Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Holy crap, Phenom II 720 SOLD OUT! (05/20/09)

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Performance
  • Products
  • Phenom
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 20, 2009 8:56:34 PM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Yea, this is the first time i've seen the "SOLD OUT" caption on any products on Newegg... usually they are "auto-notify" or something like that, but NEVER a "SOLD OUT"!
no wonder, they got pretty impressive performance for that price, so it's a no-brainer...

(EDIT: the date in the topic thread is when it was SOLD OUT, now it's in stock)

More about : holy crap phenom 720 sold

May 20, 2009 9:07:28 PM

Funny, i was thinking about getting one lol
May 20, 2009 10:13:57 PM



Keep shippin em AMD, theyre sellin like hotcakes
May 20, 2009 10:22:03 PM

but is it enough to get them out of the red ink?
May 20, 2009 10:26:03 PM

Theyre supposedly getting out of the red by the end of the year, according to Dirk Meyer
May 20, 2009 10:26:43 PM

Just makes newegg want to raise the price :)  Also amd out of the red, man it's been so long.
May 21, 2009 6:42:27 AM

Reminds me of AMD 64 days... AMD had good product, but mediocre MFG. So they couldn't supply both channel and OEM fast enough to meet demand. Must've been that bad ole Intel, right? So now, more of the same. I see another antitrust suit in Intel's future, as they must now be holding back AMD's fabs.
May 21, 2009 6:54:48 AM

Im sure their production is higher now, as its a much smaller node, and the wafers are much larger as well. Its more a 3core issue I think. Its good they run out now and then. It means either theyre selling like crazy, or yields are very good, and the 9xx's are selling well
May 21, 2009 7:05:06 AM

...Or, their yields are not up to snuff, and they're wasting more of each wafer? Perhaps the handover to GF is having an effect? AMD is keeping a pretty tight lid on yields of various cores these days.

I'm not a 'glass half full' or a 'glass half empty' type. I'm more of a 'show me the money' type. If you are so impressed, buy some AMD stock...
May 21, 2009 7:19:17 AM

I could understand if yields are bad, tri cores would be plentyful, but it may be the opposite, and theyre harder to come by.
This is a new AMD, at least in the sense theyre trying differing approaches, with a more capable lineup. In this day of "good enough" cpus, and this economy, pricing is the thing
a c 127 à CPUs
May 21, 2009 7:44:43 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Theyre supposedly getting out of the red by the end of the year, according to Dirk Meyer


They were supposed to be out of the red two quarters ago. Words mean nothing. Only sales in the end, and you know that well.

As for the sales it could mean anything. Remember since these are just "defective" quads AMD wont have as many as they would quads. It could also be because they are transitioning to the GFs which might limit the production for s short period of time.

But I think its because they don't get as many as they do quads so the supply will always be limited.

You know, they could rebrand the old Phenoms as Phenom II X3s by just disabling the 4th core.... but that would be sneaky.....
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2009 12:33:50 PM

I think everyone is reading way more into this than there is, but that seems to be the way the majority of people work these days....jumping to conclusions on every whim.
Why does this turn into an AMD problem all of a sudden?

I say the more likely "problem" is someone from Newegg simply forgot to order the damn things, or their restock triggers are set too low, or whatever. I doubt just because Newegg runs out of a certain Phenom processor that AMD has burnt to the ground or anything.
May 21, 2009 2:00:14 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
^ TY. This could be good news, it could be as you say, but for AMD to get in the black, they need these
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-athlon-...


Dual-core Phenoms! Just think of the cheap prices, the possible unlocking of the 2 cores, bla blah...

I say the price should be $90, just to be fair with the prices of the triple and quads.

like this, add $50 (give or take) for an extra core, up to the 810 at least.

Phenom x2 550 = $90

Phenom x3 720 = $139

Phenom x4 810 = $169

that kinda makes sense, but you have to pay $80 more for Phenom II x4 955, but, overall, i think that's what the prices should be.
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2009 2:04:15 PM

jitpublisher said:
I think everyone is reading way more into this than there is, but that seems to be the way the majority of people work these days....jumping to conclusions on every whim.
Why does this turn into an AMD problem all of a sudden?

I say the more likely "problem" is someone from Newegg simply forgot to order the damn things, or their restock triggers are set too low, or whatever. I doubt just because Newegg runs out of a certain Phenom processor that AMD has burnt to the ground or anything.




/signed


I would also like to add it's not necessarily an AMD victory either, and for the same reasons. Looking at a very small sample (one reseller) is an exceedingly poor basis for making sweeping claims of huge sales success, let alone "AMD out of the red". We will know if/when AMD are in the black when AMD management issues the press releases and 10Q/10K reports saying so.

All this stuff means is that Newegg ran out of stock. No more, No Less.
May 21, 2009 2:10:35 PM

Well, if this happened with Intel stock, several things would happen. The guy at Newegg would be fired or, people would be wondering why this happened or people would be speculating as to why this happened. Since its happened to AMD, I suspect we see the same results
May 21, 2009 2:27:48 PM

I'm curious why AMD couldn't/doesn't just make a native tri core? I'm kind of asking those that are more knowledgeable than me but if you make a native tri core couldn't you put more transistors on it increasing its performance, in theory? At least use the space that is being taken up but the disabled core.
a b à CPUs
May 21, 2009 2:30:53 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Well, if this happened with Intel stock, several things would happen. The guy at Newegg would be fired or, people would be wondering why this happened or people would be speculating as to why this happened. Since its happened to AMD, I suspect we see the same results




Conversation:

Newegg Mgr: Heya Dave, it looks like we ran out of SKU <blah de blah de blah>

Dave: Hmm.. Lemme see.. Yup, we're out. Strange... The computer should have auto-ordered when we fell below 20 units... Let me check.


***
<later>


Dave: Heya - On that SKU <blah de blah de blah>, I put in a call and have a tray coming. And I re-set the inventory system as well. Should properly restock now...

Newegg Manger: Thanks, Dave.

****




jitpublisher said:
I think everyone is reading way more into this than there is.....



This
May 21, 2009 2:45:43 PM

Thats true, since they obviously had them in stock. A egg glitch. Maybe their systems run on Intel? heheh
May 21, 2009 3:11:12 PM

Why say 'out of stock' instead of 'delivery due'?

Isn't that the usual cop-out?
May 21, 2009 3:13:05 PM

Oh, and AMD's problem is not their raw performance vs. Intel...

It isn't even their price-performance vs. Intel.


It IS their manufacturing costs-performance versus Intel. Until they improve that ratio against Intel, they will always be chasing the game.
May 21, 2009 3:21:01 PM

sdf said:
I'm curious why AMD couldn't/doesn't just make a native tri core?


Because there's no real market for triple cores at quad-core prices. You won't be able to clock it much higher and the extra cache you could use the other 25% of the chip for won't gain you much, so you'd just be paying the same amount of money as a quad-core to build a CPU that was slower on anything that uses four threads.

As for triple core yields indicating process problems, I'm not so sure: it depends a lot on which parts of the chip can fail and still allow them to use three of the cores. When I worked in the chip business we planned to sell failed chips with the defective pipelines disabled as cheaper and slower parts, but in practice we didn't get very many because in most cases either the whole chip worked or something fundamental was also broken that prevented us from using the parts that did work (e.g. broken memory interface, or whatever).
May 21, 2009 5:04:35 PM

I think AMD will take a bit of the market back though with the athlon II's, a $70 quad core, how about that?
a b à CPUs
May 22, 2009 8:10:28 AM

that'd make a loss

AMD is making an i7 sized die here!
May 22, 2009 12:19:37 PM

Amd may sell many processors but they do not make a lot of money per processor...

However this way they can keep more employes and get a better name.

They also lower the money Intel makes because every Cpu amd sells is one less for Intel and Intel also has to lower the prices to compete...

Selling so cheap is a good decission but now they have to come back to high gains per chip as someone said before...

We need a smaller Phenom (III) with high performance
a b à CPUs
May 22, 2009 3:41:40 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Theyre supposedly getting out of the red by the end of the year, according to Dirk Meyer


ROFL! If I had a nickel for every time an AMD CEO has said that in the past 3 years...
May 22, 2009 4:48:09 PM

Thing is, theres only been 2 CEOs, so maybe this time, itll stick. Lets hope so.
Their duals are coming, their lower powered chips are too, and itll help in mobile, where theyre severly lacking. Someone said, buy AMD stock if youre so positive, and its doubled in the last few months, so I guess theyre right
May 29, 2009 12:37:21 AM

what's wrong with the mobile AMD chips?
May 29, 2009 7:02:11 AM

Nothings wrong with AMDs mobiles, but they use too much juice, and it appears the newer low powered stuff wont, as their TDP's are lower.
Its just you dont see many AMD mobile solutions because of this, and this is one area that could help them the most, as theyve done fairly well on DT
May 29, 2009 7:28:43 AM

yomamafor1 said:
/yawn


EDIT: Looks like its already back in stock.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...



"In fact, AMD portrays itself as the pioneer of what it calls the "value ultra-thin" notebook market, arguing that Intel is playing catch up. ..."

:pt1cable: 

May 27, 2009, 2:45 p.m. EST
Intel pushes thin, low-voltage -- but cheap -- laptops
Some analysts say move is aimed at stop cannibalization by its Atom chip

By Benjamin Pimentel, MarketWatch

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Intel Corp. Chief Executive Paul Otellini compared them to "executive jewelry." But the chip giant is betting that slick, ultra-light, low-voltage notebooks may soon become machines for the masses.

In the coming weeks, the Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel is expected to roll out new products based on its consumer ultra-low voltage, or CULV, platform that has been designed for small, cheap but full-featured laptop computers. These would be similar in appearance to netbooks, which are typically about an inch thick and weigh about 2.5 pounds, but offer performance more on par with a full-featured laptop - at a price of $500 or less.

Some analysts see Intel eventually dominating this space, much the way the company's Atom chip currently rules the netbook market.

But Intel's rivals are also on the move in a bid to outflank the chip behemoth. In fact, other analysts believe the tech giant's move is more of a defensive maneuver following the unanticipated success of the Atom, which, they argue, is starting to hurt Intel's other mainstream products.

Otellini reaffirmed Intel's bid to take on the new market in last month's earnings call, when he told analysts, "The big trend in notebooks this year, starting mid-year, is likely to be very well-designed, thin-and-light notebooks using the CULV. Up to this point in time those machines have been sort of executive jewelry and I think they'll hit mainstream consumer price points."

Other players have also begun targeting this space. This week, Nvidia Corp. and Lenovo unveiled a new cheap low-cost, low-voltage notebook based on the chip maker's Ion processor.

Earlier this year, Intel's archrival, Advanced Micro Devices and Hewlett-Packard introduced their own version of an affordable ultra-thin notebook based on AMD's own low-power Yukon platform and Athlon Neo processor.

In fact, AMD portrays itself as the pioneer of what it calls the "value ultra-thin" notebook market, arguing that Intel is playing catch up.

"We took some shots for not jumping into the netbook market," said Patrick Moorhead, AMD's vice president of advanced marketing. "We made the case that consumers are looking something better than a netbook."
Atom is 'disruptive'

The netbook drew attention last year after Intel rolled out the Atom, a new chip roughly the size of a lemon seed, which the company said was aimed initially at two new classes of products.

One was the Mobile Internet Device, or MID, handhelds bigger than cell phones but smaller than laptops. The other was netbooks, which are tiny, ultra portable, cheap, stripped down laptop computers.

Intel was really betting on the MIDs market to take off, but that hasn't happened, said analyst Roger Kay of Endpoint Technologies Associates.

"So far, I have to say the category between the phone and the notebook has been a kind of Sargasso Sea, where there is no wind, and at the end of that is the Bermuda Triangle," Kay said.

However, the netbook market did take off, but in what some analysts say is an unexpected twist, the Atom has begun to push beyond the PC market Intel had in mind, in effect cannibalizing its mainstream products for notebooks.

"Atom is ultimately disruptive," Kay said. "The good news for Intel, however, is that it is the disrupter as well as the disrupted, which is better than having somebody else do it to you."

Analyst Crawford Del Prete of International Data Corp. said Intel got caught in a "perfect storm" in which some of its other products were cannibalized as some manufacturers started using the Atom beyond the netbook space.
Putting the cat back in the bag

Del Prete said Intel move into the CULV may be way "to put the proverbial cat back in the bag." Kay agreed saying the CULV space "is designed to keep Atom from eating into the mainstream consumer segment," after the chip "popped out of its corral and started addressing higher segments."

"Atoms are so cheap that even with good margin percentages, the margin dollars are too low," he added. "No one in the industry wants to see Atom take over because no one makes real money on them, Microsoft , Intel, the [manufacturers], supply chain, or distribution. No one wins with a $200-350 netbook, but a CULV box at $400-$700 is still a good deal for the buyer and much better for the industry."

Intel says all the talk about cannibalization is overblown. Company spokesman Bill Calder said the supposed problem is "not the issue people think it is."

"Cannibalization isn't happening to any significant degree and where it is is at the low end, not high-margin products," he said in an e-mail.

Other analysts also downplayed concerns about the Atom. UBS analyst Uche Orji said he sees Intel's push into the ultra-thin, low voltage, cheap notebook market as part of "the natural evolution of the PC industry."

"I see Intel continuing to dominate because they have this manufacturing edge over everybody," he said. "Ultimately, I don't see the status quo changing at all. Intel will remain dominant."

In a note to clients last month, Orji said he expects netbook growth to decline, "especially as the economy recovers and buyers are less likely to sacrifice features."

But he added that Intel will likely have the edge over AMD in the battle for the ultra thin notebook space. "While performance is likely to be a strong point for AMD, and its Neo line could drive notebook share gains, AMD's shorter battery life is likely to limit its ability to charge a premium that could materially raise average selling prices or margins," he wrote.

Analyst Brian Piccioni of BMO Capital Markets also said he sees Intel's CULV strategy as a logical move at a time when more consumers are looking for lighter, highly portable computers, but that don't burn a big hole in consumers' wallets.

"It's the sexy new thing," he said, adding "I don't think it's necessarily because Intel is eating its own lunch from Atom."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/intel-pushes-thin-low-...
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2009 8:55:06 AM

C'mon 32nm...
!