Athlon FX Prices??

curtisbouvier

Member
Oct 25, 2004
88
0
0
I dont know about you guys but the FX55 has been the same price now for the last 6 months, this seem a little bit rediculous, as well most of the other cpu's have also been the same prices with absolutly no drop, is the FX 55 all we need now, does AMD plan on releasing anything new in the next decade or?:|
 

theMan

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2005
4,386
0
0
the fx55 has dropped considerably. this winter is was in the upper 900's now you can get one for 800 dollars. also, they have switched over to 90nm san diego cores, so they overclock way better. they are ready to release the fx57, but they want to sqeeze as much money as they can out of the fx55 so the fx57 wont ship for a few months.
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
1) AMD has just released dual core processors. 2) The FX-55's price hasn't dropped that much becuase the demand for it is very low (most people don't have 800+ to spend on a CPU). Don't get an FX, get a new Athlon64 X2 4400+, and overclock it. You can probably reach 2.6GHz easy, and you have 2 cores instead of 1.
 

fishbits

Senior member
Apr 18, 2005
286
0
0
The FX-55's price hasn't dropped that much becuase the demand for it is very low (most people don't have 800+ to spend on a CPU).
No, the demand for the FX-55 is very high, which is why the price hasn't dropped much. Too many people want them compared to how many can be made. So what does a company do when the demand is high? Use a higher price so that nearly all of the product sells while return is maximized.

the FX55 has been the same price now for the last 6 months, this seem a little bit rediculous
Imagine the money AMD could save by firing all their business people and hiring one forum poster who can decide what their prices "should" be for a product sold to millions around the globe, based soley on his personal wants.

Everyone wants more powerful cpus and wants them cheaper too. But please at least have run a lemonade stand before telling a multi-national CPU manufacturer what their prices ought to be. Or at least let us know what you're charging for the x86 processors you're selling.
 

curtisbouvier

Member
Oct 25, 2004
88
0
0
All i am saying is usually the prices drop nicely every 3 months or so, and by the time 2/3 of a year go buy, its usually half price. The FX is pretty much the first cpu in a long time to not have BUDGED. Why dont they keep making faster CPU's, like the FX 57, FX 59, etc, etc,

???
 

theMan

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2005
4,386
0
0
because they want money. if the fx55 outperforms any cpu out there, why should that make a faster one?
 

curtisbouvier

Member
Oct 25, 2004
88
0
0
aahhhh i see, hehe, so it's INTEL, damn those intel guys, laying down on the job... "not being a part of the big picture". I wonder what the hold up is with intel, as they clearly Don't have the fastest cpu "Out there".
 

coomar

Banned
Apr 4, 2005
2,431
0
0
there is only one fx at any one time and its supposed to be the flagship cpu, why would it experience pricedrops
 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
The FX-55 and soon to be 57 are expensive because nothing competes with them.. ( Aside from Dual Core coming down the pipe )

If Intel starts taking the lead back eventually, AMD's prices will reflect it.
 

BitByBit

Senior member
Jan 2, 2005
473
2
81
I doubt AMD makes much from their FX line, considering the likely numbers of them sold.
I think AMD really needs to give users more of an incentive to buy FXs, whether that's a reduction in price, or perhaps a 2MB L2. A fully unlocked multiplier just isn't worth the extra cash IMO, especially considering experienced overclockers can acheive the same OCs on up-locked Athlons.
 

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
1
0
The FX is not a big money-maker, it is more there as a flagship part to win benchmarks. Otherwise, Intel will say they have the fastest CPU and that AMD is somehow behind in technology. Notice how almost every benchmark on the internet(especially on AT) is using FXs and EEs? If they just took regular lower models and OCed them, everyone would cry foul. However, if they use a super high end model that almost no one will ever actually buy, then no one seems to care.
 

Unkno

Golden Member
Jun 16, 2005
1,659
0
0
Well, if you really want to buy a FX you could search it on ebay, i've seen them being sold for around $300 from someone with good feedback
 

Diogenes2

Platinum Member
Jul 26, 2001
2,151
0
0
Originally posted by: curtisbouvier
All i am saying is usually the prices drop nicely every 3 months or so, and by the time 2/3 of a year go buy, its usually half price. The FX is pretty much the first cpu in a long time to not have BUDGED. Why dont they keep making faster CPU's, like the FX 57, FX 59, etc, etc,

???
Prices only drop when supply exceeds demand.. Has nothing to do with ' how much you want one '....

fishbits Pretty much covered it...

 

Aries64

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2004
1,030
0
0
Originally posted by: Diogenes2
Originally posted by: curtisbouvier
All i am saying is usually the prices drop nicely every 3 months or so, and by the time 2/3 of a year go buy, its usually half price. The FX is pretty much the first cpu in a long time to not have BUDGED. Why dont they keep making faster CPU's, like the FX 57, FX 59, etc, etc,

???
Prices only drop when supply exceeds demand.. Has nothing to do with ' how much you want one '....

fishbits Pretty much covered it...
Also, besides AMD having migrated their entire CPU line over to 90nm process and getting the X2s ready, AMD has no reason to rush the next FX (FX-57) out the door until Intel release their next iteration of their high-end gaming CPU. AMD is already killing Intel in the gaming arena and has been for quite some time now.

Historically, AMD's strong suit was always the price/performance ratio compared to Intel. Intel's strongsuit was overall performance and "compatibility". Intel also used to be better at certain tasks such as video encoding. People used to buy AMD processors because they were less expensive - and they often had to "settle" on an AMD. Not anymore. AMD has come into it's own and is a hell of a lot more of a threat to Intel than they used to be. I like it.

Take this from an ex-Intel user. I'm not married to AMD or Intel. I use whatever suits me best. I built my first AMD machine (see sig below) last year. Great gaming and single application performance can take a hit when running multiple applications, which really wasn't the case with my old P4 3.4C (Northwood).

Its' X2 time...

 

dev0lution

Senior member
Dec 23, 2004
472
0
0
The price drops with the other A64's as availability gets better and newer chips come out. The FX series availability is more limited and hence stays at a higher price. Plus, AMD only needs to price it competitively relative to Intel's offering and when's the last time you saw a cheap Extreme Edition?

FX's are a flagship product and prices won't dip until the FX-57 launches, and even then it will only be a short while until they're phased out.
 

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,303
4
81
San Diego 4000+ OCed = just as good as an FX-55 or FX-57.

Heck, even a 3700+ might make it that far.