FX-70, 72 and 74 Prices

[Furen]

AMD said that you'd be able to buy a pair of CPUs for well below $1000... so now we know that "well below" means $1 less than one grand.

Prices, according to the Inquirer:

FX-70: Two 2.6GHz Dual Core CPUs with 1MB L2 per core - $999
FX-72: Two 2.6GHz Dual Core CPUs with 1MB L2 per core - $1132
FX-74: Two 3.0GHz Dual Core CPUs with 1MB L2 per core - $1500

Here's the source...

Well, so much for that "well below" thing. According to the same article they MAY even require registered ECC DDR2. So it looks like they'll be Opterons with a different name. I suppose workstation users will benefit greatly from these, since they will be way cheaper than Opteron 2xxxs.

 

[RichUK]

$1500 for the FX74, what is AMD thinking, if they want to be competitive atleast be competitive on the price front. I think prices were leaked a little while ago about the Core 2 Quad being released at ~$1200. However please correct me if im wrong.

Also AMD must be making a hefty loss in comparison to Intel?s quad core solution. (Very basic) The way I see it, AMD use more transistors a larger fabrication process, and two processor packages (plus the cost of two heatsinks). As you can see this is reflected in the end price.

But then again AMD probably don?t forecast much demand for the top end 4x4. Or for the whole 4x4 range for that matter. I?d be interested to know how many 4x4 units AMD shift by the end of this year or upto the second quarter of next year, compared to Core 2 Quad.

 

[harpoon84]

So AMD wants to charge $1500 for a 3GHz FX that will match a $300 E6600. Nice work.

What about 4x4 at these kind of prices? $3000 for 2 x FX 74s that probably would be outperformed by a $1000 Kentsfield.

You must be kidding me.

 

[Pabster]

Assuming those figures are accurate, AMD is smoking some serious crack.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
So AMD wants to charge $1500 for a 3GHz FX that will match a $300 E6600. Nice work.

What about 4x4 at these kind of prices? $3000 for 2 x FX 74s that probably would be outperformed by a $1000 Kentsfield.

You must be kidding me.

This IS the 4x4, these ARE the prices.
2xFX-74 would be 4 processors with 2 cores each.
FX-74 = 2 processors, each being 3GHz dual core.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: RichUK
Also AMD must be making a hefty loss in comparison to Intel?s quad core solution. (Very basic) The way I see it, AMD use more transistors a larger fabrication process, and two processor packages (plus the cost of two heatsinks). As you can see this is reflected in the end price.

AMD will be making a killing at those prices; they certainly won't be losing money. Expensive top end processors are expensive because of demand, and they are top of the line because of sorting, not because they cost any more to make.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: RichUK
Also AMD must be making a hefty loss in comparison to Intel?s quad core solution. (Very basic) The way I see it, AMD use more transistors a larger fabrication process, and two processor packages (plus the cost of two heatsinks). As you can see this is reflected in the end price.

AMD will be making a killing at those prices; they certainly won't be losing money. Expensive top end processors are expensive because of demand, and they are top of the line because of sorting, not because they cost any more to make.

My point was the complete production cost against Intel and their single socket dual 65nm chip. It?s a pretty moot point because I doubt AMD will shift large volumes anyway, well in comparison to their current products that is.

 

[Polish3d]

I would bet that an E6600 overclocked to 3.71ghz would be faster than 2 X2's at 3.0ghz in (obviously) singlethreaded and many multithreaded apps, but we'll see.

 

[dexvx]

There will be a market for these. There will be idiots buying these. There are already mis-informed (or people living in a cave thinking X2 > C2D clock for clock). The AM2 X2-5000 MSRP is $350, and yet Newegg and most sites are selling them nicely at $500. So yea... for the price of a Core2 E6600 and a NICE motherboard, you can own an AM2 X2-5000+. The X2 has held the performance crown for so long, there is still a sizeable population believing that the X2 is superior to the Core2. AMD has held the performance/Mhz crown for even LONGER so a lot of people think a 3Ghz X2 > 3Ghz Core2.

 

[m21s]

You guys realize these are 4x4 Quad cores right?

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: m21s
You guys realize these are 4x4 Quad cores right?

No we realise that these are dual socket dual cores

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: m21s
You guys realize these are 4x4 Quad cores right?

No we realise that these are dual socket dual cores

exactly...the CPU is no different than say a regular X2 or Opteron except they're designed to be run in a dual socket motherboard.

So it's still slower than a C2D.

There is nothing revolutionary here that will suddenly make everyone believe that OcHungry was right all along (to those of you who get that joke )

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: m21s
You guys realize these are 4x4 Quad cores right?

No we realise that these are dual socket dual cores

exactly...the CPU is no different than say a regular X2 or Opteron except they're designed to be run in a dual socket motherboard.

So it's still slower than a C2D.

There is nothing revolutionary here that will suddenly make everyone believe that OcHungry was right all along (to those of you who get that joke )

my memory bw is bettar!

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: m21s
You guys realize these are 4x4 Quad cores right?

No we realise that these are dual socket dual cores

exactly...the CPU is no different than say a regular X2 or Opteron except they're designed to be run in a dual socket motherboard.

So it's still slower than a C2D.

There is nothing revolutionary here that will suddenly make everyone believe that OcHungry was right all along (to those of you who get that joke )

my memory bw is bettar!

Bandwidth? when your Intel system gets 97% effeciency (according to sandra benchmark) and your score looks like This do you need more?