Anybody have a FX-64 yet over seas?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Serge84

Gawd
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
693
It was said to come out in August 8th over seas. The FX-64 will be pritty much the same as the FX-62 with 2mb's of L2, 125w range, and run at 3ghz. Prob not worth it but hay it may OC like the FX60's or FX-57's with that much more speed. Hopefully they fixed everything in it.
 
Seriously, you'll need rocks in your head to buy one, apparently it will cost around $1000 right?

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=2010

It's often slower than a $300 E6600, and uses around twice the power. Nice work AMD. :rolleyes:

AMD FX series - FX standing for F**ing Xpensive. :p

If anybody has that much money to splash around, get a CF or SLI setup instead for gods sake. There are few worse ways to waste $1000 than on a top end CPU that doesn't even give 'top end' performance.
 
oh man i saw a comedian gave this situation perfectly...

anwho..

AMD HAS THE BEST PROCS EVER THERE PROCS ARE ALL LIKE OMGWTFPWN-- no im just kiddin im not a fanbyoi neither.

but yeah. an extra 200MHz. wow. you do have to be insane in the membrain to buy one of these. the pricecuts made the X2 line get a new pos tho. midrange. think about it. and these prices everyone can get a dual core system. theres a minute market for atholons and semprons now.

woulda been nice if the "D"s were owned by a differant company. cuz then i betcha the 805 would be selling for $50. thatd b schveet.

yeah this FX 64 is dumb. i thought the FX 64 was gonna be on K8L architecture. AMD, you simply cant carry on with K8! theres nothing more to release! it should be dead! you cant crank the Hz its just too hot already! drop it!
...

no no dont listen to genius. more Hz!!

but yeah, grayhound is gonna rock. hope they get with the single cache instead of 2 l2 caches.
 
duby229 said:
oh boy... ;)

I thinks I smells me a !!!!!! fest :cool:
Click to expand...

Sniff sniff... ;)

Just stating the obvious - it's a ripoff. If you have a different, more positive view towards the F**cking Xpensive 64, please, share it. :)
 
harpoon said:
Just stating the obvious - it's a ripoff. If you have a different, more positive view towards the F**cking Xpensive 64, please, share it. :)
Click to expand...
Its no different than the Core2 Extreme, the old P4 extremes, the old FX's, the P-D extremes... whats your point? Theyre all a waste of money.
 
lithium726 said:
Its no different than the Core2 Extreme, the old P4 extremes, the old FX's, the P-D extremes... whats your point? Theyre all a waste of money.
Click to expand...

Core2 Extreme at least gives you bragging rights and unlocked multis. I'm not saying it's not a ripoff too, but the extreme price at least gets you something extra. WTF does an FX-64 bring? Oh, yeah, 3GHz - right. :rolleyes:

Hey, I'm no fan of the Intel P4/PD EE (Extremely Expensive :p) either - overpriced and hot running POS that a regular X2 can more than match.

That doesn't mean I can't rip into the AMD's F**cking Xpensive chips right? If I saved one poor sod from buying one, I'll be happy.
 
Core2 Extreme at least gives you bragging rights and unlocked multis. I'm not saying it's not a ripoff too, but the extreme price at least gets you something extra. WTF does an FX-64 bring? Oh, yeah, 3GHz - right. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yeah, just like the FX chips did before the Core2 came out. Bragging rights and unlocked multis, just like it does now. Maybe those bragging rights arent as big now 'cause its not as fast in comparison, but its still a damn fast chip.

You must be new. I dont suppose you remember when the 1Ghz thunderbirds came out? Guess how much those ran? Yeah, 1k. What did you gain over the 950mhz model? 50mhz. That's it. For a few hundred dollars difference you got 50mhz. Its no different now, and people will always waste their money on these chips. Shit, even the P2 400's were up in the 1k range when they were the top shit. And those were even locked. At least back then all AMD's chips were unlocked (or could easily be made so)

Its just competition. Intel ran their old tech for a while, now its AMD's turn. Its been that way for a long time now. They always have a CPU to battle the other company at each respective price point though.

The OP even said he thought it wasnt worth it. Just passing on news.
 
I'm hardly new, my first PC was a 486, and I've been a hardware nut since the Celeron 300A days. Not a vintage geek by any means, but not exactly a n00b either.

I remember very well how much CPUs cost in the past. In fact, I have a few invoices of PC parts I built many years ago and I shudder when I see the prices, compared to the parts available today.

Yup, you're right, before C2D, the FX series was for bragging rights only. I used to envy people with one, because I'm so damn poor and couldn't afford one myself. :p

But what is the point in getting an FX now? The bragging rights are gone, it's no longer the shiny new toy in town, hell an overclocked E6300 @ 3GHz+ would beat it easily, even if you overclock the FX to 3.5GHz.

Insane ripoff if I ever saw one, and it deserves all the ridiculing it gets.
 
My point was that they're all expensive and all a ripoff, and not worth any "bragging rights.." saying the C2D is more worth over $1k than the FX is really just splitting hairs, especially in stock form.
 
I never said C2X wasn't a ripoff - it damn well is. But at least you get some extra for the ripoff.

IF someone is crazy enough (or rich enough, SOB! ;) ) to spend $1000 on a CPU, what do you think is the obvious choice? :rolleyes:

FX-64 = worst ripoff I've seen in a long time. In fact, the previous insane ripoff shared the same moniker - GeForce FX. Funny coincidence huh? ;)

Times change, AMD used common sense in their X2 pricing, so they aren't stupid. It's a shame they can't use the same sense with the FX chips.

It's just a trap to lure some poor ignorant customer into parting with $1000 for a grossly overpriced product, which offers middling performance at best compared to the competition.

Imagine the outcry if ATI released the X1950XTX at a higher pricepoint than the 7950GX2...

Think about it.
 
duby229 said:
I tell ya :D I should go to psychic school cuz I'm just so damn good at it ;)
Click to expand...

Should make some money with that talent then, instead of arguing over 'cache hacks'. ;)

Oh, I get it, anybody with anything negative to say about AMD is automatically a 'fanb0i' according to you.
 
Too bad there isnt an emoticon with a fishing rod and a little yellow smily face trying to reel it in :D
 
So I guess you won't be getting an FX-64 then eh duby? With it having 1MB cache and all... HACK! :p
 
I've found over the years that people who hates FX or XE processors are the ones who can't afford it.


Just a simple obeservation...
 
Also, I would like to see specs of this so called FX-64, I doubt they'd just do a 200mhz bump instead of a little more to counter the conroe.
 
All they are doing is to get a cpu out that will clock faster then the previous one, they arn't trying to battle for anything, they could care less. The FX64 will be expencive at 1st until they do the price cuts to the FX chips when 4x4 comes out. The FX66 is sipose to come out at 3.2ghz at the end of the year or will be a quad core.

4x4 is going to beat conroe in multi tasking and performance. But prob not kenstfeild. Tho it won't scale or have enough fsb it will pro be pretty close to a dual socket. But 2 cpus are not better then one, when they scale. Too bad kenstfeild is not a true quad core. 4x4 will be killer with K8L or quad core sometime at the end of the year.

BTW the speed difference is only 200mhz on a K8 to a conroe. Specially in 64bit mode only place AMD rules now, witch doesn't really matter cus 32bit will be dead soon. But I'm not going to start. Man all I can say is theres a lot of fandom in a damn AMD forum from INTEL. :rolleyes: This is only AMD we are sipose to be talking about here. All I see is intel this intel that everywhere. I'm sick of it. ANYWAYSSSSS................

Its the FX 68 that will be on K8L in 2007. Most of that K8L stuff isn't on any roadmap you can find besides in a japanese web site. lol
 
Wait wait wait. I asked about does anybody have a FX64 yet over seas? I don't want one I want to see one. My X2 can do FX64 speeds so why would I care for one! Did I ask to see conroe benchmarks? No. Does conroe belong in a AMD forum NO! I asked about a FX I never said I cared about conroe. :rolleyes: Try those benches in 64-bit mode btw. I use only 64-bit and conroe doesn't perform to my expectations in 64-BIT so its no good to me.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5990
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32919
http://www.warp2search.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=29057
 
harpoon said:
Imagine the outcry if ATI released the X1950XTX at a higher pricepoint than the 7950GX2...

Think about it.
Click to expand...
The P4EE's were more expensive than the FX's. I dont have to think about it, its happened :p
 
Bottom line - the ONLY thing the FX-64 is good for is to push the rest of the AMD lineup prices down a notch.
 
Serge84 said:
4x4 is going to beat conroe in <snip> performance.
Click to expand...

Multi-threaded performance? Probably. Gaming performance? Barring a resurrection of reverse hyperthreading, no.

Serge84 said:
I use only 64-bit and conroe doesn't perform to my expectations in 64-BIT so its no good to me.
Click to expand...

Conroe beats K8 in both 32-bit and 64-bit. Except in Sciencemark, in which it loses both in 32-bit and 64-bit modes.
 
I mean, this is the nature of the silicon industry. The first chip off the line costs a couple billion to make, every one after that costs pennies if the yield is high enough per wafer.

People will pay $1k for the chip, otherwise they wouldn't market it, and everyone knows the thing will be old in a matter of months. Of course the best part is looking back a year and seeing the current budget chip comming out with nearly identical specs to last years flagship. That's kinda the deal really, the designers pump out an architecture and the fab engineers figure out how to build it so it runs cooler, faster and on les power with higher yield. When it comes to prime time retail product, 200MHz matters right now, next year or even 3 months from now is not now. The mainstream news will report how intel won't hit 4GHz, while we all laugh because some of us have seen intel running at 4GHz. Hell, we (the hardware enthusiest crowd) saw 2GHz and 3GHz before the retail world did.

What's the question here anyway? Oh yeah, has anyone seen these chips and how do they overclock....

Seems like the whole thread can be summed up by:

1) no

2) they probably overclock as well as other FX chips since they should be guaranteed the best cores to come off the line.
 
harpoon said:
Seriously, you'll need rocks in your head to buy one, apparently it will cost around $1000 right?

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=2010

It's often slower than a $300 E6600, and uses around twice the power. Nice work AMD. :rolleyes:

AMD FX series - FX standing for F**ing Xpensive. :p

If anybody has that much money to splash around, get a CF or SLI setup instead for gods sake. There are few worse ways to waste $1000 than on a top end CPU that doesn't even give 'top end' performance.
Click to expand...

UUmm.....I beg to differ.......

I had an FX-55 and was pleased with the performance....then I upgraded to the FX-60 and saw nearly double my performance. And I have not even ocerclocked my system yet....it just puurrrs along.
 
Man, you people making big sh*t about the FX-64 should know that this processor has been out for a while, and you know who has it? Sun! They have had a rackmount server with the 3GHz Opteron in their servers for months now. So all you f4nbo1'z can eat it because AMD beat them to this punch. If anything, Intel does have the upper hand now, but we will see what AMD has to offer with K8L. Until then, shut the hell up and if someone wants to have the latest and greatest let them. Only reason why you are trolling is because like stated earlier, you don't have the money to buy it, PERIOD! To someone who doesn't want to, or doesn't have the know-how to overclock, but wants bleeding edge performance for what they believe is good for them, this is for them. Everyone has free speech, so if you want to come in and say it, by all means, but dont come in here looking for a fight. This is the AMD FORUMS! Not the Intel Bar Room where everyone talks crap about AMD. You want to bash AMD, do it in the Intel Forums, not here.
 
I have OCD, and for me, the fx64 would be an awsome chip for me... 64 is a multiple of 2, and 3ghz is a great round number.


On another note, I wish the FXs weren't so fucking expensive!

I want an FX60... I am still on s939 and would buy one if it dips low enough.
 
Yashu said:
I have OCD, and for me, the fx64 would be an awsome chip for me... 64 is a multiple of 2, and 3ghz is a great round number.


On another note, I wish the FXs weren't so fucking expensive!

I want an FX60... I am still on s939 and would buy one if it dips low enough.
Click to expand...

Same here. I almost got the FX55 when Newegg had it for $369, but didn't want to go with another single core chip. If the FX60 loses a little more (maybe a hundred or so) I'll seriously consider buying it.

I did get a Core 2 system, but I'm not ditching my AMD (I'll then have 2 computers to play with :) )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top