going to make a decent profit given their low desktop and server K10 prices.

why do u care your the consumer you want cheap competitive prices and good performance
November 4, 2007 5:54:54 PM

Quote:
Its on the 51 to 100 sheet.

My bad, i saw it, thanks a lot.
November 5, 2007 8:11:33 AM

I hope the shop is trying to make a lot of money off those chips, because if AMD is asking close to that amount of money for these CPUs they won't sell many.
November 5, 2007 8:21:56 AM

not to sound like a intel fanboy or how ever you called them but my q6600 G0 was cheaper then that and i can o/c like crazy
November 5, 2007 9:29:30 AM

Well IMO, as an AMD fan, that's the truth even though it hurts
November 5, 2007 10:18:37 AM

Im confident in Amd , i like how technology is going with computers these days the high end AMD cpu is around 300bucks or less i paid that for my 3000+ and that wasnt even the best at the time the 3800 was how can you complain about that? And if im not correct who was it that said a 64bit architecture is a bad idea a couple of years ago?? and then started building their CPUs based on x64 technology oh thats right Intel, i respeced Intel up until apoint but their cockyness is just way overboard...all i can say is good luck Intel with your legacy architecture i wish all my information went through my memory controller lol oh but wait whats that Intel now are promising the same kind of direct connect architecture in 08 , oh snap once again Intel nice work
November 5, 2007 10:46:49 AM

And they expect to sell how many Phenom X4's?
November 5, 2007 11:22:46 AM

buzzlightbeer said:
And if im not correct who was it that said a 64bit architecture is a bad idea a couple of years ago?? and then started building their CPUs based on x64 technology oh thats right Intel, i respeced Intel up until apoint but their cockyness is just way overboard...all i can say is good luck Intel with your legacy architecture i wish all my information went through my memory controller lol oh but wait whats that Intel now are promising the same kind of direct connect architecture in 08


And what is the relevance of all that? Get over it already....
November 5, 2007 11:42:01 AM

AMD will not win ALL benchmarks. Phenom X4 is more competitive because it will win about 1/2 of benchmarks vs. higher clocked Core CPU's. Take a que from Barcelona which led on 1/2 the benches vs. faster clocked Xeon.
November 5, 2007 11:44:57 AM

everything is "hypotheitcal" til they release the 790 AM2+
November 5, 2007 11:45:34 AM

****edited
November 5, 2007 12:10:36 PM

all i can say is phenom better be one hell of a chip if they're gonna price it that high and still have it compete against the penryns, and im not an intel fan boy because all i've had in my computers are athlons, but im dissapointed in how AMD is being managed.
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2007 12:46:01 PM

lol lets just wait until they are actually released and properly benchmarked, so far its all speculative at best for both price and performance :p 
November 5, 2007 1:37:30 PM

buzzlightbeer said:
Im confident in Amd , i like how technology is going with computers these days the high end AMD cpu is around 300bucks or less i paid that for my 3000+ and that wasnt even the best at the time the 3800 was how can you complain about that? And if im not correct who was it that said a 64bit architecture is a bad idea a couple of years ago?? and then started building their CPUs based on x64 technology oh thats right Intel, i respeced Intel up until apoint but their cockyness is just way overboard...all i can say is good luck Intel with your legacy architecture i wish all my information went through my memory controller lol oh but wait whats that Intel now are promising the same kind of direct connect architecture in 08 , oh snap once again Intel nice work


Intel said 64bit was not needed 3-4 years ago , what percentage of computers run 64bit today?

Intel said that they did not need a imc untill later, they seem to be right. The fastest cpu on the planet at the minute runs on a fsb. Mabey they just don't need direct connect until 2008? Is that a bad thing?

They always seem to do stuff when its needed.



November 5, 2007 1:48:42 PM

ComputerCustomizer said:
And they expect to sell how many Phenom X4's?

I expect them to sell all Phenoms they can make, and even get booked a month in advance. Problem is, I dont expect too many Phenoms made in the first place :(  Hardly more than Barcelonas, since AMD could earn more by selling server chips and majority of supply is (or should be) directed there.
November 5, 2007 2:28:58 PM

the qx9xxx cips will cost a lot more than hte phenom chips, like 3-4 times as much. qx6850 goes for over a grand right now.
if i can build an entire machine with a good video card for what you spend on your processor (even if it is 20% faster). i still win.
November 5, 2007 2:36:05 PM

firetatoo said:
the qx9xxx cips will cost a lot more than hte phenom chips, like 3-4 times as much. qx6850 goes for over a grand right now.
if i can build an entire machine with a good video card for what you spend on your processor (even if it is 20% faster). i still win.



Stop the presses, Are you saying the only chips that will compete with phenom will cost $900-$1200. Or are you just picking the most expensive cpu from Intel and being surprised that is is more expensive than the cheaper phenoms

I think you will be able to get 45nm quads from $250-$1400
November 5, 2007 2:37:51 PM

First, these are the initial prices. Prices on computer parts nearly always go down (Core 2 Duo's were an exception, where demand started driving prices higher...but that was mostly on the retailers end). So AMD will most likely drop these prices within 3 months. Plus, this is it for them. If these chips don't do well competatively, AMD has nothing left - there is no more rabbit they can pull out of their hats. And considering that they're bleeding money like crazy and praying hard for a profitable Q4 (of which Phenom probably won't contribute to - especially if AMD does the typical paper launch), they need cash.

Exciting time.
November 5, 2007 3:06:53 PM

wolverinero79 said:
First, these are the initial prices. Prices on computer parts nearly always go down (Core 2 Duo's were an exception, where demand started driving prices higher...but that was mostly on the retailers end). So AMD will most likely drop these prices within 3 months. Plus, this is it for them. If these chips don't do well competatively, AMD has nothing left - there is no more rabbit they can pull out of their hats. And considering that they're bleeding money like crazy and praying hard for a profitable Q4 (of which Phenom probably won't contribute to - especially if AMD does the typical paper launch), they need cash.

Exciting time.


Part tight, part wrong. Yes, AMD needs cash, and they need a successful launch of Phenom. But AMD still has the ATI side to sell video cards and supply some cash. The HD 3800 that's coming out in a couple weeks should be a good help in the cash dept.

The really unfortunate thing, as I see it, is that Harrison may be right and the Phenom will be mainly a paper launch similar to Barcelona. Sure, some chips will get out, but not nearly enough to fill demand. On top of that, just as we can find slow Barcelona's advertised but almost no faster ones, I expect that the faster Phenoms will sell out and leave the slow ones on the shelf. After that, AMD may not have the ability to produce the faster version. Thus, it effectively becomes a paper launch.

Yes, I'd like to get a 3 ghz Phenom to build a machine around, or at least a Phenom that overclockable enough that I can push it to 3 ghz. But given AMD's reputation during the last year, I don't know if that's going to happen. So much for my 2 cents worth of opinion.
November 5, 2007 3:45:49 PM

Slobogob said:
I hope the shop is trying to make a lot of money off those chips, because if AMD is asking close to that amount of money for these CPUs they won't sell many.

There will always be early adopters. Even for AMD CPUs.
November 5, 2007 4:22:23 PM

Accoring to the Inquirer, AMD sold a piece of land in the middle of summer. However, there is no one-time-gain item in their Q3 earning report. Anyone knows what is going on? As land price at Silicon Valley has going up more than 10X in the last 20 years, this land sell can generate a big profit. If they lumped this gain in their product revenue, it can artificially inflate its gross margin greatly. Anyone has any idea?
November 5, 2007 4:53:53 PM

Quote:
Your go is two dual cores glued together, this chip is not, hence it costs more.

The prices I saw were quite a bit cheaper than that. They are always high during first availability too.
Ha ha, at it again. My glued Q6600 runs at 3G no problem. You get your more expensive monolithic core. Let me know what your OC is.

Edit: Don't get me wrong I want AMD to become competetive and give Intel a run for there money. Hell I would even like to see Intel in pain, but this stupid glued core BS is old hat.
November 5, 2007 5:23:54 PM

So are those real benches? Is the Phenom going to be 2.4ghz or 3 ? or both?
November 5, 2007 7:30:30 PM

Quote:
Your go is two dual cores glued together, this chip is not, hence it costs more.

The prices I saw were quite a bit cheaper than that. They are always high during first availability too.


The whole "glued" vs. "native" thing, even in pricing is stupid. Yes, Intel uses 2 seperate dual cores to make a quad, while AMD uses 1 4 core CPU to make it's quad. What is the difference? They are both quad cores. And maybe it does cost more to make a monolithic quad core, compared to MCM. So, when native quad costs more than the non-native quad, who's margins will be razor thin at the prices being tossed around?

The pricing seen in earlier posts could be tray prices, not retail prices. Tray prices are usually lower, since they are by 1k units. So, the pricing of $329 for the 9700 does sound correct, with retail markup.
November 5, 2007 10:56:12 PM

mbchang said:
Accoring to the Inquirer, AMD sold a piece of land in the middle of summer. However, there is no one-time-gain item in their Q3 earning report. Anyone knows what is going on? As land price at Silicon Valley has going up more than 10X in the last 20 years, this land sell can generate a big profit. If they lumped this gain in their product revenue, it can artificially inflate its gross margin greatly. Anyone has any idea?


Looking at this:
http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=bi&q=NYSE:AMD

It's hard to say. I would have expected it to show up as a decrease in the category of Property/Plant/Equipment, Total - Gross. But that's apparently not public yet (odd). There was a decrease of ~300 million in long term investments. Was the land sold just something they were holding, or was it actual land that they were using previously? There's no way they would be allowed to lump this into the Operating section of the Cash Flow document (i.e. product revenues), so it should be in there somewhere. Google doesn't seem to have the cash flow for Q3 up yet for AMD.
November 5, 2007 11:09:43 PM

To be honest,I think that these cpu will sellout in there price point,if for nothing more than peering it with its mainboard and gpu.
November 6, 2007 12:13:23 AM

Ill most defanitly be getting one my self. I dont see how $300 is that much most cpus that come out as a new product cost about that much. The core 2 quad was what? $1200 when it came out im not sure if it still is but im sure they still have a model that high or higher by now. Wait for the second wave to come out if you want some $100 or cheaper chips its the first modle its nothing to be surprised about.

And i could care less how it over clocks i wouldnt over clock a core 2 either i dont do it. So i will most likely wait for the 3gig+ cpu before getting it to justify the upgrade other then getting 2 aditional cores that pretty much wont help me in most things i do.

why is there even a my cpu clocks this high convo do people still think clock speed has a meaning? thought everyone got over that other then the bragging factor which im uninterested in.

BTW im sure they expect to sell alot of thier new cpus and more then likely will just like when intel put out the higher clocked yet slower p-4's for stupid high prices and sold them. Im sure intel sold alot of those quad core's for $1200 to. Why wouldnt amd sell alot for $300? Hell alot of people spend that ammount on other componants as well i guess i dont see the relavence of such a statment.
November 6, 2007 12:16:02 AM

looks like amd might just come back on intel
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2007 1:29:25 AM

I just want to see AMD crush NVIDIA.

Canada could win that war easy !!

heh heh heh.

just joking ...
November 6, 2007 1:58:05 AM

enforcer22 said:
Ill most defanitly be getting one my self. I dont see how $300 is that much most cpus that come out as a new product cost about that much. The core 2 quad was what? $1200 when it came out im not sure if it still is but im sure they still have a model that high or higher by now. Wait for the second wave to come out if you want some $100 or cheaper chips its the first modle its nothing to be surprised about.

And i could care less how it over clocks i wouldnt over clock a core 2 either i dont do it. So i will most likely wait for the 3gig+ cpu before getting it to justify the upgrade other then getting 2 aditional cores that pretty much wont help me in most things i do.

why is there even a my cpu clocks this high convo do people still think clock speed has a meaning? thought everyone got over that other then the bragging factor which im uninterested in.

BTW im sure they expect to sell alot of thier new cpus and more then likely will just like when intel put out the higher clocked yet slower p-4's for stupid high prices and sold them. Im sure intel sold alot of those quad core's for $1200 to. Why wouldnt amd sell alot for $300? Hell alot of people spend that ammount on other componants as well i guess i dont see the relavence of such a statment.

The issue isn't whether AMD will sell any of these processors, the issue is the availability of higher clocked processors in the Phenom line.
Barcelona and Phenom are using the same process technology, and yet, there are very few Barcelonas at 2.0Ghz, and even the lower freq. CPUs are scarce. How will this change with Phenom?
Yes, Intel sold quads at $1200, and I'm sure AMD will sell at $300, but having something to sell is something that AMD has not shown to be able to give to customers, lately.

itotallybelieveyou said:
looks like amd might just come back on intel

Come back on Intel in what exactly?
November 6, 2007 2:53:53 AM

I've not been keeping track of AMD's production capacity recently ... so, keeping all mention of yields aside atm ... which of AMD's fabs are fully turned over to 65nm now?

I mean, the 6400+ came out relatively recently, and while they're obviously just the cream of the cream of the previous generation of CPU's, their existence implies they still have some of their production still geared towards 90nm.

Then there's the case of the 65nm K8 variations, which aren't in bad supply considering ... we've had the 5000+ black edition come out, which is running 2.6GHz on a 65nm process ... and it's even appearing in stock in not-so-bad numbers at the moment. This leans towards the actual 65nm production process being able to supply chips capable of higher clocks fairly reliably at least.

Anyway, considering these chips are still being made as well, that would indicate a second production line is working away on 65nm K8's, in addition to the hypothetical one working on 90nm.

Similarly, they've now got chipsets to consider as well, so somewhere they must have something pumping out chips intended to make their way through to motherboard manufacturers.

Then there's GPU's ... i have no idea what they're doing here tbh ... didn't ATI used to hire out sapphire's production lines or something?

Finally ... they've had the first k10's (barcelona) coming out on 65nm ... no one really knows how many they made of each speed, or where they shipped them to. What we do know is there are a fair number of the lower speed parts out there, and we can't be certain whether they're sitting on shelves or if they're being bought and replaced by new stock. Higher clocked parts have been rumoured to be going to super-computer projects in preference to system builders and resellers ... so that could explain the apparent lack of available cpus.

Anyway, barcelona will have been coming off a 65nm production line somewhere, and had probably been doing so since not long after the 65nm revamp of that plant had been carried out - there's bound to have been some hiccups along the way to help explain barcelona's soft launch.

Now the big question ... the new phenoms are basically constructed on the same process as the barcelonas ... so the real question is whether or not AMD has a seperate production line which they've dedicated to phenoms, or if they had to stop producing barcies in favour of getting phenoms.

If they have a spare production line to be dedicated to phenoms, then it could just be the barcelonas are being whisked away for big projects before anyone can consider getting them to system builders.

However, if they're using barcies line to make the phenoms, then they will have switched over the production ~1 month after launch of the barc. so that they could start work on building up the reserves of phenoms so they have a decent number available on launch day. This explains why barcelona isn't in greatest supply numbers, and also lends some hope towards phenom having a decent number stockpiled ... I mean, how many CPU's (assuming whatever yield you like) could a production line churn out each day? How many big circles of silicon do they actually go through on a daily basis?

So how many production lines do they have, and what are they actually geared for?

This is all just my insomnia fuelled optimistic guesswork here ... so if you wish to correct me on any of it, please do ... though flaming would be harsh ;) 

And at the very worst case scenario ... if those cheaper phenom prices linked somwhere *are* for 1000 unit quantities, then we know there must be at least 1000 phenoms of each speed lying around somewhere ^^
November 6, 2007 7:48:23 AM

gallag said:
Intel said 64bit was not needed 3-4 years ago , what percentage of computers run 64bit today?

Intel said that they did not need a imc untill later, they seem to be right. The fastest cpu on the planet at the minute runs on a fsb. Mabey they just don't need direct connect until 2008? Is that a bad thing?

They always seem to do stuff when its needed.



A significant percentage runs 64-bit today. Certainly most people on this forum I think.

4GB of RAM is more or more becoming a standard, and to have a 32-bit Operating system and Processor that restrict RAM allocation at 3.25GB - 3.55GB (depends) is stupid.

Crysis demo used 3.75GB on Very High Details with 4x AA on a 4GB system, so I would expect it be higher if more RAM were available to the system for texture storing
November 6, 2007 1:51:09 PM

pete4r said:
A significant percentage runs 64-bit today. Certainly most people on this forum I think.

4GB of RAM is more or more becoming a standard, and to have a 32-bit Operating system and Processor that restrict RAM allocation at 3.25GB - 3.55GB (depends) is stupid.

Crysis demo used 3.75GB on Very High Details with 4x AA on a 4GB system, so I would expect it be higher if more RAM were available to the system for texture storing



Actualyit restricts it to 2 gig chuck allocations per program at any given time.. 32bit os is more then capable of reading a TOTAL of 4 gigs no matter where those 4 gigs come from but is not capable with out a boot switch to allocate more then 2 gigs of it to any single program at once. Even if its caching memory for system use its still using 4 gigs ;) 

But yes i would believe most people have a 64 bit capable computer by now its just the software companys holding everyone back so far. almost anyone whos even got a value computer in the past 2 or 3 years most likely has 64 bit capability. If you mean 64 bit computers as in also the OS, IF software companys would get off thier ass and pump out 64 bit apps i would assume there would be millions of people witha 64 bit system. One of the biggest draw backs to 64bit OS's is hardware venders, They seem to refuse to make 64 bit drivers that actualy work. I have noticed 64 bit windows doesnt suck the support it gets from hardware venders blows.

But with how games are today with how much ram they use, (all current games that have come out have hit the 2 gig barrier for me) which actualy doesnt get better in a 64 bit os since the app is STILL 32 bit and can only access the same memory so even with 8 gigs i get out of memory errors.

Someone go jump start these software developers and let them know we arent still in the 90's its time to move on.
November 6, 2007 3:25:41 PM

coret said:
I've not been keeping track of AMD's production capacity recently ... so, keeping all mention of yields aside atm ... which of AMD's fabs are fully turned over to 65nm now?

I mean, the 6400+ came out relatively recently, and while they're obviously just the cream of the cream of the previous generation of CPU's, their existence implies they still have some of their production still geared towards 90nm.

Then there's the case of the 65nm K8 variations, which aren't in bad supply considering ... we've had the 5000+ black edition come out, which is running 2.6GHz on a 65nm process ... and it's even appearing in stock in not-so-bad numbers at the moment. This leans towards the actual 65nm production process being able to supply chips capable of higher clocks fairly reliably at least.

Anyway, considering these chips are still being made as well, that would indicate a second production line is working away on 65nm K8's, in addition to the hypothetical one working on 90nm.

Similarly, they've now got chipsets to consider as well, so somewhere they must have something pumping out chips intended to make their way through to motherboard manufacturers.

Then there's GPU's ... i have no idea what they're doing here tbh ... didn't ATI used to hire out sapphire's production lines or something?

Finally ... they've had the first k10's (barcelona) coming out on 65nm ... no one really knows how many they made of each speed, or where they shipped them to. What we do know is there are a fair number of the lower speed parts out there, and we can't be certain whether they're sitting on shelves or if they're being bought and replaced by new stock. Higher clocked parts have been rumoured to be going to super-computer projects in preference to system builders and resellers ... so that could explain the apparent lack of available cpus.

Anyway, barcelona will have been coming off a 65nm production line somewhere, and had probably been doing so since not long after the 65nm revamp of that plant had been carried out - there's bound to have been some hiccups along the way to help explain barcelona's soft launch.

Now the big question ... the new phenoms are basically constructed on the same process as the barcelonas ... so the real question is whether or not AMD has a seperate production line which they've dedicated to phenoms, or if they had to stop producing barcies in favour of getting phenoms.

If they have a spare production line to be dedicated to phenoms, then it could just be the barcelonas are being whisked away for big projects before anyone can consider getting them to system builders.

However, if they're using barcies line to make the phenoms, then they will have switched over the production ~1 month after launch of the barc. so that they could start work on building up the reserves of phenoms so they have a decent number available on launch day. This explains why barcelona isn't in greatest supply numbers, and also lends some hope towards phenom having a decent number stockpiled ... I mean, how many CPU's (assuming whatever yield you like) could a production line churn out each day? How many big circles of silicon do they actually go through on a daily basis?

So how many production lines do they have, and what are they actually geared for?

This is all just my insomnia fuelled optimistic guesswork here ... so if you wish to correct me on any of it, please do ... though flaming would be harsh ;) 

And at the very worst case scenario ... if those cheaper phenom prices linked somwhere *are* for 1000 unit quantities, then we know there must be at least 1000 phenoms of each speed lying around somewhere ^^

as far I know.. Chartered does a big chunk of 65nm Windsors for AMD.
and TSMC ( or was another? ) producing ATI units in 80 and 55nm.
November 6, 2007 3:56:51 PM

Quote:
http://www.it4profit.com/ecatalog/userend/shopITProdLit...

Look quite attractive at that price if they turn out to be somewhat overclockable.

I don't know how AMD is going to make a decent profit given their low desktop and server K10 prices.


I think my head will explode if I have to go through this explanation again. Probably 70% of AMDs chips are made at 90nm with 300mm wafers. Most of those are Opterons and Windsor. If you take a 300mm wafer then they now have twice the supply at 90nm. X2 is about 223mm^2 with 1MB L2. That 25% less than Barcelona, but Barcelona is on 300mm wafers and 65nm. X2 is about 193mm^2 with 512KB. That's about what Kuma will be so they still get twice the chips going to 300mm wafers. Turion got shrunk and is at Fab 36 (presumably) so they now get twice the Turions.

That's why they didn't make a 65nm Opteron. That would have made the same envelope very difficult and it also allowed them to have 2X more chips (the shrink gets 30% - the difference in size) when they go 100% to Barcelona.

Phenom costs more than every other AMD desktop chip - actually twice as much - but doesn't cost near twice as much to make. It should actually be just a bit more expensive than Brisbane. Then next year K8 SHOULD go the way of the dodo and be replaced by Griffin and Rana. If they can get 50% of Fab 30 to 65nm 300mm, that's an even greater cost savings.
November 7, 2007 2:50:28 PM

buzzlightbeer said:
Im confident in Amd , i like how technology is going with computers these days the high end AMD cpu is around 300bucks or less i paid that for my 3000+ and that wasnt even the best at the time the 3800 was how can you complain about that? And if im not correct who was it that said a 64bit architecture is a bad idea a couple of years ago?? and then started building their CPUs based on x64 technology oh thats right Intel, i respeced Intel up until apoint but their cockyness is just way overboard...all i can say is good luck Intel with your legacy architecture i wish all my information went through my memory controller lol oh but wait whats that Intel now are promising the same kind of direct connect architecture in 08 , oh snap once again Intel nice work


lol I had the same situation, single core 3200+ >$300. So I don't mind one bit paying 400$ for a quad core... especially if they will trump Intel.. (but we will have to wait for benchmarks to see if the later is true)

I personally will be purchasing the first 9700 that becomes availble to me :) 
it makes me all giddy thinking about it

and as for the Intel fanboys take your AMD bashing somewhere else please!
November 8, 2007 12:09:02 AM

BaronMatrix said:
I think my head will explode if I have to go through this explanation again. Probably 70% of AMDs chips are made at 90nm with 300mm wafers. Most of those are Opterons and Windsor. If you take a 300mm wafer then they now have twice the supply at 90nm. X2 is about 223mm^2 with 1MB L2. That 25% less than Barcelona, but Barcelona is on 300mm wafers and 65nm. X2 is about 193mm^2 with 512KB. That's about what Kuma will be so they still get twice the chips going to 300mm wafers. Turion got shrunk and is at Fab 36 (presumably) so they now get twice the Turions.

That's why they didn't make a 65nm Opteron. That would have made the same envelope very difficult and it also allowed them to have 2X more chips (the shrink gets 30% - the difference in size) when they go 100% to Barcelona.

Phenom costs more than every other AMD desktop chip - actually twice as much - but doesn't cost near twice as much to make. It should actually be just a bit more expensive than Brisbane. Then next year K8 SHOULD go the way of the dodo and be replaced by Griffin and Rana. If they can get 50% of Fab 30 to 65nm 300mm, that's an even greater cost savings.


That's assuming... K10's yield is on par with K8's yield...which doesn't seem like it at the moment...
November 8, 2007 12:38:44 AM

Seems a bit to high in price for my taste. I'll stick to the Core 2 Duos and what not. $300 for a product that, as far as we know, may not be THAT much faster is a bit high. But hell, there's so many AMD buyers out there that I'm sure they're bound to make a profit (and a nice one at that) by selling them at that price point. It's just that some of that profit won't be coming from me...at least not until they're cheaper.
November 8, 2007 2:01:02 AM

Since the prices are so competitive from the start, doesn't that mean it isn't going to beat the Q6600 by a large margin? And what happened to the $1,200 pricing (FX anyone)? I don't know but this doesn't look very good...

That being said, I'm telling my friend to hold their build, and wait to see if AMD can bring something very competitive. He's about to buy a Q6600...COME ON AMD!
November 8, 2007 2:05:47 AM

All these benchmarks are run with terrible timings @ 2T... That's not fair to the AMD results. I have been told more times than I can remember that AMDs CPUs performance lives or dies on the memory speeds. I could have been told wrong, but if I wasn't, then there is one reason Phenom x4 might have scored lower than intels quad. That's what I am hoping at least. C'mon AMD...Get back in the game already.
November 8, 2007 2:06:02 AM

Even though I am an Intel fan, its exciting to see that AMD isn't far behind Intel's heels. Just remember why your Intel processer costs so little, you owe that to AMD. If AMD came out with the much better processer tomorrow I'd jump ship, I'm giving my hard earned cash to whoever has the faster product.
November 8, 2007 2:15:40 AM

All you guys talking about how fast you OC'd you q6600, that's great but it means absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. The enthusiest market is nothing compared to the mainstream and server markets. How many servers are gonna OC the quads to 3Ghz? What person in his right mind would OC a standard computer he got from dell with a Quad core (years away from now, but quads will be mainstream someday). In all your talk about how good intels quads OC, you forgot about where the majority of the market really is. I think this will do very well in server and mainstream markets compared to the quad. And that's all AMD needs for their cash problems.
And Q4 reports mean nothing as to the success of the Phenom. If the Phenom is a huge success, you won't see the fruits of that until Q1 2008. So don't be hasty to judge when you see AMDs next quartely earnings.
!