What?!?! No more AM2 X2 4000+ ?!?!?

B

Brahmzy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
5,021
Per [H]ard|OCP's front page. No more 4000+, 4400+ or 4800+!

I was going to pick up a 4000+ cheap on July 24th. This was the sweet spot Proc. 1MB cache, heck of an OCer. Dang!

Looks like it'll be a Conroe for sure now. :mad:
 
Dude what the hell, this is outrageous that there are so many people who were waiting for the 4000+ and then they cut it out!!! What in the fucking hell!
 
this is probably to help cut costs at the factory by limiting the number of cpus they offer considering they are making 50% price cuts.

Either way there is no point in complaining
 
Good lord people chill out. Nobody said they're not releasing it, just that they're eventually going to focus on moving away from 1MB-per-core consumer CPUs.
 
Well it sucks because i would of liked to of had a 2x1MB L2 AM2 but i sort of see what AMD is trying to accomplish. They had too many processors that were too close in performance with the 3800+, 4000+, 4200+, 4400+, 4600+, 4800+, 5000+ and the dual core X2 processors are more the high-end spectrum so you dont need a whole lot of models like you do with the cheap Sempron processors. By spacing it out to 3800+, 4200+, 4600+, 5000+ you put a 400+ PR difference between the processors and you should see more of a performance difference between each model.
 
burningrave101 said:
Well it sucks because i would of liked to of had a 2x1MB L2 AM2 but i sort of see what AMD is trying to accomplish. They had too many processors that were too close in performance with the 3800+, 4000+, 4200+, 4400+, 4600+, 4800+, 5000+ and the dual core X2 processors are more the high-end spectrum so you dont need a whole lot of models like you do with the cheap Sempron processors. By spacing it out to 3800+, 4200+, 4600+, 5000+ you put a 400+ PR difference between the processors and you should see more of a performance difference between each model.
Click to expand...
But no 1MB L2's till you get a fucking $1200 processor :mad:
 
Leon2ky said:
But no 1MB L2's till you get a fucking $1200 processor :mad:
Click to expand...

I think thats the whole point. AMD wants the FX processors to have a higher clock speed as well as more L2 cache. It doesn't make sense to have lower-end processors with the same specs as your flagship really.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
there will still be the opterons.
Click to expand...

I can't see Opterons for AM2 though :-/, espcially after all the work in Socket F.
 
if AMD does follow through with this i just may not go AM2 at all as that is complete and utter crap. They dont want people overclocking a 4400 to be equal to their precious FX line so they axe em all together? That is complete bs. I never thought i would consider Intel for my next rig, but now im giving it some serious thought.
 
Budwise said:
if AMD does follow through with this i just may not go AM2 at all as that is complete and utter crap. They dont want people overclocking a 4400 to be equal to their precious FX line so they axe em all together? That is complete bs. I never thought i would consider Intel for my next rig, but now im giving it some serious thought.
Click to expand...

This is a cost cutting measure. Its simply cheaper to make the 1/2MB cache chips, and the performance benefit of the 1MB isn't all that much in most cases.
 
I would think the main reason for cutting the cache in half would be to shrink the die size and enlarge their bottom line (ie. more $$ in their pocket) They would be able to produce more cores per 300mm wafer since cache RAM takes up a lot of die space.
 
Brahmzy said:
I don't think we'll ever see the 4000, 4400, or 4800 at all. They're not even on this price list.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2858
I guess I was just hoping for the $200 AN2 X2 4000+. Good price, good proc.
Click to expand...

4400+ AM2 is on NewEgg (though currently out of stock). It was in stock for a bit though.

I still think most of the posters in this thread are making a big deal out of nothing. Yeah 1MB per core is "cool" but seriously, the performance difference is negligible except in very special cases that don't affect the average user or gamer.
 
I don't get it, why does everyone say 1MB cache is not a big deal now? I have read on these forums hundreds of times how someone would be better off buying an A64 3700+ over a A64 3800+ or an Opteron 165 over a X2 4200+ because they have 1MB cahces and how you can OC the processor but yo can't add more cahce blah blah.... Is it not a big deal all of a sudden because AMD decided to chop the cache ? I am not arguing the basis of their decision but I believe this is more a case of trying to increase sales of higher end processors if anything else, I hope the price cuts are worth it.
 
http://www.excaliberpc.com/AMD_Athl...Winsdor/ADA4000IAA6CS/partinfo-id-565923.html

Don't listen to the press. There will always be 2mb dual cores. Besides there will be opterons for AM2. Ya just got to get the X2's wile you can. They may become very rare. Doesn't mean there won't be any anymore. But AMD's never needed that much anyways since Cache doesn't help like it does with Intels. Thats why intels Duo2 has so much cache to begin with. It seems nice but not really. Its just bigger numbers that don't benifit off performance AMD wise but does alot with Intels.

The FX's do use special cache and better silicon like opterons. They are slightly diff in desine to better use the cache. But the difference is small. The ark is so perfect in AMD's performance comes mostly from the cores themselfs and not the cache. Intels however get atleast a 20% to 40% boost in all that cache they use mostly from Duo2's. I don't need damn memory anymore I'll just let my comp boot off the insamely large cache from my Duo2. Seriously tho that is over doing it abit to get that much performance.
 
We're talking about the L2 Cache which is Data Cache. Now that the GFX cards are sporting Gigabyte DDR3 and Graphics Cards are processing the Video portion for Gamers, who needs Megabyte Cache on-board for data. With memory speed on DDR2 doubling and quadrupling over DDR(1), who is going to be needing the 1 meg per core. We won't even be able to tell the difference. Only some very weird benches developed only for that purpose. Servers and Work Stations need the extra Data Cache. Besides, All the unit I OC'ed didn't clock better for that extra 512KB. My 4200+ [2800Mhz]clocked better than my 4400+[2600Mhz]. I don't think that is what gave the 100 series Opteron 939 Socket their great clockability, they are made with a better material resulting in a wider more stable band of operability. Of course, this could just be bull-s**t like the hysteria about "OMG, Amd is taking away our Megabyte cache". Buy the FX-62 and quit bitching. Give up Beer for one year and buy two.

This is just my $2.00 worth. Have fun, Don't worry.
 
My FX-62 just increased in value :cool: Oh yeah.
 
Robstar said:
Say what? You can pick up opteron 265's for $350'ish silly rabbit :)
Click to expand...


but as far as im aware the 265 are skt 940(not AM2 compatable) so that doesnt really count.
 
Serge84 said:
The FX's do use special cache and better silicon like opterons. They are slightly diff in desine to better use the cache. But the difference is small. The ark is so perfect in AMD's performance comes mostly from the cores themselfs and not the cache. Intels however get atleast a 20% to 40% boost in all that cache they use mostly from Duo2's. I don't need damn memory anymore I'll just let my comp boot off the insamely large cache from my Duo2. Seriously tho that is over doing it abit to get that much performance.
Click to expand...

the FX and Opteron line are the SAME dies off the SAME wafers just better parts of it
 
Well , it's nice to know you are screwed for the sake of 199mm^2 vs 230mm^2. ;)
 
Serge84 said:
http://www.excaliberpc.com/AMD_Athl...Winsdor/ADA4000IAA6CS/partinfo-id-565923.html

Don't listen to the press. There will always be 2mb dual cores. Besides there will be opterons for AM2. Ya just got to get the X2's wile you can. They may become very rare. Doesn't mean there won't be any anymore. But AMD's never needed that much anyways since Cache doesn't help like it does with Intels. Thats why intels Duo2 has so much cache to begin with. It seems nice but not really. Its just bigger numbers that don't benifit off performance AMD wise but does alot with Intels.

The FX's do use special cache and better silicon like opterons. They are slightly diff in desine to better use the cache. But the difference is small. The ark is so perfect in AMD's performance comes mostly from the cores themselfs and not the cache. Intels however get atleast a 20% to 40% boost in all that cache they use mostly from Duo2's. I don't need damn memory anymore I'll just let my comp boot off the insamely large cache from my Duo2. Seriously tho that is over doing it abit to get that much performance.
Click to expand...


Please stop lying. It makes you look rabid. :rolleyes:
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
there will still be the opterons.
Click to expand...
very good point...

So I have a hard choice to make: get a 4000+ from Dave next week, wait for Conroe or the Optys later this year....
 
drizzt81 said:
very good point...

So I have a hard choice to make: get a 4000+ from Dave next week, wait for Conroe or the Optys later this year....
Click to expand...

No guarantee though on the Opty's, I'm sure they're going to make single Socket F motherboards which will still require that very expensive ECC RAM.
 
Leon2ky said:
No guarantee though on the Opty's, I'm sure they're going to make single Socket F motherboards which will still require that very expensive ECC RAM.
Click to expand...
AMD has stated they will sell AM2 Opterons.
 
Leon2ky said:
No guarantee though on the Opty's, I'm sure they're going to make single Socket F motherboards which will still require that very expensive ECC RAM.
Click to expand...

The Opteron was desgined originally for the server market where 4GB+ of RAM are common, thus the need for registered RAM, and mission critical environments where ECC is also a must. The same applies to Xeon and other true server grade systems.

The S939 Opeteron was pushed out to appeal to the high end workstation market. The A64 and X2 were always meant to cater to the retail segment.
 
The other thing people don't realize is that the majority of OEM's that are selling X2's are mostly only selling 512kb models. For the workstation/enthusiast market there will be AM2 Opterons (Santa Ana). So there is no worry if you want a non-FX AM2 1mb dual core chip.
 
It's a shame to see this as I prefer 1MB cache cored CPUs due to them being smoother when multitasking and in games (from my experience).

However until it happens no point making speculation - we'll just have to wait!

Oh and I see Serge84 is making his famous knowledgable craptastic posts again....
 
Firelord said:
It's a shame to see this as I prefer 1MB cache cored CPUs due to them being smoother when multitasking and in games (from my experience).

However until it happens no point making speculation - we'll just have to wait!
Click to expand...
considering it's on the front page, the 1 MB cache versions are missing from the slides and I have the strong feeling that the profit from teh 512KB versions are much, much higher, I would not be surprised if this did happen.
Oh and I see Serge84 is making his famous knowledgable craptastic posts again....
Click to expand...
yes. Serge84's posts are usually very interesting.
 
drizzt81 said:
considering it's on the front page, the 1 MB cache versions are missing from the slides and I have the strong feeling that the profit from teh 512KB versions are much, much higher, I would not be surprised if this did happen.
Click to expand...

You're probably right but until we see the final product releases of the simiar 512kb cache models we just won't for 100% know. I would like to see a 1MB cache model but if it doesn't happen it doesn't happen. Lets hope the optys are forth coming though :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top