# AMD Preparing Phenom II TWKR for Enthusiast Market



## btarunr (Jun 12, 2009)

AMD tasted a bit of success with its Phenom II series of processors, which reflected in recent market share figures, where the company's share grew by around 5 percent, despite a fall in sales throughout the PC processor industry. Leading its pack currently, is the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition, which holds a full-featured 45 nm Deneb core with unlocked bus multiplier, and AM3 platform support. It seems like AMD isn't stopping at this. The company is preparing a new model targeted at the enthusiast segment, called Phenom II TWKR ("tweaker"). 

High-end PC manufacturer Maingear PC has reportedly received this chip in a display model form, and looks forward to incorporating it in its lineup of PCs. Very little is known at this point in time, about this chip, beyond the point that it will provide better clock-speeds compared to the Phenom II X4 955. We can tell that it retains the AM3 socket package from the looks of it, and comes in a pretty jewel-case. AMD is yet to announce the chip, or disclose more about how it plans to sell it, and at what price. 



 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## devguy (Jun 12, 2009)

IMHO, they should release it as the Phenom FX, clock it stock at 4.0Ghz, have official dual channel DDR3 1600+ memory support without issue, and give me a free one to test for them!


----------



## Jakl (Jun 12, 2009)

ooo I'm looking forward to seeing this when its released


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 12, 2009)

*Get it out of my System*

I have been holding off on saying this, but this is AMD's year.  Intel's lawsuit was finalized, the Phenom II is doing very, very well in the market, they got some market share growth.  The Phenom II 955 is this month's CPU customer's choice on Newegg.com.  It is looking like the 5000 series will be released early.  First to DX11 (pointless though it may be).  OverDrive 3.0 is shaping up to be pretty useful now and making itself THE AMD overclocking tool.  They just got their 6 core server CPU on the market.  The i5 will add yet another socket type for Intel making AMD the "easy and simply choice" for first time builders.

I mean, the only down side is still no real competition for the i7 and will most likely not be the first to 6 core desktop CPU.  Oh, and Nvidia is still being a dick about SLI working with AMD chipsets.

AMD, we love you.  Keep up the good work and don't lose focus with the success that you have had this year thus far.  Remember the goal, first to 28 nm.


----------



## t77snapshot (Jun 12, 2009)

devguy said:


> IMHO, they should release it as the Phenom FX, clock it stock at 4.0Ghz, have official dual channel DDR3 1600+ memory support without issue, and give me a free one to test for them!



 That would be VERY NICE! 

I can't wait to here more about this chip, AMD is stepping it up a notch


----------



## Mega-Japan (Jun 12, 2009)

Why does this sound so awesome? And we don't even know what it brings...

As long as it isn't over $400, this could be the best deal ever, probably...


----------



## kenkickr (Jun 12, 2009)

I just want it for the box


----------



## Assassin48 (Jun 12, 2009)

maybe i found my next upgrade

what to do with this 955 HMM


----------



## Evo85 (Jun 12, 2009)

I am VERY intrigued!!!!   

 I will be watching this.


----------



## tcorbyn (Jun 12, 2009)

Dammm! I just bought a Phenom II 955 for benching under Ln2, and now this! I dont think my bank balance can handle annother top end CPU!


----------



## Mega-Japan (Jun 12, 2009)

Assassin48 said:


> maybe i found my next upgrade
> 
> what to do with this 955 HMM



Give it to me, I'll put it to some use :O


----------



## AlCabone (Jun 12, 2009)

The box sure looks cool, but I just can't imagine what this could bring in plus compared to a 955BE.
Cherrypicked samples?


----------



## fullinfusion (Jun 12, 2009)

sign me up for a BE Tweaker


----------



## LittleLizard (Jun 13, 2009)

looks like this will be the sucessor of the fx line.


----------



## Flyordie (Jun 13, 2009)

LittleLizard said:


> looks like this will be the sucessor of the fx line.



Maingear isn't telling you all everything.  My NDA was lifted this morning, but its strange to the fact that the only reason to release something like this is the RB-C3 stepping... 
edit- after some digging
It MAY just be a limited edition thing... a gimmick of sorts...  but oh well.


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 13, 2009)

devguy said:


> IMHO, they should release it as the Phenom FX, clock it stock at 4.0Ghz, have official dual channel DDR3 1600+ memory support without issue, and give me a free one to test for them!



why stop there?!?!!?!??!  *drools a bit*


----------



## devguy (Jun 13, 2009)

Kitkat said:


> why stop there?!?!!?!??!  *drools a bit*



Good point!  They should give me two!


----------



## cdawall (Jun 13, 2009)

i call BS


----------



## erocker (Jun 13, 2009)

2nd'd.  Though, I can't wait to see what PII they'll be releasing next.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jun 13, 2009)

erocker said:


> 2nd'd.  Though, I can't wait to see what PII they'll be releasing next.


3rd that


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 13, 2009)

i also hope we can buy them..... i dont want to buy a prefeb garbage just to disect and sell


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 13, 2009)

Not for sale as posted on amdzone.

I think the 42 means 4.2 Ghz. Probably have been tested to run at 4.2 stable with V and multi bump (heavily cherry picked of course).


----------



## fullinfusion (Jun 13, 2009)

TheGuruStud said:


> Not for sale as posted on amdzone.
> 
> I think the 42 means 4.2 Ghz. Probably have been tested to run at 4.2 stable with V and multi bump (heavily cherry picked of course).


We can only hope! 
this may be an I7 equivalent...


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 13, 2009)

fullinfusion said:


> We can only hope!
> this may be an I7 equivalent...



If you could crank up the NB to core speed, I bet it wouldn't be too far off.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 13, 2009)

TheGuruStud said:


> Not for sale as posted on amdzone.
> 
> I think the 42 means 4.2 Ghz. Probably have been tested to run at 4.2 stable with V and multi bump (heavily cherry picked of course).



i bet 42 means chip 42 or maybe 42 loads of BS


----------



## fullinfusion (Jun 13, 2009)

cdawall said:


> i bet 42 means chip 42 or maybe 42 loads of BS


STHU CD!! 
outta all of us YOU'LL be the man to get his hand on one, if and when they come out....
 we can always have hope lol


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 13, 2009)

TheGuruStud said:


> Not for sale as posted on amdzone.
> 
> I think the 42 means 4.2 Ghz. Probably have been tested to run at 4.2 stable with V and multi bump (heavily cherry picked of course).



yeah but thats cause its a sample. i mean in the future.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 13, 2009)

fullinfusion said:


> STHU CD!!
> outta all of us YOU'LL be the man to get his hand on one, if and when they come out....
> we can always have hope lol



maybe i already have one


----------



## wojo (Jun 13, 2009)

cdawall said:


> i bet 42 means chip 42 or maybe 42 loads of BS



How about 42 meaning 42 nanometers


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Jun 13, 2009)

Wow AMD is surprisingly on the move this year, typically the CEO just goes to sleep in the middle of the meeting, but this idea is simply clever for marketing.


----------



## Flyordie (Jun 13, 2009)

PCpraiser100 said:


> Wow AMD is surprisingly on the move this year, typically the CEO just goes to sleep in the middle of the meeting, but this idea is simply clever for marketing.



You must remember that Mr. Sanders is "sorta coming back"... and this is within his personality to name a product like that.....


----------



## cdawall (Jun 13, 2009)

wojo said:


> How about 42 meaning 42 nanometers



the next step is 32nm not 42nm


----------



## aj28 (Jun 13, 2009)

cdawall said:


> the next step is 32nm not 42nm



Maybe three of the nm were defective...?


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 13, 2009)

aj28 said:


> Maybe three of the nm were defective...?



I do hope you're kidding


----------



## Easo (Jun 13, 2009)

Since i have youngest brother of 9xx line, the 920 AM2+ socket, i am starting to feel envy...
Anyway, looks like THE beast, i am more than sure it will cost less than i7 975...


----------



## btarunr (Jun 13, 2009)

devguy said:


> IMHO, they should release it as the Phenom FX, clock it stock at 4.0Ghz, have official dual channel DDR3 1600+ memory support without issue, and give me a free one to test for them!



If a Phenom II FX ever comes to be, it will be after they have consumer-grade RD890 chipset for multi-socket boards, and will make a DSDC platform (like Athlon64 FX 70 series). Again, it's a big 'if'.


----------



## laszlo (Jun 13, 2009)

finally AMD marketing has come with a new ideea


----------



## HammerON (Jun 13, 2009)

Competition to drive the CPU market = Sweet deals


----------



## Mega-Japan (Jun 13, 2009)

Easo said:


> Since i have youngest brother of 9xx line, the 920 AM2+ socket, i am starting to feel envy...
> Anyway, looks like THE beast, i am more than sure it will cost less than i7 975...



Well, any desktop processor would cost less than that... a lot less >.<


----------



## Cr@zed^ (Jun 13, 2009)

The Answer is: *42*


----------



## krisna159 (Jun 13, 2009)

i Must have one...
i canT wait for this...


----------



## devguy (Jun 13, 2009)

btarunr said:


> If a Phenom II FX ever comes to be, it will be after they have consumer-grade RD890 chipset for multi-socket boards, and will make a DSDC platform (like Athlon64 FX 70 series). Again, it's a big 'if'.



Meh, I hated that.  I preferred the days of the Athlon FX  DDR1 where it plugged right into the common S939 motherboard.

Aside from that, most motherboards (especially gigabyte) list support for the Phenom FX processors.  Granted they never materialized and they don't list Phenom II FX support, but I don't want to see a Phenom II FX exclusively on socket other than AM3.

Perhaps they could release an Istanbul FX for AM3, as well as a multisocket compatible version along side it with the release of the RD890/SB850 chipset.  That would be .


----------



## tcorbyn (Jun 13, 2009)

cdawall said:


> maybe i already have one



Quite possible, having just sold your Phenom II 955!


----------



## cdawall (Jun 13, 2009)

tcorbyn said:


> Quite possible, having just sold your Phenom II 955!



speaking of that was shipped and i have the customs number and receipt if you want them


----------



## suraswami (Jun 13, 2009)

may be Number 6 is lucky for AMD


----------



## Kvens (Jun 13, 2009)

Look here guys. This might be fake news.

http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24


----------



## Flyordie (Jun 13, 2009)

Well, the points charlie made are very crappy.

ES's like the ones he has are made in greater numbers.  

These are a VERY VERY VERY limited run.  Under 200 released.  So why put a barcode/SN on them when the S/N is saved in the EPROM on the CPU die?


----------



## Kreij (Jun 13, 2009)

In Douglas Adams books, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a group of super intelligent, pan-dimensional beings demand the answer to the the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything from the supercomputer "Deep Thought" which was designed for that purpose. After 7.5 million years, "Deep Thought" responded with the answer 42.

Coincidence?


----------



## cdawall (Jun 13, 2009)

Kvens said:


> Look here guys. This might be fake news.
> 
> http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24



read the exact opposite off of XS

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=226936


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 13, 2009)

Kreij said:


> In Douglas Adams books, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a group of super intelligent, pan-dimensional beings demand the answer to the the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything from the supercomputer "Deep Thought" which was designed for that purpose. After 7.5 million years, "Deep Thought" responded with the answer 42.
> 
> Coincidence?



 Exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Jun 13, 2009)

Cr@zed^ said:


> The Answer is: *42*


----------



## btarunr (Jun 13, 2009)

Kvens said:


> Look here guys. This might be fake news.
> 
> http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24



Not fake. Charlie needs something to post.



devguy said:


> Meh, I hated that.  I preferred the days of the Athlon FX  DDR1 where it plugged right into the common S939 motherboard.
> 
> Aside from that, most motherboards (especially gigabyte) list support for the Phenom FX processors.  Granted they never materialized and they don't list Phenom II FX support, but I don't want to see a Phenom II FX exclusively on socket other than AM3.
> 
> Perhaps they could release an Istanbul FX for AM3, as well as a multisocket compatible version along side it with the release of the RD890/SB850 chipset.  That would be .



The reason bus multiplier unlocked some later Athlon64 X2 and Phenom series chips were given the "Black Edition" branding, was because they didn't want to dilute "FX". When Phenom/Opteron Barcelona was being made, everyone had high expectations. They thought it would cream everything Intel had. Back then it was believed that unlocked Phenoms would carry the "FX" branding. The architecture fell flat on its face...back to using "Black Edition", enter Phenom 9600 BE. Plans to develop an FX model for socket-1207 (DSDC) were called off. TWKR is "limited edition", as its batch would have emerged from manual binning of the chip.  It could be hard to find a chip that does 4+ GHz stable on water.

"FX" was always meant to be exclusive. AMD tried to first make it exclusive for socket-939, then fooled around with the lineup a bit (making the socket mainstream), and then pushed FX to Socket 1207, with only one AM2 model (FX-62) along the way. There are more socket-1207 FX models (FX 70, 72, 74) than there are AM2 (FX 62). The new FX will take over, though I doubt the upgrade path for NVIDIA nForce 680a SLI (that which drove FX-7x) will resume. 

Yes, if Istanbul can run on s-1207, an AM3/AM2+ variant is possible. Don't expect future 6/8/12 core AMD chips to continue on the AM3 path though. The socket doesn't provide wiring for more than two memory channels.


----------



## Flyordie (Jun 13, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Not fake. Charlie needs something to post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Very well spoken bta. 
There will be an FX line for socket AM3.  AMD will give you some more info on it in the Sept-Oct timeframe.  I do not know the details, so please don't ask me for more. If I have updates I will post them in the appropriate thread.


----------



## wolf (Jun 14, 2009)

its an interesting market addition, but most core i7 920's will do 4+ ghz on reasonable volts, especially D0's, and i bet they'll be cheaper.

just get one before theyre aXXed!


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jun 14, 2009)

this is phenom 2 extreme


----------



## subhendu (Jun 14, 2009)

42 means 4.2ghz stock clock speed...hehee


----------



## btarunr (Jun 14, 2009)

hayder.master said:


> this is phenom 2 extreme



More like Phenom II "The best we could manage" Edition, to be honest.


----------



## DreamSeller (Jun 14, 2009)

btarunr said:


> More like Phenom II "The best we could manage" Edition, to be honest.



i hope thats not true


----------



## btarunr (Jun 14, 2009)

DreamSeller said:


> i hope thats not true



Sadly it is. They have nothing better than K10 at the moment, and are making no concrete steps towards a future architecture, other than announcing tentative dates and feeling good about it.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 14, 2009)

DreamSeller said:


> i hope thats not true



more like stop gap


----------



## btarunr (Jun 14, 2009)

cdawall said:


> more like stop gap



To what?


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 14, 2009)

btarunr said:


> To what?



better process and higher clocks, which is a stop gap until bulldozer

but they're not for sale, so it doesn't matter


----------



## btarunr (Jun 14, 2009)

TheGuruStud said:


> better process and higher clocks, which is a stop gap until



So I stand with "Best we can manage" Edition. Normally when you call something a "stop gap", you are placing it in a time-frame close to something else. There is no "something else" in sights.

An example for a "stop-gap" that makes sense is GeForce 9800 GX2. It did its job till GTX 280 came about.


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 14, 2009)

btarunr said:


> So I stand with "Best we can manage" Edition. Normally when you call something a "stop gap", you are placing it in a time-frame close to something else. There is no "something else" in sights.
> 
> An example for a "stop-gap" that makes sense is GeForce 9800 GX2. It did its job till GTX 280 came about.



companies tend to tell you something when they want you to know archetectures arent made created and fabricated THE WEEK they are anounced. They take years to make. There is no nothing else in OUR sights cause they havent TOLD us, just as you didnt know this existed before it was anounced to u lol. At the same time i kinda want it to be a endchip why not ... i dont wanna see a 995 id rather u just give the end so we can stop playin around lol.



cdawall said:


> maybe i already have one


ahahaha
I hope its the 95w one.



Easo said:


> Since i have youngest brother of 9xx line, the 920 AM2+ socket, i am starting to feel envy...
> Anyway, looks like THE beast, i am more than sure it will cost less than i7 975...


yeah im sure it will i want to know more!!!! Right now its just a publicity pawn for Maingear blog hits, which i care ABSOF*K!NGLUTELY nothing about lol. I just want to know when we can get it!! lol



cdawall said:


> i bet 42 means chip 42 or maybe 42 loads of BS


awwwww i hope not rofl


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 15, 2009)

this maybe the last of the Phenom IIs, making way for the 6 core parts, probably on a 32nm node, who knows


----------



## Wile E (Jun 15, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Not fake. Charlie needs something to post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If that's the case, both AMD and Intel are going to go with the multiple socket arrangement, and there will be a lot of pissed off AMD fans, and a lot of Intel fans screaming "I told you so" about AMD screwing customers with socket changes just like Intel does at times.

I was hoping that AMD was going to release a 6 core AM3 chip. I hope there is a way around the limitation you mentioned.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jun 15, 2009)

btarunr said:


> More like Phenom II "The best we could manage" Edition, to be honest.



cool we wait and see tests , seems this is my next move


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 15, 2009)

AMD is claiming the Server Market will run off Quad Channel Ram, so im not sure where that puts the Desktop Lineup at unless if AMD decides to release the CPUs on the 1207 (Desktop and then have the Dual/Quad 1207 (Server/Workstation) That would technically cut overall costs by having everything on the same socket, but i guess in turn would slow down upgrade ability of the platform.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 15, 2009)

Wile E said:


> If that's the case, both AMD and Intel are going to go with the multiple socket arrangement, and there will be a lot of pissed off AMD fans, and a lot of Intel fans screaming "I told you so" about AMD screwing customers with socket changes just like Intel does at times.
> 
> I was hoping that AMD was going to release a 6 core AM3 chip. I hope there is a way around the limitation you mentioned.



If the 6-core chip is based on the same die Istanbul has, then yes, a 6-core AM3 chip is possible. I'm talking about the 6/8/12 core AMD chips that are made for AMD G34 socket, that support quad-channel memory.


----------



## mrw1986 (Jun 15, 2009)

Ugh I just hope AMD has a breakthrough...their stock is slumping and I'm pretty invested in it, haha.


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 15, 2009)

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14205/1/

:'(

"Tweaker is an overclocker part that can stand much more voltage and it gets cherry picked. This is supposed to be the best chip in the wafer, so if there are 200 K10.5 on a single wafer, this one is the best one out of the 200."


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 15, 2009)

mrw1986 said:


> Ugh I just hope AMD has a breakthrough...their stock is slumping and I'm pretty invested in it, haha.



It already slumped to nothing below 2 dollars a while back. If you haven't checked, it's now at 4.26. I didn't have the cash back then, otherwise, I would've used every cent to buy it at or below 2 bucks 

There was a few stocks I wanted (GE and stuff). I'd be a rich man if I had the initial investment cash (considering all the ups and downs).


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Jun 16, 2009)

Could 42 mean Week 42 ?

4 model number
2 stepping
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=556849


----------



## DreamSeller (Jun 24, 2009)

anyone has seen these : 
Phenom II 42 TWKR Black Edition Screens... :






the author says that the product will be announced after the date of 30 June!


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 24, 2009)

Wow!  ̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̕̚̕̚ ̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̚MHZ!!!


----------



## fps_dean (Jun 27, 2009)

mrw1986 said:


> Ugh I just hope AMD has a breakthrough...their stock is slumping and I'm pretty invested in it, haha.



I do too, paying $1000 for good CPUs is ridiculous where AMD would charge $250-300 for the same thing if they had it.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 27, 2009)

fps_dean said:


> I do too, paying $1000 for good CPUs is ridiculous where AMD would charge $250-300 for the same thing if they had it.



Negative. If AMD had a CPU architecture superior to Intel's it would ask for $1000 the way it did with its Athlon64 FX, back in its day, and how the first Athlon64 X2 chips would cost anywhere between $270 and $800.


----------



## PaulieG (Jun 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Negative. If AMD had a CPU architecture superior to Intel's it would ask for $1000 the way it did with its Athlon64 FX, back in its day, and how the first Athlon64 X2 chips would cost anywhere between $270 and $800.



Yeah, it's amazing how short peoples memories are. I remember just 5 years ago, paying $300 for a single core 754 4000+ clawhammer.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 27, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> Yeah, it's amazing how short peoples memories are. I remember just 5 years ago, paying $300 for a single core 754 4000+ clawhammer.



I paid 400 when the 3500+ came out. 

But you know, it was worth every penny at the time. Intel's are never worth the markup.


----------



## fps_dean (Jun 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Negative. If AMD had a CPU architecture superior to Intel's it would ask for $1000 the way it did with its Athlon64 FX, back in its day, and how the first Athlon64 X2 chips would cost anywhere between $270 and $800.



Incorrect.  The FX-60 was the only one to hit 4 digits, the FX-57 was maybe $800 at launch and that dropped very fast to $500ish and the fastest non-FX Socket 939 Athlon64 X2 was the 4800+ which sold for $400 TOPS.  I know, I bought one when it first came out and I signiticantly less than that.  If you paid that much for a X2 you didn't shop around.  And not too long after the FX-60s launch I got one of those for $400 too, brand new from the store.

And to further support my point, Intel was countering with the Pentium 4/Ds at the time which were vastly inferior (AMD had a far greater lead than Intel does now at the time) and still charged the same or more for the Extreme and regular CPUs.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 27, 2009)

fps_dean said:


> Incorrect.  The FX-60 was the only one to hit 4 digits, the FX-57 was maybe $800 at launch and that dropped very fast to $500ish and the fastest non-FX Socket 939 Athlon64 X2 was the 4800+ which sold for $400 TOPS.  I know, I bought one when it first came out and I signiticantly less than that.  If you paid that much for a X2 you didn't shop around.  And not too long after the FX-60s launch I got one of those for $400 too, brand new from the store.
> 
> And to further support my point, Intel was countering with the Pentium 4/Ds at the time which were vastly inferior (AMD had a far greater lead than Intel does now at the time) and still charged the same or more for the Extreme and regular CPUs.



You didn't get the idea, did you? When AMD was on the top, it had the same practice of asking whatever it wanted for its best offering. Yes, Athlon64 FX chips were $1000. You had FX-55, 57, and 60 in that range. It went down with 62.

Here are the launch prices of Athlon64 X2: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x2_3.html






For FX 57, and 55 (notice that 57 displaced 55 from its price)




http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Nzg3

For FX 60:




http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-athlon-64-fx60-processor-/

Get your facts straight.


----------



## fps_dean (Jun 28, 2009)

If those prices were legit retail prices, they still actually sold for a whole lot less within a couple weeks after launch.  However does it not strike you as odd that the FX-60 and the X2 4800+ are about the same price? Because I can assure you, that certainly was not the case.  No one should have paid nearly that much if they're willing to shop around a little.

More than that, Intel priced their Extreme Editions in the $1k+ range and their regular lines at comprable prices at the same era and their CPUs couldn't even begin to compete.... and you'd actually pay that too.  So you get the idea?

Plus, AMDs marketing plans have changed since then if you've been following (you haven't).  The idea now is to release chips that are affordable, and in the event that their next chip puts them on top, it will be cheap to produce, and in turn will be a whole lot cheaper to buy.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 28, 2009)

fps_dean said:


> If those prices were legit retail prices, they still actually sold for a whole lot less within a couple weeks after launch.



Maybe you got lucky where you live, but their global prices pretty-much stayed at those. You seriously believe that AMD got generous with a $1000 processor and sold it for even 80% its price in a matter of weeks? It's like how the global price of Core i7 920 is $279.99, but a consumer can have it for $200 if he looks in the right place, or even cheaper if he's part of the supply chain and wants to make use of the retailedge programme.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jun 28, 2009)

Im with bta ...


----------



## Melvis (Jun 28, 2009)

I bought my 3700+ 939 for $325 and that was the best i could find back then, 1.5yrs later i got the FX-57 on ebay for $175  (seller stuffed up the number on the chip, 3500+ lol) but back then yes the FX-57 and FX-60 was around and over $1000 even when i did get my FX-57 it still sold at stores here for $600  Im sure i found a FX-55 the other week for over $500 :shadedshu

Edit: Correction its over $1200 

http://www.i-store.com.au/product/?productid=5472


----------



## fps_dean (Jun 28, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Maybe you got lucky where you live, but their global prices pretty-much stayed at those. You seriously believe that AMD got generous with a $1000 processor and sold it for even 80% its price in a matter of weeks? It's like how the global price of Core i7 920 is $279.99, but a consumer can have it for $200 if he looks in the right place, or even cheaper if he's part of the supply chain and wants to make use of the retailedge programme.



Why are you even arguing?  It takes a couple weeks for stores to get them -- not everyone has them at launch, in which case they start appearing cheaper.  You should NEVER expect to pay retail price.  If you paid close to $1000 for a FX-57 you seriously overpaid!

I have to shop online, at the same stores that everyone else has available to them...  I can't even buy a CPU so it has nothing to do with getting lucky.


----------



## fps_dean (Jun 28, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Edit: Correction its over $1200
> 
> http://www.i-store.com.au/product/?productid=5472



That's why they still have it.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 28, 2009)

fps_dean said:


> It takes a couple weeks for stores to get them -- not everyone has them at launch, in which case price wars start.
> 
> And where I live you can't even buy a CPU.  I have to shop online, at the same stores that everyone else has available to them.  If you paid anywhere close to $1000 for a FX-5 at any point in history, you seriously overpaid.



It did not take "a couple weeks" for FX 5x CPU to go from its $1000 base price to anywhere close to even three quarters (75%) its price. It is only when an FX 5x CPU is succeeded by two models in the FX series, or when Intel Core 2 arrived, that a $1000 FX CPU could be had for something like $250. Stop distorting facts and using exaggerated claims. Throughout its product-lifetime AMD maintained its base price at launch prices (for an FX model). It's only that retailers introduced cuts on their side to compete with each other. The contention stays. When AMD was at the top, it did the very same thing Intel is doing/has done. Just as Intel has been doing "speed-bumps" with its Core 2 Extreme and now Core i7 Extreme series, AMD indulged in the very same practice. Why are _you_ even arguing?


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 28, 2009)

TheGuruStud said:


> I paid 400 when the 3500+ came out.
> 
> But you know, it was worth every penny at the time. Intel's are never worth the markup.



Intel's core2 was worth more than AMD's offerings at the time and phenom I. It wasn't until phenom II did they become better and even at that core 2's can still compete with them.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 28, 2009)

fps_dean said:


> Why are you even arguing?  It takes a couple weeks for stores to get them -- not everyone has them at launch, in which case they start appearing cheaper.  You should NEVER expect to pay retail price.  If you paid close to $1000 for a FX-57 you seriously overpaid!
> 
> I have to shop online, at the same stores that everyone else has available to them...  I can't even buy a CPU so it has nothing to do with getting lucky.



no if you spent $1000 on a P4 extreme you overpaid because the $400 3700+ outperformed it at stock the FX57/55 were the two fastest chips on the market and were sold as such. its called marketing if you have an issue with that walk into wallmart and tell them you want everything they have housebrand without the 100% markup on it


----------



## btarunr (Jun 28, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Intel's core2 was worth more than AMD's offerings at the time and phenom I. It wasn't until phenom II did they become better and even at that core 2's can still compete with them.



Exactly, the same logic should apply now. While being only $50 more expensive than a Phenom II 955, the Core i7 920  is more than worth paying the extra $50.


----------



## fps_dean (Jun 28, 2009)

btarunr said:


> It did not take "a couple weeks" for FX 5x CPU to go from its $1000 base price to anywhere close to even three quarters (75%) its price. It is only when an FX 5x CPU is succeeded by two models in the FX series, or when Intel Core 2 arrived, that a $1000 FX CPU could be had for something like $250. Stop distorting facts and using exaggerated claims. Throughout its product-lifetime AMD maintained its base price at launch prices (for an FX model). It's only that retailers introduced cuts on their side to compete with each other. The contention stays. When AMD was at the top, it did the very same thing Intel is doing/has done. Just as Intel has been doing "speed-bumps" with its Core 2 Extreme and now Core i7 Extreme series, AMD indulged in the very same practice. Why are _you_ even arguing?



Now who's exaggerating? Please, learn to read, and stop distorting facts yourself and then accusing me of doing so.  I am telling you what I paid and that is a fact on the contrary to anything you've provided other than skewing numbers and takign things out of context, and if you don't like it then stfu.


----------



## fps_dean (Jun 28, 2009)

cdawall said:


> no if you spent $1000 on a P4 extreme you overpaid because the $400 3700+ outperformed it at stock the FX57/55 were the two fastest chips on the market and were sold as such. its called marketing if you have an issue with that walk into wallmart and tell them you want everything they have housebrand without the 100% markup on it



That's what they were charging however for a good while after the Athlon64s launch, and even after the X2's launch before Intel had a dual core to answer with, which is the point I'm trying to make.  And yes anyone who bought Intel at the time was an idiot, but Intel has had a history of charging a whole lot more going back 20 years ago.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 28, 2009)

fps_dean said:


> Now who's exaggerating? Please, learn to read, and stop distorting facts yourself and then accusing me of doing so.  I am telling you what I paid and that is a fact on the contrary to anything you've provided other than skewing numbers and takign things out of context, and if you don't like it then stfu.



What you paid for bears no relevance to the fact that AMD priced its processors high, the way Intel is pricing its processors now. Among us, you're the only one distorting facts. Move along. Next time think twice before asking someone to "stfu".


----------



## fps_dean (Jun 29, 2009)

btarunr said:


> What you paid for bears no relevance to the fact that AMD priced its processors high, the way Intel is pricing its processors now. Among us, you're the only one distorting facts. Move along. Next time think twice before asking someone to "stfu".



First, it has every bit of relevance whether you like it or not.  Second, I'm not distorting any facts -- simply stating them.  And third, I'm not asking you to stfu, I'm telling you to.  Notice I did not write "will you please stfu?"


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 29, 2009)

bta's right. Also please be civil you can't force him to stfu because he has a different opinion or disagree's with you.

When AMD was on top those FX's were going for $1k. I'm sure not long ago those Socket F FX's for quadfather were selling at those prices. 

Fact is that when these companies; Intel and AMD, get the chance they will sell those cpu's for as much as they can because someone will buy them.


----------



## fps_dean (Jun 29, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> bta's right. Also please be civil you can't force him to stfu because he has a different opinion or disagree's with you.
> 
> When AMD was on top those FX's were going for $1k. I'm sure not long ago those Socket F FX's for quadfather were selling at those prices.
> 
> Fact is that when these companies; Intel and AMD, get the chance they will sell those cpu's for as much as they can because someone will buy them.



My point is... well nobody listens.  And apparently no one is old enough to remember anything pre Athlon64 either so whatever...

However bta is NOT right as my experience has proven him wrong.  Talk to me about retail prices all day I could care less, but unless you're so rich you just don't care you shouldn't expect to pay them anyway.


----------



## HammerON (Jun 29, 2009)

fps dean
My first build was in 2004 with a Athlon 64 3200. I remember that year and for the next couple years that AMD's FX processors were out of my reach monetarily. I remember that the cost of a FX cpu was over a $1,000.00 and I dreamed of being able to afford those processors. So I do not understand what you are referring to.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 29, 2009)

fps_dean said:


> My point is... well nobody listens.  And apparently no one is old enough to remember anything pre Athlon64 either so whatever...
> 
> However bta is NOT right as my experience has proven him wrong.  Talk to me about retail prices all day I could care less, but unless you're so rich you just don't care you shouldn't expect to pay them anyway.



Only your experiance says otherwise, not the general experience of the times. I'm 32, well old enough to remember the A64 days (and well before it). All of the FX chips that released near $1k at launch, stayed that way for months. If you got one cheap, it was because you happened into a great deal at the time, which in no way was a reflection of the norm.



fps_dean said:


> I do too, paying $1000 for good CPUs is ridiculous where AMD would charge $250-300 for the same thing if they had it.


This is what you said. So, even if FX-57 was $500-800 (which it wasn't), it is still a far cry more than what you are claiming.

If AMD had a cpu that could compete at the highest level, they would still be charging $1000 for them. But the fact of the matter is, they do not have a cpu capable of competing up top, so they can only charge what the market is willing. And as the i7 920 is faster than all of the current AMD offerings, they have no choice but to charge what they are currently.

The only one wrong and out of line here is you.


----------

