Yeah anand has his Socket-939/FX53 review posted.

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Please spare me the random letters guys.

So, it's here as promised. Let's hope it brings us a stable upgrade path along with excellent performance. :beer:

BEASTIFIED
 

uxrxu

Junior Member
May 26, 2004
3
0
0
did anyone see prices there? i couldn't see a price on the 3800... must know now!!! haha... maybe im blind
 

BlvdKing

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2000
1,173
0
0
939 is a solid performer but not the end all that was expected and really not worth the price premium. I can't wait to see how the 3700+ performs!
 

blodhi74

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2003
4,566
1
0
All AMD has to do is ADVERTISE on main stream media .... people still say " AMD who" ..... last 4 systems I built for friends were AMD and they love the the performance ( they all wanted P4) .... all they do is web surffing and a little gaming .... they love the money they spent on the RIG vs Intel
 

hysperion

Senior member
May 12, 2004
837
0
0
advertising isn't cheap....and if they do that their prices will go up.....they win by being cheaper then intel for equal or greater performance, not for advertising with mikey dell
 

White Widow

Senior member
Jan 27, 2000
773
0
71
As I read the AT review, and others around the web, it strikes me that there's something that needs to be focused on more intensely, namely: the decision by AMD to price their S939 products so high. Clearly, socket 754 is headed for the low-end sooner rather than later, and AMD will transition S939 to the mainstream for the much-longer-term. This is a serious consideration for anyone who is thinking about upgrading now or in the near future, because one is essentially faced with a very difficult choice. Either you're forced to shell out BIG BUCKS for a S939 system to accommodate upgradability, or you must buy into a S754 platform with a low-end future. If neither of these choices seems compelling, then the only option left is to wait it out 6 months until the exorbitant prices for S939 chips comes down to Earth and in the meantime buy a top-end AthlonXP CPU to go with the Socket-A board you already have to tide you over. Indeed, the overwhelming anecdotal evidence from forums around the "scene" indicates that this is the thinking of the majority of consumers.

Going with a "cheap" AXP 3000/400 makes it much easier to grab that new ATI X800 and, as the benchmarks demonstrate, get nearly identical performance in all the latest games with the eye candy turned on (which is the point, right?).

Bottom Line:

Does AMD really want potential customers deciding to hold off indefinitely from a A64 purchase, only to buy a AXP???

By all accounts (ie. financial statements, ASP's, Conference Calls, etc.) AMD is NOT selling very many A64 CPU's of any flavor. If AMD really wants to beat Intel to the punch, get back some market share, and accelerate the adoption of their new mainstream platform (Socket 939), they should both release lower-speed S939 A64's *AND* drop the price about 30%-40% on the new high-end S939 chips. They'll certainly make a lot more in the long run getting smaller - but still substantial - margins from a lot more sales than larger margins from fewer sales, and they'll accomplish the feat of building the installed base of S939 much more quickly than they otherwise would. Drop the price on S754 A64's chips quickly to clean them out of inventory, transition to A32's for S754 (very simple technically) to get all production lines in sync on a single core deign, and by the end of the year a lot more people will be enjoying an "Athlon Inside" experience. These changes don't require any time-consuming, technical reshuffling, just a change in strategic thinking.

It seems to me that this is no small situation. AMD appears to have made a serious strategic mistake (not the first time they have done this) and are hurting not only their own bottom line but the consumer as well. This notion that AMD can afford to milk a premium price from a premium product is laughable. Of course, it's not all that surprising, seeing as Hector Ruiz comes from the Motorola camp which adopted the exact same "premium pricing for a premium part" ideology, and we all know how well Motorola is doing these days...

Just some food for thought.

PS - Did you notice that AMD actually INCREASED the price of the FX53 from $733 to $799! Somebody must have a screwy calculator over there in Sunnyvale.
 

AnnoyedGrunt

Senior member
Jan 31, 2004
596
25
81
As mentioned above, it will indeed all come down to pricing.

However, do we know what that pricing will be? It seems like most are expecting extremely high prices, but is their any supporting evidence?

The only "data" I have seen posted so far is from this place:
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00588/

And the author specifically mentioned that his source prices their processors quite high. He says a more realistic expectation (although in his mind it is optimistic) is $400 for the 3500+ and $650 for the 3800+

Now, if the 3500+ really is $400, then it will be about the same price as the 754 3400+ which is reasonable given their roughly equivalent performance.

If AMD does indeed try to charge $500 for a 3500+ when you can get a 3400+ @ $400, then I think the 939 will be overlooked and most mid range buyers will go towards the 754. However, if the price is similar between the two (maybe a $10-$15 difference) then the 939 seems to be a much better long term purchase.

So, if anyone has any price data, please post. Otherwise, we really can't get upset until we know for sure what these things will cost.

-D'oh!
 

uxrxu

Junior Member
May 26, 2004
3
0
0
many sites are saying the 3500 will be $500 for 1k pieces. so my guess it will be more expensive than $500?

theres no way the performance difference is worth $100
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
Either you're forced to shell out BIG BUCKS for a S939 system to accommodate upgradability, or you must buy into a S754 platform with a low-end future. If neither of these choices seems compelling, then the only option left is to wait it out 6 months until the exorbitant prices for S939 chips comes down to Earth and in the meantime buy a top-end AthlonXP CPU to go with the Socket-A board you already have to tide you over.
White Widow, I don't agree that chosing a platform is such a dire decision. If I decide that what I really want for my work system is Socket 939 instead of Socket 754, heck, I'll buy it. My leftover Socket 754 stuff would make a nice upgrade for my home-gaming rig, or I could sell it off in For Sale &amp; Trade. It's not like I married my Socket 754 equipment or something, it's just hardware. Easily bought, easily sold.

As for AMD's pricing strategy, my guess is that they might be trying to clear out some Socket 754 CPU inventory.
 

RockGuitarDude

Senior member
Apr 15, 2004
695
0
0
Originally posted by: White Widow
As I read the AT review, and others around the web, it strikes me that there's something that needs to be focused on more intensely, namely: the decision by AMD to price their S939 products so high. Clearly, socket 754 is headed for the low-end sooner rather than later, and AMD will transition S939 to the mainstream for the much-longer-term. This is a serious consideration for anyone who is thinking about upgrading now or in the near future, because one is essentially faced with a very difficult choice. Either you're forced to shell out BIG BUCKS for a S939 system to accommodate upgradability, or you must buy into a S754 platform with a low-end future. If neither of these choices seems compelling, then the only option left is to wait it out 6 months until the exorbitant prices for S939 chips comes down to Earth and in the meantime buy a top-end AthlonXP CPU to go with the Socket-A board you already have to tide you over. Indeed, the overwhelming anecdotal evidence from forums around the "scene" indicates that this is the thinking of the majority of consumers.

Going with a "cheap" AXP 3000/400 makes it much easier to grab that new ATI X800 and, as the benchmarks demonstrate, get nearly identical performance in all the latest games with the eye candy turned on (which is the point, right?).

Bottom Line:

Does AMD really want potential customers deciding to hold off indefinitely from a A64 purchase, only to buy a AXP???

By all accounts (ie. financial statements, ASP's, Conference Calls, etc.) AMD is NOT selling very many A64 CPU's of any flavor. If AMD really wants to beat Intel to the punch, get back some market share, and accelerate the adoption of their new mainstream platform (Socket 939), they should both release lower-speed S939 A64's *AND* drop the price about 30%-40% on the new high-end S939 chips. They'll certainly make a lot more in the long run getting smaller - but still substantial - margins from a lot more sales than larger margins from fewer sales, and they'll accomplish the feat of building the installed base of S939 much more quickly than they otherwise would. Drop the price on S754 A64's chips quickly to clean them out of inventory, transition to A32's for S754 (very simple technically) to get all production lines in sync on a single core deign, and by the end of the year a lot more people will be enjoying an "Athlon Inside" experience. These changes don't require any time-consuming, technical reshuffling, just a change in strategic thinking.

It seems to me that this is no small situation. AMD appears to have made a serious strategic mistake (not the first time they have done this) and are hurting not only their own bottom line but the consumer as well. This notion that AMD can afford to milk a premium price from a premium product is laughable. Of course, it's not all that surprising, seeing as Hector Ruiz comes from the Motorola camp which adopted the exact same "premium pricing for a premium part" ideology, and we all know how well Motorola is doing these days...

Just some food for thought.

PS - Did you notice that AMD actually INCREASED the price of the FX53 from $733 to $799! Somebody must have a screwy calculator over there in Sunnyvale.


Give it time, the market will sort itself out. Cheaper prices are inevitable but I doubt a 3 billion dollar company doesn't have a nice staff of people planning their moves carefully. Hence, the prices may be in an effort to flush out the remaining XP chips still left in the market before they start changing and using 754-939-940 chips in their place.
 

White Widow

Senior member
Jan 27, 2000
773
0
71
mech - you are quite right that *you* are not married to your hardware, but this is not the case for 90% of the people buying computers these days. I didn't mean to imply that only harwdare enthusiasts were the folks faced with upgrade dilemas here. In fact, as you yourself attest, the hardware enthusiasts are most likely to be the folks to buy the S939 stuff now and sell off or retire their old systems. Still, I'm not convinced that you are a representative individual. Clearly you have the means to shell out hundreds and hundreds of dollars for a new system after having already adopted a S754. As I read through the forums, I do not get the impression that most people - even hardware enthusiasts - are in that kind of financial position.

Even so, the vast majority of PC buyers (mom, dad, Uncle Harvey) are going to walk into Best Buy or CompUSA and have a very hard time understanding why they should plunk down so much extra cash for a system of only marginal performance improvement. It's these people, not you and me, who represent the possibility for financial success or failure for AMD. These are the people who AMD needs to convince with low prices. AMD just can't stand toe-to-toe with Intel on prices because their name recognition among the general public is so low. Furthermore, AMD needs to get S939 out there as fast as possible. Intel is havnig all kinds of problems with their new sockets and chipsets, which has afforded AMD a chance to gobble up some marketshare. Keeping prices high on their new platform just means keeping it from gaining ground in the market. Even if AMD drops the S939 chips to comparable levels with S754 they are missing the boat. Finally, I think it is almost disingenuous to market S754 chips as mid-range to high-end now, and then pull a bait and switch on people later. To the extent the public has any consciousness about AMD's products, it's that Athlon64 is high-end, AthlonXP is mid-range and low-end. To sell people S754's under that belief and then have them find out later that they cannot upgrade because, oops, noe S754 is low-end, is dangerously misleading.

The quicker AMD puts A32's on S754, A64's on S939, and Opteron's on S940 the better we all will be. That represents a stable and long(er)-term platform structure than what we have now. The sands are shifting as AMD tries to juice their stock for all they can. This behaivour is just so blatantly short-sighted. Mark my words: S939 will not take off until the prices come down to the $200-$300 range for the chips. This is the price level (at it's highest) that consumers have been historically willing to pay for top AMD CPU's en masse. Sure, AMD will sell some between now and then at $500+ prices. But for the kind of volume AMD needs to sell to have even a hope of sustained profitability, theu have to put the price at $200-$300 (ideally 10% lower). They have the capacity to do that now, and they would sure make a lot more money selling $200 A64's than $90 AXP's (which, by the way, constitue about 90% of their sales right now). I just don't understand why they are dragging their feet on this. It makes no sense.

To RGD

I doubt a 3 billion dollar company doesn't have a nice staff of people planning their moves carefully.

I wish I had your faith. Let me ask you this: how much profit have those financial masterminds been able to wring from that 3 billion in business in the last, say, 5 years? What does the market think about AMD's future?

Price Data on S939 CPU's - http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&amp;name=Sections&amp;file=index&amp;req=viewarticle&amp;artid=28&amp;page=5

For what it's worth, I am a huge AMD fan and just get so frustrated when I see a company with such a good product and such a good opportunity blow it because of short-sightedness. The Motorola story just keeps flashing before my eyes...
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
Originally posted by: White Widow
mech - you are quite right that *you* are not married to your hardware, but this is not the case for 90% of the people buying computers these days. I didn't mean to imply that only harwdare enthusiasts were the folks faced with upgrade dilemas here. In fact, as you yourself attest, the hardware enthusiasts are most likely to be the folks to buy the S939 stuff now and sell off or retire their old systems. Still, I'm not convinced that you are a representative individual. Clearly you have the means to shell out hundreds and hundreds of dollars for a new system after having already adopted a S754. As I read through the forums, I do not get the impression that most people - even hardware enthusiasts - are in that kind of financial position.

Even so, the vast majority of PC buyers (mom, dad, Uncle Harvey) are going to walk into Best Buy or CompUSA and have a very hard time understanding why they should plunk down so much extra cash for a system of only marginal performance improvement. It's these people, not you and me, who represent the possibility for financial success or failure for AMD. These are the people who AMD needs to convince with low prices. AMD just can't stand toe-to-toe with Intel on prices because their name recognition among the general public is so low. Furthermore, AMD needs to get S939 out there as fast as possible. Intel is havnig all kinds of problems with their new sockets and chipsets, which has afforded AMD a chance to gobble up some marketshare. Keeping prices high on their new platform just means keeping it from gaining ground in the market. Even if AMD drops the S939 chips to comparable levels with S754 they are missing the boat. Finally, I think it is almost disingenuous to market S754 chips as mid-range to high-end now, and then pull a bait and switch on people later. To the extent the public has any consciousness about AMD's products, it's that Athlon64 is high-end, AthlonXP is mid-range and low-end. To sell people S754's under that belief and then have them find out later that they cannot upgrade because, oops, noe S754 is low-end, is dangerously misleading.

The quicker AMD puts A32's on S754, A64's on S939, and Opteron's on S940 the better we all will be. That represents a stable and long(er)-term platform structure than what we have now. The sands are shifting as AMD tries to juice their stock for all they can. This behaivour is just so blatantly short-sighted. Mark my words: S939 will not take off until the prices come down to the $200-$300 range for the chips. This is the price level (at it's highest) that consumers have been historically willing to pay for top AMD CPU's en masse. Sure, AMD will sell some between now and then at $500+ prices. But for the kind of volume AMD needs to sell to have even a hope of sustained profitability, theu have to put the price at $200-$300 (ideally 10% lower). They have the capacity to do that now, and they would sure make a lot more money selling $200 A64's than $90 AXP's (which, by the way, constitue about 90% of their sales right now). I just don't understand why they are dragging their feet on this. It makes no sense.

Price Data on S939 CPU's - http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&amp;name=Sections&amp;file=index&amp;req=viewarticle&amp;artid=28&amp;page=5
Based on my experience, there are very few people who will want to upgrade their Happy Meal? computer's CPU. Have you seen otherwise? :confused: RAM, certainly. Video card, hard drive, optical drive, possibly. But the CPU? :confused: Sorry, but after ~15000 posts here, with somewhat of a focus on helping newbies, I just haven't seen much of that going on. I don't think a lot of the Best Buy shoppers know that the CPU can be upgraded. :D

Also, I would like to set you straight on my income bracket. :D While I do have a SCSI-equipped A64 and an AthlonXP, I don't have a mattress (I sleep on the floor), a microwave oven, a vacuum cleaner or a television. My car is 16 years old and I was going to give it away to charity if it failed its emissions test this year (It scraped by with a 149 on hydrocarbons, 150 is failing). I commute by bicycle year-round, including in snow and -10F cold.

Just in case you thought I was well-to-do... nope. Happy, though. ;)
 

Sylvanas

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2004
3,752
0
0
"The 754 platform will become the new home of the Athlon XP and AMD's value line of processors. The new Athlon XP will be a trimmed down, 32bit only version of the Athlon 64." ???? what does this mean? future of AXP's still lies ahead?
 

DerwenArtos12

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
4,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Sylvanas
"The 754 platform will become the new home of the Athlon XP and AMD's value line of processors. The new Athlon XP will be a trimmed down, 32bit only version of the Athlon 64." ???? what does this mean? future of AXP's still lies ahead?

read the roadmaps. teh AXP will continue in ti's 32 bit form for all of this year and into next year but on the socket 754 platform. At roughly the same time the socket 754 platform will be faded out fo the 64-bit computing into teh two lines of socket 939 processors the standard and FX series.
 

White Widow

Senior member
Jan 27, 2000
773
0
71
My understanding is that AMD will stop producing the AthlonXP as we know it (Barton core), to be replaced with a S754 Athlon64 that has been castrated to remove the 64bit functionality - probably with less cache, too. This new processor will inherit the name "AthlonXP" but it will be a completely different CPU than the previous AthlonXP. The virtue in this design is that AMD gets to convert all of their production lines to K8 based cores. It's very easy to disable the 64-bit registers on the A64 parts. AMD will just speed bin all their chips as usual, and the ones with bad cache or poor clockspeed will get modded for 32-bit functionality and labeled as AthlonXP for S754. But don;t hold your breath, seeing as even AMD is is still planning to have 80% of their total production dedicated to "old" AthlonXP CPU's through th Q1'05. Maybe that will change if demand for S939 far exceeds their expectations, but that doesn't seem likely given their current pricing scheme.
 

White Widow

Senior member
Jan 27, 2000
773
0
71
Based on my experience, there are very few people who will want to upgrade their Happy Meal? computer's CPU. Have you seen otherwise? RAM, certainly. Video card, hard drive, optical drive, possibly. But the CPU? Sorry, but after ~15000 posts here, with somewhat of a focus on helping newbies, I just haven't seen much of that going on. I don't think a lot of the Best Buy shoppers know that the CPU can be upgraded.

Yes, you're absolutely right. People who get their S754-based computer from Best Buy or CC aren't likely to care that they have a limited CPU upgrade path. I was being a bit too rhetorical with that point!

Still, I think my bigger point is still valid - which is that mom and dad, and even Joey who knows a bit about computers, aren't very likely to even buy an Athlon64 when an AthlonXP will get them almost the same performance for drastically less money. Even AMD (and the MB makers) anticipates this and is predicting very soft demand for their A64 chips through Q2'05.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that a full six quarters after introduction, the proportion of "new" generation chips will be around 20% of total. As far as I can tell, that is grossly behind any ramp in over a decade. I'm not really qualified to guess about why this is the case, but do you think AMD wants to be producing 80% AthlonXP's in April 2005? How well will the XP match up with Intel's offering then?

In Q4'03, AMD told MB makers they were planning to be producing 5.12 million A64 chips (S754 &amp; S939) by the end of Q2'04. That number has turned out to be closer to 750,000. It appears AMD is planning to keep the S754 production above S939 until sometime after the New Year. That tells me prices will stay high for A64 parts and the XP will continue to dominate sales. That would be great for AMD if they were making any money selling XP's, but the truth is they're not. So why are they doing this?

Maybe the transition to 90um isn't going so well, ala Intel. Hmmm...
 

BlvdKing

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2000
1,173
0
0
I'm no expert, but I cannot understand why AMD would release a castrated 32 bit chip on S754 when they are trying, very successfully at the moment, to push the industry into 64 bits. Wouldn't leaving the 64 bits enabled on the value XP line spread x86-64 computing even faster? IMO AMD should leave the 64 bits enabled and just half the cache again, down to 256K, to distinguish the value line from the middle and performance levels.

Regarding price: Yes the prices are expensive, but that is supply vs demand. They will drop eventually. Besides, AMD can charge whatever it wants on these chips until Intel releases something comparable, like a 3.5, 3.7, or 3.8 GHz P4.
 

FMJ

Junior Member
Mar 28, 2004
13
0
0
White Widow raises a good point regarding AMD's opportunity to grab market share. However, the probable consideration at the moment (aside from present inventories) is manufacturing capabilities and costs. Not easy to suddenley switch, plus, they probably want to get to the 90nm core before cranking these 939's out in volume (later this year). Meanwhile, supplies of the presenet 939 core will be constrained, therefore they will charge a premium.
 

paperfist

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
6,539
286
126
www.the-teh.com
I wonder why anandtech used a 9800Pro for the testbed video card? I would have like to seen them use one of the new high end video cards.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
30,460
27,187
146
Originally posted by: paperfist
I wonder why anandtech used a 9800Pro for the testbed video card? I would have like to seen them use one of the new high end video cards.
Because they have been using it for quite some time, and this way they don't have to run every test on every Platform and speed CPU for the review, because they can just use the scores accumulated from past reviews and add to the new benchies performed with the new platform and CPUs ;)
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
30,460
27,187
146
AMD has morons running the Marketing divison, always have. Consequently they fail to answer the proverbial door when opportunity knocks, time after time. That is why regardless of the price and performance of their Platforms they fail to make serious in-roads into Intel's market share.

The problem with getting John&amp;Jane Q. Public and their clan to buy any AMD system is lack of familarity with the brand, and as a result they stick to Intel who they know quite well from TV ads and/or owning Intel systems before ;) Now the single most damaging factor to AMD64 based system sales aside from inept and virtually non-existant advertising, and Dell's Intel only Hot Deals, is the lack of a 64bit OS and supporting software for it. The typical computer user wants to buy a computer that is "race ready". The prospect of upgrading to a newer OS later that will provide the full functionality the system is capable of isn't an attractive one for many. Particularlly since that OS will cost them $200@the local computer superstore when available. The reason it's so damaging is that is the main selling point compared to Intel, but by the time the OS is available on OEM systems, and supporting software for that matter, Intel 64bit systems with the OS will be available too, and then the same old choice of Intel or "who?" once again becomes the senario, and we all know who will win approx. 80% of those decisions.


I'm no expert, but I cannot understand why AMD would release a castrated 32 bit chip on S754 when they are trying, very successfully at the moment, to push the industry into 64 bits. Wouldn't leaving the 64 bits enabled on the value XP line spread x86-64 computing even faster? IMO AMD should leave the 64 bits enabled and just half the cache again, down to 256K, to distinguish the value line from the middle and performance levels.
There are several goods reasons to offer a 32bit skt754 CPU line starting with the fact it will be priced appropriately to be a "Celeron killer" for price/performance ratio. Then there's the fact it will likely keep manufacturers investments in skt754 chipsets and boards from being a losing one by extending it's life cycle as the replacement of sktA as the value platform. It also results in the consumer not having to weigh wether or not the cost of the platform is justifiable or not due to the perception that they would be paying for the 64bit capabilities of the platform but have to wait for OS and software before they will recieve the full benefits of ownership. They get a simple 32bit platform for 32bit computing and that eliminates another confusing decision for the typical PC shopper with a fairly tight budget allocation for a PC purchase=good thing. Then there's the manufacturing aspect someone addressed by noting that AMD may be able to use more of the slightly defective CPUs by castrating them into skt754 XP and that would be cost effective in and of itself if that is indeed the case.