10-19-2004 08:52 PM
New AMD chips out, frankly im not that impressed, the FX-55 is still on a .13micron process, its thermal output is now 103W, AMD provides a new heatpipe imbedded heatsink. Yes you have improved performance, duh. But if you are in the market for a new top end processor, i would wait till .90 micron process and i hear SSE3 support will come soon. The 4000+ is simply an FX-53 with the multiplier locked, its performance is nearly identicale to that of the 3800+, same as FX-53.
10-19-2004 09:24 PM
If AMD grew a brain of logic, they'd sell them for <$500 and be able to compete with Intel's best, which it generally already has the lead in anyway. Imagine, an FX-55 for $500. Then they all become lower as PR numbers drop. Then we'd have Intel losing $$ big time I think.
10-19-2004 09:59 PM
We need an FX series card that is good, cant wait til the FX-59, its supposed to be in the making right now. if it's .90 nm it should be wicked fast as far as I'm concerned
CPU/Mobo: AMD Athlon 64 3000+ "NewCastle" / ASUS K8V-X S754
RAM: 1 GB Kingston Hyper-X PC-2700 RAM
GPU: Powercolor ATI Radeon 9550 [BIOS Flashed to 9600]
DVD-ROM: HP DVD Writer 530ri 8x DVD±R/RW, 2.4x DL
Monitor: Neovo 17" LCD Monitor @ 4ms Response
CPU: AMD Turion 64-X2 TL-50 @ 1600 Mhz
RAM: 512 MB DDR2 PC4300
GPU: 128 MB NVidia GeForce GO 6100
DVD-ROM: LG DVD-Multi ±R/RW/DL
10-19-2004 10:05 PM
They all talk about a price drop. How much a drop are we talking for lower chips?
Pentium 4 3.0E Prescott
MSI 865PE Neo2-P (Platnium Edition)
Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
Western Digital 36Gb Raptor 10K RPM
Antec TrueBlue 480W Power Supply
LiteOn DVD+/-R 832S
ChenMing 601AE Case
3DMark2001SE -> 18062
10-19-2004 10:25 PM
Since they are on the 0.13 micron process the 3700+, 3800+, 4000+ FX 55, are all expensive chips to produce.
Interestingly enough though AMD Athlon FX 55 is a test bed for Strained Silicon technology, in addition to the regular PD-SOI AMD has been using.
Both these new processors have astronomical prices.
AMD can't make too many processor at 2.6GHZ yet from the looks of things, so they only release their flgship with this amount of GHZ. perhaps later when the 90nm process matures we will see 2.6GHZ in the volume Athlon 64 line.
ASUS CUV4X VIA694X Chipset with Pentium 3 CuMine 800MHZ FSB133
512MB Generic PC-133 SDRAM and ASUS V9280/TD Geforce 4 Ti4200-8x at Stock Speeds
Western Digital 160GB (149GB) 7200RPM ATA100 @ATA66 8MB Cache
Maxtor 30.7GB (28.6GB) 7200RPM ATA66 2MB Cache
LG GSA-H10N 16x/16x + 8x/6x DVD-RW and Asus DVD-E616P2 16x/40x DVD-ROM
Samsung SyncMaster 760V TFT LCD 25ms @ 1280x1024 and 72Hz
Sound Blaster Live! X-Gamer and Cambridge Soundworks FPS2000 Digital 4.1
Microsoft Intellieye Mouse Optical and Microsoft Internet Keyboard
Rogers Cable Internet 5000/800 on Motorola Surfboard 5100
Windows XP Pro SP2 RTM Build 2180
10-19-2004 10:33 PM
Although I agree that the prices for the FX55 and the 4000+ are rather high, (where have the good ol' days gone when you could get an AMD for 90 bucks that performed as well as 200 doolar P4) you have to keep in mind that these things out-perform their Intel counterparts in almsot every test, and they are still cheaper. you also l have to look at the tremendous price drop we've seen on the lower to mid range .Athlon 64's, take for example the 3400+ you can get it for 245 bucks and you'll have one HELL of a fast system.
i7 920/Radeon 4890/eVGA X58/6 gigs Gskill/SS FT01-BW/ Samsung 245BW 24" LCD
10-19-2004 10:50 PM
Why would they have to do that? They are already cheaper then what they are competing against. You might want to "grow a brain of logic".
INTEL | C2Q Q9300
ASUS | P5E-VM HDMI
G.SKILL | 2GBx4 (8GB) F2-8500CL5D
ASUS | EAH4850
SEAGATE | 2X 500GB SATAII (RAID 0)
ASUS | DRW-2014S1T DVD-+R/W
SILVERSTONE | SG02B-F
SILVERSTONE | ST50EF-SC 500W PSU
DELL | 2005FPW 20.1" LCD
10-19-2004 11:34 PM
I am not one to brag about anything, but i really see the 3800+ in a the next few months as a best buy really on the high end. You wont burn 850 bucks in your pocket for the 55 which is still on a .13 process, and the performance is nearly identicaly to that of the 53 and 4000+
10-20-2004 04:12 AM
I like to set price limitations for myself, just so I don't lose my ass too badly in the long run. I'll occasionally go slightly over them, but never by much. Limitations are as follows...
Hard Drive: $150
So this means that the maximum cost for the computer itself can never exceed $1250, regardless of what's out on the market. Using these guildelines, you'll still get an excellent performing system that's not too far off from the bleeding edge.
I don't have a problem with opening up my wallet for other components however, such as Speakers, Monitor, and Keyboard/Mouse. These are all items that should last you 5+ years, and are very important for the overall comfort and experience you have. Speakers in particular should be able to last you indefinately (or at least in excess of 10 years).
10-20-2004 06:54 AM
it makes sense for amd to stagger tis prices. Im sure it could bring out a shedload of 90nm s939 chips if it wanted (given the overclocks these are getting) but it decided not to. Price performance wise amd is still win, its selling all the chips it can (it doubt it can produce anymore) while intel has huge invatories. i really doubt there is much more they can do at the moment to try and edge out their lead.
shuttle sn95g5, amd 3500+, 1g ram, 9600pro, 160gb maxtor pata hd. iiyama e481s 16ms 19inch LCD
10-20-2004 08:25 AM
If you wanna call a $630 processor a "best buy" then I'd say that's some pretty strong stuff you're smokin there.
Especially when you can get a S754 3400+ which runs at the same 2.4Ghz for $245. The only difference is it doesn't have dual channel memory, but that's hardly worth the price premium.
Future proof?? Hell, for $400 I'll gladly buy a new motherboard later down the road.
10-20-2004 12:36 PM - edited 10-20-2004 12:36 PM
That's the reason why I'm waiting till mid 2005 to build my uber computer I'll have 3,000 dollars to spend then. I can't wait to see the performance of the FX 57
Message Edited by RoiBoy on 10-20-2004 01:01 PM
:: Asus SK8N Motherboard : : Athlon 64 FX-51 : : 2 Gigs of Corsair XMS Platinum DDR 400 : : Creative Audigy 2 Platinum : : 80 Gig Western Digital Special Edition HD : : 250 Gig Western Digital HD : : PNY GeForce 6800 GT : : NEC DVD +\- RW x8 Drive : : Sony 16X DVD ROM : : Aspire 500W Power Suppiy : : Antec P-160 WF Case ::
10-20-2004 04:55 PM - edited 10-20-2004 04:55 PM
I knew someone would counter me. Anyway, after reading coldpower's post, I know now why they're expensive. What I was saying was more towards the high-end realm of chips. Specifically, the FX series and 3800+ n such. If they'd sell them for less, they might get more money, but then again, since I have to "grow a brain of logic", most people wouldn't spend $500 on a CPU anyway. That's why they can charge $800 on a CPU. Intel is worse at $1000 per CPU with the EE line.
So, most people would like a processor for probably < $200, so that leaves AMD in the clear since they've got the best price/performance ratio, and best performance anyway. I'd like to get a CPU for < $100, and so would others, so maybe after a while, we'll have Athlon 64's for < $100, but for now, we have the cheapest at $141 Retail ($136 OEM).
Message Edited by gregorov_14 on 10-20-2004 03:56 PM
10-20-2004 06:24 PM
I find it kinda funny too, like in AP world history all my teacher talks about is supply and demand, everyone now wants either a 6800Ultra( i snagged one, hehe) or a X800XT PE, but noone can find them in stock, but when you buy them they are around the 500 dollar range, but i can right now snag a FX-53 off newegg for 850. The price is more when demand is lower, shouldnt it be the processor for 500 and the video card for 850? Wierd.
10-22-2004 12:35 AM
*Current* demand for 6800 Ultra and X800 XT PE is pretty high, but if they made too many of them, they would have a huge glut. AMD and Intel *control* the supply. They don't really try to make too many of their top parts because then the price would drop. They might make $20 to $50 on their cheaper processors, so they need to sell 10 to 30 of those to make about $500. Sell even *one* FX-55 at $850 or whatever, and they make $500. You don't drop prices unless you have to. Since Intel has basically axed thier P4 4.0 GHz part from this year, AMD has no competition on the highest-end parts. Not surprisingly, they're slowing down the price drops and release rate of new parts a bit. Something like that. This is why all sane people want AMD vs. Intel to be a close race, as well as ATI vs. NVIDIA.
Gigabyte GA-DQ6-X38 | Core 2 Quad Q6600
10-22-2004 01:32 AM
Reading the actual review now. A few comments.
1) Memory bandwidth. Remember that the 6.4 GB/s of potential memory bandwidth is really 6,400,000,000 bytes/sec. Converting into *actual* GB/s, the maximum transfer speed of the memory interface is 5.96 GB/s in 128-bit mode at 400 MHz. Hmm. Interesting. So, possibly due to caching, your results actually show transfers *higher* than the theoretical maximum. A slightly overclocked bus could also come into play. Anyway, for theoretical performance, it doesn't look like we could really get any faster than the Athlon 64.
2) "Like the other Futuremark application, PCMark04, 3DMark05 indicates that all of Intel’s high-end Pentium 4 chips, including the 3.4 GHz Prescott core, are better for gaming than the Athlon 64 FX-55, at least in the 3D test. The processor benchmark actually favors the Athlon 64 lineup, though the Pentium 4 is very much competitive." Unless the graphs are screwed up, 3DMark05 also prefers Intel in CPU performance. And people wonder why most knowledgeable folks despise FutureMark. Anyone here actually trust FutureMark to make a real-world benchmark?
Gigabyte GA-DQ6-X38 | Core 2 Quad Q6600