HEXUS.beans :: AMD Athlon 64 FX-64 Launch date?

[Veles]

Yes, but AM2 isn't exactly that competitive to the conroe is it?

It's not meant to be! Not yet at least.

This is basically what intel did a while ago with socket LG774 or whatever it is. It's just a change to DDR2, no-one expected it to be AMDs conroe killer. They will release a new architecture that will rival conroe's core architecture for the AM2 platform.

[-ChEM-]

from gaming benchmarks it seems that you would need to get 2.4-2.6ghz out of a conroe to beat 2.8-2.9ghz out of an AMD, at current pricing that is impressive

thats going to be a £300 chip beating a £600 chip which is good but given the overpricing of the FX chips, its not the revolution that the hype is suggesting

if AMD sell their current dual core range at £150-300 (3800+ to 5000+) theyll be competitive and what is also important is that almost everyone has an AMD 939 now... of those the single-core users are the ones wholl NEED an upgrade an AMD x2 means spending money on a new chip, whereas conroe is a new chip, memory and motherboard all at once

add to this, while theres still life in AMD single core chips, theres still a hell of a life left in dual core chips with multithreading soon... who is going to want to spend all that money on an entire barebones when it will barely make a difference without a new gpu

conroe is great but why does anyone who is strapped for cash need it with GPU limitations as they are and will be for the foreseeable future?

[moshpit]

Reverse Hyperthreading could completely turn this equation around and at least appears to be coming MUCH sooner then many of us anticipated.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...%2F22558.shtml

There's no question whatsoever that if this turns out to be true, Conroe would be in trouble before it even launches. AMD is keeping very mum on the subject tho, it's looking more and more like a sneak attack planned for launch alongside FX-64, but planned to support ALL AM2 X2's and FX's.

[rad]

from gaming benchmarks it seems that you would need to get 2.4-2.6ghz out of a conroe to beat 2.8-2.9ghz out of an AMD, at current pricing that is impressive

thats going to be a £300 chip beating a £600 chip which is good but given the overpricing of the FX chips, its not the revolution that the hype is suggesting

if AMD sell their current dual core range at £150-300 (3800+ to 5000+) theyll be competitive and what is also important is that almost everyone has an AMD 939 now... of those the single-core users are the ones wholl NEED an upgrade an AMD x2 means spending money on a new chip, whereas conroe is a new chip, memory and motherboard all at once

add to this, while theres still life in AMD single core chips, theres still a hell of a life left in dual core chips with multithreading soon... who is going to want to spend all that money on an entire barebones when it will barely make a difference without a new gpu

conroe is great but why does anyone who is strapped for cash need it with GPU limitations as they are and will be for the foreseeable future?

This is very sensible thinking.

[Proesterchen]

I am confident Conroe will still outperform AMD, but not by much in games, espescially at high resolution (eg 1600 x 1200).
My prediction is that it will only be 5-10%.

But that's a given (and always has been) - once the bottleneck lies outside the CPU's domain, it can't do anything to speed things up.

[Proesterchen]

It's not meant to be!
(on how AM2 X2s don't compete well with Core 2 Duos)

This is quite the rediculous statement, you can't seriously be thinking AMD didn't try for the lead with AM2?

In fact, they did try, got the performance lead, and still have it for another few weeks, when Intel will one-up 'em. They'll have failed, ultimately, but they still tried.

[kalniel]

This is quite the rediculous statement, you can't seriously be thinking AMD didn't try for the lead with AM2?

Well I for one don't think AMD tried to beat conroe with AM2. I think they deliberately refreshed the A64 model with just an upgrade to the memory chip to support DDR2 because DDR2 is now the mainstream component choice. They also took the chance to change socket to one that better supports different coolers, given that people were going to have to have new boards for DDR2 memory anyway.

I think AMD are a relatively innovative company and I don't believe all their efforts for x months would just result in the same chip with DDR2 support

[DeMilo]

of those the single-core users are the ones wholl NEED an upgrade an AMD x2 means spending money on a new chip, whereas conroe is a new chip, memory and motherboard all at once

I doubt AMD single core users will upgrade soon to the 939 x2 range. surely most would think of switching to AM2 or even wait a little longer for AMD to pull their 'secret' finger out.

I Honestly think Conroe will actually convert a few AMD hillbillies, even if it does mean a new chip, memory and board. Time will tell i guess. Will be interesting to see how the .sharewatch looks from july-dec.

[Cannyone]

I was all excited about Conroe when it was first announced. And I even told a friend I'd never upgrade to 939-pin at one point (I've been using 754 pin for about 2 years). But recently I upgraded my memory and motherboards in my two main systems. The motherboards were largely intented to give me PCIe graphics and try something besides the ubiquitous Nvidia chipset. But along the way I discoverd that I didn't have to suffer some of the memory limitations imposed by Nvidia.

Add to this the recent drops in prices on single core 939 pin CPUs, and I have decided to "upgrade". The key here is that I only need a motherboard and processor. So since I can get a combo deal that will give me better overclocking options, I simply can't pass it up.

The bottom line for me is that I don't anticipate upgrading to Conroe/Core 2 Duo now, until at least the second half of next year. See I don't think of my PC as if it was an "ePenis". There isn't a significant amount of multi-threaded applications available at this point. And for games anything over 60fps is overkill! So if I can get a Venice Core to say 2.7-2.8 GHz, I'll be fine. Later this year, if the prices on a decent speed X2 become attractive I might make another upgrade, but I'm really not expecting that.

I just know that a Core 2 Duo and a quality motherboard would cost me at least 2X what this current "upgrade" would cost, and that's not talking about the added cost of 2GB each of DDR2 (which won't really improve performance). At the same time I'm still very interested in Core 2 - having Intel's influence upon software developement will mean that 64-bit extensions and multi-threading will eventually become mainstream. Until then I will continue down the "low road" and it won't really matter.

[DR]

Conroe is soo last week





Clue CPU-Z doesn't detect the Cache properly... ;})

[Smokey21]

I can see Intel hiking up there Conroe prices.

A Dual Core AMD at 3Ghz with 2x1Mb is pretty tasty, but not for the price you will pay.

[wizzard]

Conroe is soo last week





Clue CPU-Z doesn't detect the Cache properly... ;})

Yum! Looks like a Kentsfield processor!

[nvening]

I dont get the 4 cores???

[chuckskull]

I'm not really expecting this generations chips diputes to be settled until we hit quad core.

and then AMD's on chip memory controller plays more a spart in the speed stakes and this whole argument will start again.

I'll just be taking advantage of reduced 939 X2's and waiting for all this to play out.

[kalniel]

I dont get the 4 cores???

Do you understand dual cores? If so, just imagine two dual core chips on the same die and you've got four cores

Kentsfield is nice, but there were some mutterings about how efficient various links were - the benchmarks certainly look nice but AMDs architecture should be more efficient at quad-core.

[moshpit]

Quad core won't be the gamers best friend until multithreading actually becomes common in gaming, which is a long way away still, or AMD gets RHT working, if ever...