Athlon 64 X2 6000+ released 90nm/AM2 part

[nyker96]

Anyone think AMD is pointlessly in releasing those old parts just to buy time til K8L? It's becoming painful to watch 'new' AMD releases these days esp. with old stuff like 90nm parts. or 65nm can't clock. Feels like they got nothing in the tank. Starting with the AM2 platform release past year, there don't seem to be anything exciting coming out of them now.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

It's not pointless. They can now say that they have a mainstream (non-FX) chip at 3.0GHz with all the L2 cache. It just rounds up the line-up; 3GHz looks nice when compared to X6800's 2.93GHz when looking at high-end PCs from Dell, Alienware etc.

 

[MegaWorks]

I'm sorry but the majorities in the maket are not Overclockers. An Athlon 64 X2 @ 3.0Ghz is still very fast for most applications.

 

[Xcobra]

Originally posted by: MegaWorks
I'm sorry but the majorities in the maket are not Overclockers. An Athlon 64 X2 @ 3.0Ghz is still very fast for most applications.

QFT.

 

[A554SS1N]

Originally posted by: nyker96
Anyone think AMD is pointlessly in releasing those old parts just to buy time til K8L? It's becoming painful to watch 'new' AMD releases these days esp. with old stuff like 90nm parts. or 65nm can't clock. Feels like they got nothing in the tank. Starting with the AM2 platform release past year, there don't seem to be anything exciting coming out of them now.

What is AMD supposed to do? Sit still? It might as well learn how to get higher frequencies while it can, and put that knowledge to good use in their next architecture - look how P4 high frequency knowledge has helped Intel's Core 2 architecture to hit very good frequencies already.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I agree with the OP. For the price, the 6000+ is not a good performer. Why pay ~$600 for a 3 ghz X2 when you can shell out less for an E6700 that will yield better performance? If you're not going to OC, you could probably get an E6700 + i945 board for the same price as the X2 6000+

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
I agree with the OP. For the price, the 6000+ is not a good performer. Why pay ~$600 for a 3 ghz X2 when you can shell out less for an E6700 that will yield better performance? If you're not going to OC, you could probably get an E6700 + i945 board for the same price as the X2 6000+

Why did ppl continue to buy intell when amd was squashing them into the ground.

 

[verndewd]

Originally posted by: MegaWorks
I'm sorry but the majorities in the maket are not Overclockers. An Athlon 64 X2 @ 3.0Ghz is still very fast for most applications.

I will second that and add its not really enthusiast grade,and for the money?90nm is getting old ,and personally i find it annoying that they are still doing it.Sorry to say this but my attitude is kill k8 amd bring on the L already.

At least High k is nearer than it was prior to intels announcement.Thats funny when you think about it;makes you wonder if Intel played that card to see what the consortium was holding.Lets hope that AMD looks at this like most enthusiasts ,as an uncomfortable obligation.

 

[verndewd]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
I agree with the OP. For the price, the 6000+ is not a good performer. Why pay ~$600 for a 3 ghz X2 when you can shell out less for an E6700 that will yield better performance? If you're not going to OC, you could probably get an E6700 + i945 board for the same price as the X2 6000+

Why did ppl continue to buy intell when amd was squashing them into the ground.

Thats what the lawsuit is about,blocking oems or penalizing them for stock margins that were too high on AMD.
Reason 2 is lack of brand recognition,Amd has no advertising.I have even suggested commercials to try and get them to do some;but its not where they are at.If amd was as popular in everyday life as intel ,2003 would have been the start of a very problematic period for intel,they would have lost alot more than they did.But Amd could not have supplied that much product anyway,If they could have intel would have been decimated with an equally recognizable brand.

Hopefully intel appreciates the fact that AMD doesnt advertise and is not as well known.If it were that AMD had the same capabilities and recognition,it would have been a disaster for intel.especially considering prescott.K8 was the death blow that couldnt be realized.

 

[jazzboy]

I would say that the X2 6000+ should be a pretty good performer and you would be unlikely to tell the difference between that and the X6800.

HOWEVER, I'd be interested to know what the default VID for the 6000+ is, cos AMD increased the VID for the FX-74 to 1.475 (i think). If they have increased it for the 6000+ then I do hope there's adequate cooling and even then I'd still be concerned about the lifespan. Yes I know on here people always say that by the time a CPU dies it'll be too slow anyway, but for us we do pass computers down to others in the family when it's no longer good enough for us - so it is a concern if the CPU dies after only 5 years.

 

[Gikaseixas]

It's not a wast of time releasing it because not everyone overclocks and if Dell or HP can offer an alternative to their own top end Conroes why not? I worked for Best Buy for 2 years and a regular buyer would always ask for the competition's alternative if available. See AMD has to think about everything, it's about marketing.

 

[mhahnheuser]

Most consumers don't generally buy the fastest CPU avaiable. Especially not overclockers as they take pride themselves in ecipsing the performance of the big guys. So this leaves the big end of town and they would have to weigh up the whole system price. Have you tried a C2D on integrated graphics? It's not a pc on my shopping list, give me a solo 3500+ & a decent vid card any day, and then I might just slap in the 6000+ down the track and see how it goes. I think I just might be able to live with the disappointment.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: jazzboy
I would say that the X2 6000+ should be a pretty good performer and you would be unlikely to tell the difference between that and the X6800.

I doubt that. The 6000+ should turn out to be slightly slower than the 6700+ on average (varying depending on app, memory used, etc).

HOWEVER, I'd be interested to know what the default VID for the 6000+ is, cos AMD increased the VID for the FX-74 to 1.475 (i think). If they have increased it for the 6000+ then I do hope there's adequate cooling and even then I'd still be concerned about the lifespan.

Yes, the default vcore for the FX-74 is high, but the listed default vcore for the 6000+ is only 1.30-1.35v:

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80743

Interesting eh?

 

[StopSign]

Originally posted by: MegaWorks
I'm sorry but the majorities in the maket are not Overclockers. An Athlon 64 X2 @ 3.0Ghz is still very fast for most applications.

Very fast but still not fast enough. You can never have too much speed.

AMD should just brand all their processors as 3800+ and start wholesaling.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: StopSign

Originally posted by: MegaWorks
I'm sorry but the majorities in the maket are not Overclockers. An Athlon 64 X2 @ 3.0Ghz is still very fast for most applications.

Very fast but still not fast enough. You can never have too much speed.

AMD should just brand all their processors as 3800+ and start wholesaling.

lol