I bet that they will still be priced high in the UK market. I can't help but feel that this is the KO blow for AMD though.

Yeah, fuggin' UK - it's a given, I doubt we'll see it for less than £200. :shadedshu

WhiteLotusI bet that they will still be priced high in the UK market. I can't help but feel that this is the KO blow for AMD though.

Maybe AMD should stick to just their ATi department. Makes you wonder why there isnt a universal CPU socket yet. All GFX card manufacturers use PCI-E. Why not a similar idea for CPU's?

alexp999Maybe AMD should stick to just their ATi department. Makes you wonder why there isnt a universal CPU socket yet. All GFX card manufacturers use PCI-E. Why not a similar idea for CPU's?

that would be sweet as.

But i don't maybe get the GPU's to take over?


Someone told me that was impossible though because of the architecture or something. Well why don't they make it possible!

back in the day, CPU's *did* share the same sockets.

The problems came down to mobo manufacturers not wanting to support all of them (cyrix CPU's ran at 75MHz FSB, intel at 66... so you ended up with overclocked ram trying to run stock, gah) and licensing issues. Current example: AMD has integrated memory controllers while intel dont (yet) - the mobo would get a lot more complex supporting both types.

Overall who cares... each generation is newer, shinier, and faster.

alexp999Maybe AMD should stick to just their ATi department. Makes you wonder why there isnt a universal CPU socket yet. All GFX card manufacturers use PCI-E. Why not a similar idea for CPU's?

It used to be that way, Socket 7 and earlier sockets could accept both Intel and AMD processors, along with some others from Cyrix and IBM. However, after socket 7, Intel decided to no longer allow competitors use sockets they designed without paying Licensing fees. So AMD decided to make their own socket(or slot actually) and when Intel introded the Slot 1, AMD went with Slot A. Mechanically they were the same, however electrically they differed. Some say that AMD just ripped the design off from Intel, and modified it ever so slightly to avoid paying the licensing fees. Others say AMD did it to help keep motherboard manufacturing costs down, as the same piece of hardware could be stocked for both types of motherboards, they just had to wire it differently.

So there actually was a Universal CPU socket(s) for a long while, but the industry has moved away from it, and I doubt it will ever move back. The sides of the CPU world(AMD and Intel) have become to technologically devided. All the integrated components on the CPU and the way the CPUs operate have become too different to allow a universal CPU socket.

Edit: Damn Mussels beat me to it.

newtekie1It used to be that way, Socket 7 and earlier sockets could accept both Intel and AMD processors, along with some others from Cyrix and IBM. However, after socket 7, Intel decided to no longer allow competitors use sockets they designed without paying Licensing fees. So AMD decided to make their own socket(or slot actually) and when Intel introded the Slot 1, AMD went with Slot A. Mechanically they were the same, however electrically they differed. Some say that AMD just ripped the design off from Intel, and modified it ever so slightly to avoid paying the licensing fees. Others say AMD did it to help keep motherboard manufacturing costs down, as the same piece of hardware could be stocked for both types of motherboards, they just had to wire it differently.

So there actually was a Universal CPU socket(s) for a long while, but the industry has moved away from it, and I doubt it will ever move back. The sides of the CPU world(AMD and Intel) have become to technologically devided. All the integrated components on the CPU and the way the CPUs operate have become too different to allow a universal CPU socket.

Edit: Damn Mussels beat me to it.

Yes... I remember those days. It was neat how you could upgrade and keep the same mobo.

This new CPU is so cheap as they will make money off the mobos, and they are staying in competition with AMD.

only just noticed - the stock cooler now has a lot larger fins, but less of them. that'll give less pressure, but possibly run quieter.

At that price, it is an Intel admission of a performance flop. If it were as fast or faster than a QXxxxx, or could OC well, then they would price that thing UP, and have a 2.0GHz version for the mid end of the market, and a 1.5GHz version for the economy segment.

You have to remember that this will be the slowest Bloomfield CPU. It will have unlocked multipliers and you'll be able to adjust the speed of the QPI. The Lynnfield processors are a different matter altogether, as they will be locked to prevent overclocking.
It might actually be even cheaper, some rumours says US$266. The 3.16GHz XE version will still come in at US$999 or maybe even more.
It's not a performance failure, it's a matter of Intel wanting to build up a user base for its new platform and what better way of doing that than offering an affordable processor?
Time will tell how well Bloomfield is recived, but I'd get one over a Lynnfield processor any day.

newtekie1[...] and when Intel introded the Slot 1, AMD went with Slot A. [...]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Talk about lack of imagination!
AMD-MAN: Ah crap, Intel lay hands of Slot 1. Gnnnn...:banghead: *Hey!* 'A' is the first letter! Slot A!

LOL!

Wow... Anyone can estimate the price of X58 board?

Why is it coming Q1 2009. I thought all Bloomfields are going to be released Q4 this year.