AMD Athlon 64 FX-64 is lunching in Q4, clocked at 3GHz

dafloppyone · 12 Jul 2006 at 12:03

n other news, sources indicates that AMD Athlon 64 FX-64 is lunching in Q4, clocked at 3GHz, possessed 1MB x2 L2 Cache, and kept in 125 TDP. It is expected to price at US$1031, while AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 will drop to US$999, fighting with Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800. As expected, Intel also plans to release new Intel Core 2 Extreme into this war. Besides, with 65W TDP already existed in Athlon 64 X2 4600+(2.4GHz/512KBx2 L2), 4200+(2.2GHz/512KBx2 L2) and 3800+(2GHz/512KBx2 L2), AMD is going to expanse 65W TDP to the whole Athlon 64 X2 family in Q3. Athlon 64 X2 5000+ will appear in both 65W and 89W TDP versions, priced at US$465 and US$403, while the new Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (2.6GHz/1MBx2 L2) has 65W TDP only, priced at US$541.
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=629102&starttime=0&endtime=0

Zefan · 12 Jul 2006 at 12:05

The only way AMD can compete without a rethink of architecture has to be on price, not simply on faster clock speeds. The X2's can never beat the Core 2 Duo, so will have to either be cheaper or make a new chip.

Corasik · 12 Jul 2006 at 15:50

Reducing the price of the FX62 to compete with Core 2 Duo X6800, thats a laugh, E6700 easily beats the FX62, AMD need to lower the price of the FX62 to around $300 per 1k units for it to compete with Core 2.

Wouldnt be surprised to see the E6700 beating FX64 at stock speeds in a good number of benches, even if it doesnt, X6800 will own it.

125W TDP? And people complained when intel announced that high end P4D's would be 130W.

jadeskye · 12 Jul 2006 at 16:20

from what i understand AMD has a new stepping planned in 07/08 called K8L that's supposed to be the conroe killer but i doubt that'll happen.

AMD is in a big position, they've either gotta spend a lot of money to avoid utter defeat or lose a lot of money in utter defeat.

Long story short they stand to lose a lot of money.

Zefan · 12 Jul 2006 at 16:24

No doubt the DDR3 based AMD stuff will be great, but people don't want to wait that long. These chips have nothing to do with it, so unfortunately AM2 is already a dead socket.

drunkenmaster · 12 Jul 2006 at 19:00

what the hell are people on, for one thing the k8l chips are coming out in 6 months on am2, am3 is pin compatible with am2(i think the idea is am3 chips will work with ddr2 in am2 boards, or am3 boards with ddr3). k8l will also be what quad cores launch in and judging by very early numbers on the kentsfield(intel quad core) even with something that "should" fit in cache it takes a 25% hit in speed per core when all 4 cores run due to a very inefficient connection to the memory. a k8l quad core is faster clock for clock than what a current k8 quad core would work like, added to its already far more efficent connection to the memory and quad core k8l's start looking VERY good in theory.

k8l's will undoubtedly be better, by a decent amount, than the k8.

as for the fx62, its end of life, theres only going to be a few left after the fx64 launches its dropping price slightly to sell the last few thats it. the fx64 won't be faster than a conroe, but in the same sense a 6700 is only marginally slower than a x6800, yet the price difference is vastly more. fx64's will still sell, they sell a tiny amount and are there largely to encourage buyers that there is something really great, and getting a chip largely similar for half the price is a good deal. 99% of people won't know the x6800 is faster than the fx64, we do, most of the world doesn't.

jadeskye, before a new architechture is launched there will already be teams working on the one two in the future. k8l has been a long time in the works, as has conroe, as has kentsfield, and amd quad cores, and the mobile specific amd chips due out end of next year. this is investment companies have to spend to not die off. conroe launching now won't make amd suddenly think they need a new design and spend loads making one, they've been spending for years and will continue to do so forever.

i can't remember all the stuff k8l is bringing, a larger and much better branch predicter, improved mem controllers, larger sse2/3 units i believe and just a bunch of stuff really all which will improve clock for clock performance.

FrankJH · 12 Jul 2006 at 19:31

I for one am looking forward to the K8L, it sounds good but personally think AMD need it sooner than 6 months - or its going to be a very painful 6 months

The major legal case between AMD and Intel has seemingly died down since it was announced a few months ago - hope AMD arent relying on this to slow Intel down (I doubt it but you never know)

Dureth · 12 Jul 2006 at 19:42

*Sigh*

AMD will not find the next 6 months that hard. 99% of people wouldn't know that Core 2 was faster than Athlon 64 even with a full spec sheet. Most of AMD and Intel's profit does not come from people like us with a good knowledge of the hardware. It comes from those who walk into Purple Shirt Land and buy a PC off the shelf. I think AMd will see very little difference in its sales figures after Core 2 is released.

6 months until its new CPU comes out is not that long for a company AMD's size. After the Athlon 64 was released it took 6 months for people to stop buying new socket A systems. The majority of Intel chips sold for 3-4 months after Core 2 is released will still be P4's.

I'm not saying that Intel isn't faster than AMD with Core 2 or anything like that. Just that the reality of the business is very different to how we percieve it.

locutus12 · 12 Jul 2006 at 19:57

Dureth said:
*Sigh*

AMD will not find the next 6 months that hard. 99% of people wouldn't know that Core 2 was faster than Athlon 64 even with a full spec sheet. Most of AMD and Intel's profit does not come from people like us with a good knowledge of the hardware. It comes from those who walk into Purple Shirt Land and buy a PC off the shelf. I think AMd will see very little difference in its sales figures after Core 2 is released.

6 months until its new CPU comes out is not that long for a company AMD's size. After the Athlon 64 was released it took 6 months for people to stop buying new socket A systems. The majority of Intel chips sold for 3-4 months after Core 2 is released will still be P4's.

I'm not saying that Intel isn't faster than AMD with Core 2 or anything like that. Just that the reality of the business is very different to how we percieve it.

this man has said exactly what i was going to say... there are some people with very daft ideas on these forums....

some people around here come across a little bit like this...

"on no`s its conroes...! amd`s will die from uber intel leetness!" ...

grow up.

Corasik · 12 Jul 2006 at 20:57

K8L may come out in 6 months on the Opteron platform, but the current roadmaps do not indicate an Athlon based on K8L for a long time.

K8L may not give enough performance boost to applications without recompilation of applications, and unless I am much mistaken its main improvements are in floating point. Its targetted as a workstation/server chip.

Intel have got a full roadmap including new core architechures every couple of years. Sure AMD will probably regain a competative position, but I dont believe that we'll see intel as the performance underdog for 3 years, as they were with Netburst repeated with the Core architecture.

Corasik · 12 Jul 2006 at 21:04

Dureth said:
*Sigh*

AMD will not find the next 6 months that hard. 99% of people wouldn't know that Core 2 was faster than Athlon 64 even with a full spec sheet. Most of AMD and Intel's profit does not come from people like us with a good knowledge of the hardware. It comes from those who walk into Purple Shirt Land and buy a PC off the shelf. I think AMd will see very little difference in its sales figures after Core 2 is released.

6 months until its new CPU comes out is not that long for a company AMD's size. After the Athlon 64 was released it took 6 months for people to stop buying new socket A systems. The majority of Intel chips sold for 3-4 months after Core 2 is released will still be P4's.

I'm not saying that Intel isn't faster than AMD with Core 2 or anything like that. Just that the reality of the business is very different to how we percieve it.

Good point, but thats a point in Intels favour. AMD's strong customer base is with people who do know better. The average guy on the street are still buying Dell/Intel boxes. Sure Dell may well sell some AMD boxes soon, but who knows how that will affect the general public's buying habits.

AMD has the 'retail chip' market, because its mostly enthusiasts and knowledgable people who buy a chip without it already being inside a computer. In 'pre built' systems intel chips are still very common indeed.

AMD are going to have to reduce the cost of Athlon X2 and tighten their belts a little.

Dureth · 12 Jul 2006 at 23:52

There are far more AMD chips for sale in the highstreet these days than our crowd seems to know. We all assume that its still Intel dominated, but when was the last time you took a walk thorugh PC world checking the specs of the PC's on display?

A lot of HP systems and the cheaper pre-builts come with AMD CPU's. Even to AMD we do not make up that big a share of the market.

Yes it will hurt AMD a little but not enough for them to worry in the slightest.

Gashman · 13 Jul 2006 at 00:21

locutus12 said:
this man has said exactly what i was going to say... there are some people with very daft ideas on these forums....

some people around here come across a little bit like this...

"on no`s its conroes...! amd`s will die from uber intel leetness!" ...

grow up.

see now you know why i have grown to passionately 'hate' the whole conroe thing, too many bloody people are talking utter **** 'conroe beats the FX62, AMD are dead', who the hell do you think cares, the TINY majority of computer buyers know anything about clock for clock performance, clock frequencies, bleeding benchmarks or anything about the actual processor itself. core 2 duo (rubbish name by the way) won't sell much by its performance since not all the computer buying community go hunting for 'benchmarks' its advertisement that sells conroe not its performance alone. to cut it short, AMD aren't gone, conroe shouldn't affect athlon sales too much, all AMD need to do to INCREASE revenue is to get some off the shelf PC makers onboard. and finally please stop ranting on how 'such and such won't beat conroe' cause at the end of the day you have no bloody idea what AMD are planning, designing and finalising, so don't pretend to know everything.

for the record this isn't directed at anyone in particular so i don't want to get crap or abuse for it, its just directed to the whole 'conroe fanbase' and people saying AMD are doomed

locutus12 · 13 Jul 2006 at 00:50

Gashman said:
**Snip**

for the record this isn't directed at anyone in particular so i don't want to get crap or abuse for it, its just directed to the whole 'conroe fanbase' and people saying AMD are doomed

common sense, how refreshing

Traducer · 13 Jul 2006 at 01:17

This is certainly an interesting time for both Intel and AMD, however I am curious to what AMD will pull out of there sleave this time around, they usually come up with the goods, but Intel really do have a nice solid chip with Conroe.
I have to agree with Gashman, what a crappy name it is indeed, Conroe?
Reminds me of some kind of fish or something, Conroe and Chips anyone?

Vertigo · 13 Jul 2006 at 07:47

Dureth said:
*Sigh*

AMD will not find the next 6 months that hard. 99% of people wouldn't know that Core 2 was faster than Athlon 64 even with a full spec sheet. Most of AMD and Intel's profit does not come from people like us with a good knowledge of the hardware. It comes from those who walk into Purple Shirt Land and buy a PC off the shelf. I think AMd will see very little difference in its sales figures after Core 2 is released.

Nail. Head.

If Intel were about to destroy AMD the way many on here are proposing, due to the Core2's superior performance, then why hasn't this happened in reverse over the past few years when AMD has had clearly superior performance to Intel?

Virtually any modern processor (unless it's a budget line like Celeron or Sempron) is capable of performing 95% of the things that 95% of customers want to do. The only real need for the absolute top of the range processors like the AMD FX and Intel P4/Core2 Extreme is if you have very heavy computational tasks to perform such as image/video processing, where time literally is money. Yes these chips will be faster for everything but at double the price for a 10-15% performance boost which just isn't worth it. I still contend that the majority of people on here who've pre-ordered the X6800 Extreme have done so more for prestige and bragging rights than outright performance as by any "back per buck" measure, these processors are a joke. (Just so you know I'm not bashing Intel, the same would apply to anyone buying an FX-62/64 or who has, in the past, ordered the "premium" top of the range processor).

Imy · 13 Jul 2006 at 12:44

In reply to the original post: Intel is releasing a range of processors which are reasonably priced, don't consume much power and outperform the top amd chip, and in response amd are releasing a ridiculously expensive and power hungry chip.

Assuming the FX series of chips are aimed at enthusiasts (I can't see too many regular people splashing out on an FX) and that enthusiasts are likely to know about Conroe, how do AMD plan to sell these chips? Or is it just ill-informed rich people that are gonna buy them?

Core 2 Duo is a rubbish name, although I quite like the dev name Conroe.

I don't pretend to know anything about K8L, but from what people say its going to be good, however I've heard so many conflicting reports on when its going to be due for release. Can someone who knows for sure reply and say when we can expect to see a desktop K8L chip available to buy?

drunkenmaster · 13 Jul 2006 at 13:01

the roadmaps say nothing about which chips out when are k8l or k8, they basically say what rough speed grades are out when for current chips. you can't tell from any roadmap when either server aimed or desktop based k8l's are out yet people are trying to say opterons will be out 6months to a year before the desktops based on nothing, except maybe because thats what happened for xp to ath 64 transition but that was a very different matter.

conroe is stronger mainly on the fpu over ath 64, it has more fpu's so is stronger so stregthening the k8l fpu is the way to match up, though i don't know/think they are adding an extra unit, afaik its basically making existing bits more efficient.

amd sells almost no fx's now even while they are right now the better chip and over the last few months have definately been the best chips. they sell a tiny, miniscule, make zero difference to amd's profit margins type numbers of chips.

say they sold 5 fx's, for every 5 they'd sell 1000 x2 5000+'s, 4000 4800+, 1000 4400+'s, and 20000 3800+'s and on and on. despite the profit on the fx being a much larger percentage, £500 profit x 5 is nothing on £100 profit x 10000 or £80 x 20000. they are a prestige model, the same way intel sells 2x 7950 in dells(and can just about be used with hacked drivers finally in retail i think) almost no one can afford them but nvidia can go ahead and claim on every single box they sell on ANY product that "nvidia make the fastest gaming systems on earth", this doesn't mean a 6200 can beat a x1900xt, but they can still legally say it, put it on the box, say it in reviews and sway people to think they should buy the 6200.

thats what the fx is for, thats what the x6800 is for. honestly a x6800 with same cache as a 6600 or a 6700 but for vastly more cache, even at stock you'd never notice a difference in games, you would in encoding but not if you overclocked both on air to around the same speeds.

Gibbs · 13 Jul 2006 at 13:18

am gonna build a nice wee cheap S939 setup once AMD drop the prices on the current line of chips, that will hold me out untill K8L which i dont see happening within 6months.