Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Last one I bought sure wasn't...
Black Edition doesn't really count either. Selling a $1000 unlocked Phenom that can just barely compete with a $300 locked Core2 is not a great idea. Unlock a $300 Phenom, and people might be interested.
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Last one I bought sure wasn't...
Black Edition doesn't really count either. Selling a $1000 unlocked Phenom that can just barely compete with a $300 locked Core2 is not a great idea. Unlock a $300 Phenom, and people might be interested.
Sooo, out of curiosity, when was the last time you actually went shopping for AMD CPUsOriginally posted by: ShawnD1
Last one I bought sure wasn't...
.
.
.
Selling a $1000 unlocked Phenom that can just barely compete with a $300 locked Core2 is not a great idea.
Originally posted by: aigomorla
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Last one I bought sure wasn't...
Black Edition doesn't really count either. Selling a $1000 unlocked Phenom that can just barely compete with a $300 locked Core2 is not a great idea. Unlock a $300 Phenom, and people might be interested.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103249
i think your seriously lost my friend.
That to me looks like a 235 dollar unlocked phenom.
If your paying 1000 for a unlocked phenom, i have some open front beach property in Ohio id like to sell you as well.
Seriously tho, only intel charges rediculous prices for unlocked processors now.
Originally posted by: Odeen
The point is to take the lowest end chip possible, and crank it up to run with the much more expensive big boys, which means AT LEAST a 50% overclock.
Ha, I need to start charging a fee for my rig-naming servicesOriginally posted by: aigomorla
Off Topic: sorry,
Amber look at my spiders name. Thanks >:]
Originally posted by: Odeen
Still kinda lame, IMO.
The point of overclocking (for me, at least) is not to take the highest-end chip and make it run just a teeny bit faster. The point is to take the lowest end chip possible, and crank it up to run with the much more expensive big boys, which means AT LEAST a 50% overclock.
Give me a low-end part that's structurally identical to the high end (i.e. same amount of cache, etc) and that's where the fun starts. I wouldn't want a Phenom 9850 for personal use - I just can't make it do anything it doesn't already do. But an unlocked Phenom 9150E, that'd be something I'd look into.
Keep in mind, though, Intel and AMD instituted multiplier locks because unscrupulous system builders were selling slightly overclocked Pentium and early Pentium 2 systems as genuine, and the systems were unstable and prone to overheating.
Originally posted by: MrPickins
Originally posted by: Odeen
The point is to take the lowest end chip possible, and crank it up to run with the much more expensive big boys, which means AT LEAST a 50% overclock.
50% is a very good overclock, and should not be considered the norm.
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
AMD is currently losing the desktop market. Wouldn't it make sense if they sold unlocked processor as a marketing gimmick? A few years ago, mobile athlons were unlocked, and overclockers were buying lots of them. Couldn't that same trick work again?
Originally posted by: aigomorla
Well, the arguement your having with is very over expecting. It wasnt until C2D arch, that we started taking 50% overclock as almost given.
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Getting a 33% on my A64 3000+ was great. Now everyone wants a 50% because of the C2D.Spoiled.
I really don't care that the Phenom 9850 is on the highend of the Phenoms, what I do like is that it is moderately priced. I think it's great that the 5000+ BE is about $90, and on the highend (for AMD anyway) the Phenom 9850 is only $235, and have unlcoked multipliers. What sucks is that Intel charges well over $1k for their highend parts for overclocking. Or back when the A64's were the chip to have, having an FX-57 or something that you spent $1k on... eek! I guess all I'm saying is I don't care where an unlocked multiplier enthusiast chip is in the hierarchy, but cost is far more important to me.
Originally posted by: solog
Originally posted by: aigomorla
Well, the arguement your having with is very over expecting. It wasnt until C2D arch, that we started taking 50% overclock as almost given.
What about the first Celerons?
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Getting a 33% on my A64 3000+ was great. Now everyone wants a 50% because of the C2D.Spoiled.
I really don't care that the Phenom 9850 is on the highend of the Phenoms, what I do like is that it is moderately priced. I think it's great that the 5000+ BE is about $90, and on the highend (for AMD anyway) the Phenom 9850 is only $235, and have unlcoked multipliers. What sucks is that Intel charges well over $1k for their highend parts for overclocking. Or back when the A64's were the chip to have, having an FX-57 or something that you spent $1k on... eek! I guess all I'm saying is I don't care where an unlocked multiplier enthusiast chip is in the hierarchy, but cost is far more important to me.
You are forgetting that Intel's low/mid processors are better than AMD's high-end. AMD doesnt have a chip that they could charge $1k for and anyone would actually buy.
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I'm not forgetting, I'm just trying to make the point that I think most of us prefer an unlocked 'enthusiast' chip that costs a lot less then the $1k+ that the current Intel extreme chips cost or the old AMD FX chips used to cost whether that be at the top or bottom of the product range.
