Why $700-1000 for a cpu?

T

Tin_10

Bad Trader/Returning Ban
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
796
Guys......I am sure this question is a stupid question(there arent stupid questions, just stupid people) but I am going to ask it anyways. When it comes to AMD why are the FX series SO MUCH MONEY? What is the cause factor for them to be 3/4 of a $1000? Is the money spent well there or is it a waste of money? I am just trying to figure out why, I know they have more cache, and clock speeds are a bit higher, but that shouldnt put them in the high price catergory.
 
simple, the best of the best. some people are willing to pay for it, an every little bit helps amd, so why not?
 
a few reasons they have the extravagantly priced FXs,
first there's always going to be some people willing to pay for that status symbol, the 'my CPU is bigger than yours syndrome.'
Second, it actually helps sell the 3700, 3800 and 4000+ chips. Marketing studies consistantly show people don't want to buy the most indulgent, biggest, most expensive thing availible, regardless of how indulgent and glutonous that item may acually be. The old story that when Wendy's dropped their tripple cheeseburger, sales of the doubles dropped of heavily because people didn't want to feel like they were buying the biggest, most fattening, artery clogging burger there was. But put the triple back on the menu, and people had no trouble buying doubles again.

Is the money spent well there or is it a waste of money?
Click to expand...

from a price to performance ratio (ignoring the nice overclocking potential of the FX55), they are a waste of money.
 
fx-55's and other high quality chips are hand picked so the yeild per silicon wafer processed is not as high as some of the lower quality chips. That is one HUGE factor.
 
and taking this out of the realm of just the fx-55 and applying it to say the new Dual Core Opterons

the performance increase itself justifies the pricepoint
of course youd actually needs aps that can benefit from the scaling
but when you can transfornm say an basic dual CPU animation rendering box into effectively a quad processor box, that justifies the expenditure if there is the need.
 
Don't rule out the cases of kids going to college and getting computers from parents. It serves to get the best you can get your hands on as you need it to last 4-5 years because parents generally won't want to shell out the money again. Most aren't going to say oh, you saved $300-500 dollars on a proc now, and let you upgrade again in 2 years.

I know that my dad has no comprehension of how technology moves or what computing power is really needed. He thinks his 500mhz is just fine cuz all he does it quicken and and internet surfing, and only occasionally at that. Explaining that a 1.4 GHz is seriously old, outdated, and in need of replacement is pretty much lost on him.


Nothing like seeing a 3GHz P4 with a gig of ram taking 5-10 mins to synthesize, place and route on a relatively small FPGA design at school and then thinking of how long it would take on your own hardware. (~_~)

I prolly would never by an FX-55 but, If I could afford it, I would get a 2x dual-core opteron box.....4 simulations at once (^_^), or 3 and a still useable computer. Drool.
 
Somethings have been answered so far in this thread somethings have not.

The FX-55 cost comes from 2 reasons really. When trying to make a higher yield chip (a chip that will sustain higher clock speeds) invariably there will be problems. All processors and ram are bassed of this principle. The difference between a Athlon 3000+ and a 4000+ is only the yield, it ALL comes from the same waffer. But in short obviouslly only a few of those chips are capeable of reaching the speeds of a 4000+

Enter the FX-55 (and the up and coming 57 and possibly 59). To compound issues further, AMD slapped on more cache onto these chips, but another key factor is also involved. Strained Sillicon. This is a new process that allows the interconnects in the processor to be significantly smaller but still perfectly connected. In other words a process making the best semi-conductors a consumer can buy. This technology is new, and AMD has reserved using it only the FX series of processors. This technique consistantly allows higher yield, but also is very expensive to do (part of your question). Strained Sillicon is the main difference between the FX-55 and the 4000+ which is actually a very big difference, so don't let someone fool you into thinking they are the same thing. This factor is also the reason why people who are blessed with money to sink into one of these can get ridiculous clock speeds stably (usually though a prometia setup) allowing 4ghz+ @ 400fsb while maintaining moderate voltage, and 5HTT.

So, is it worth it? If you want the best of the best and want to overclock the shit out of it, then the answer is yes. Look arround for threads containing overclocks on the FX-55, to be honest with you, a lot of them blew my mind. Regular processors like the praised 3500+ winchester can't touch the OC potential of an FX processor.

I hope this answeres your question.
 
What my M5 is going to cost me $85,000. Why 85k for a car??? People just have a lot of $$$ to spend on good stuff. Yes the FX55 does not have the best price performance ratio, but on charts it seems to give great numbers...Leads the pack in a lot of things, and people will pay for what is on top....
 
THAT explains the Ultimate Bacon Cheeseburger from Jack in the Box. Or the 9 lb. Thickburger from Hardee's.

I suppose they would be the FX-57s (OC'd) of the burger world.

'cept I'd rather pay the $900 and NOT go into immediate cardiac arrest.
 
I thought the FX cost so much money because it is the only unlocked chip AMD sells. Is that true? That has be worth some money in and of itself.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
This factor is also the reason why people who are blessed with money to sink into one of these can get ridiculous clock speeds stably (usually though a prometia setup) allowing 4ghz+ @ 400fsb while maintaining moderate voltage, and 5HTT.
Click to expand...

You're not getting 4 GHz stable out of an FX-55, no matter what the cooling or voltage.
 
Jonsey said:
That's not stable, that's not at reasonable voltages, that's not usual (only one in the world) and that's not a prometia. So what's your point? :p
Click to expand...
Did you not say
Jonsey said:
no matter what the cooling or voltage.
Click to expand...
?
 
Well, I was responding to the guy who made it sound easy to get 4 GHz with a prommy. I did say no matter what the cooling or voltage, but I also said "4 GHz stable." That thread at xtreme is about a suicide screen shot, it's not even stable enough to run a few benchmarks.
 
Even if the above link does not prove stability, a successful boot at 4 GHz raises some doubt that the FX won't be stable at that speed. Sorry about the double negative there.
 
they are having touble getting it to bench around 3.6-3.7 last I heard. How many people have a setup like that in their room for gaming lol? Good thread though, I know a lot of people are wondering the fx price points/performace. I make good money, but if I did spend 800 on a processor, I dont know if I would over clock it!!
 
and the price for AMD's best of the best is all that different from Intel's P4 EE's how exactly?

Pricewatch shows:

Intel P4 3.4ghz 800mhz FSB 2MB Extreme Edition $950 = cheapest

AMD64 FX55 $810 = cheapest

So, what's the big shock here, the $950 for Intel or $810 for AMD? Compare performance between the two best of the best CPU's out there.

That's like being shocked that a Ferarri Enzo costs $1mil when you can buy an Infiniti G35 for $35k, two completely different auto's, two completely different markets.

the AMD FX chips & Intel EE's are both the ultra elite of their chips, and as such cost more. It's marketed towards a unique group who want the best of the best & are willing to pay for it.

For the rest of us the 939 AMD 64's work just fine at 1/4 the cost or so.
 
This is the AMD Processors forum--no one was attacking or praising the Intel EE. I think it's valid to complain about the price of one processor without feeling obligated to compare the price of another.
 
ohfreak said:
THAT explains the Ultimate Bacon Cheeseburger from Jack in the Box. Or the 9 lb. Thickburger from Hardee's.

I suppose they would be the FX-57s (OC'd) of the burger world.

'cept I'd rather pay the $900 and NOT go into immediate cardiac arrest.
Click to expand...

That made my day, sorta


FX is all about the bling, rappers got "ice" nerds got the FXs.
 
xonik said:
This is the AMD Processors forum--no one was attacking or praising the Intel EE. I think it's valid to complain about the price of one processor without feeling obligated to compare the price of another.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point entirely.

Tin_10 is asking why the top of the line AMD FX CPU costs so much. My post simply pointed out that if you want the absolute best of the best CPU out there from either AMD or Intel, your gonna have to pay for it. It's not cheap to get the absolute best, never is.

It's marketed towards a specific group of people in the world, it's a very small % of PC builders buying an FX. The chips are hand picked by AMD and boxed as FX chips, and for Intel it's their EE's.

Now the average consumer will pick out an AMD 3200+ and it's a considerable cost savings compared to FX. Same performance? Of course not, but it's still good, just not as good.

We just installed two new RP4440 & two new RP3440 servers here at work, cost was pretty horrific to me, but it's not my money to spend, yet it's a considerable cost savings over the HP V class and Superdome servers. Same performance? Not even close, will it do all I ask it to and then some? You betcha.

Same principle tho, Products marketed for different use/users.

FX = Absolute Top End for AMD
EE = Absolute Top End for Intel

both are geared towards that individual who wants to get every last possible drop of performance out of their CPU either at stock speeds or overclocked.

Besides I never said anyone was attacking/praising AMD/Intel either, jumping to a conclusion. Is it valid to complain about the price? Sure, you can complain all you want, but lets keep Apples with Apples and Oranges with Oranges. When the best FX chip is less expensive than the best EE chip, (apples to apples) is it really valid to complain about the lower priced product? I dont think so.

Now Apples to Oranges, AMD 64 3200+ vs FX55. $190 vs $810. take pre-venice/SD core cpu's into account and it's a pretty big jump in performance, overclockability, etc... from the 3200+ to the FX55. Now in a world with Venice/SD core cpu's, it's very hard for me to justify the cost difference, esp with how well the Venice/SD core's overclock & perform. The next FX core will have to be rather impressive to keep the cost the same as it is now, to say the least.

Only time will tell what happens with the FX's from here on out, but the FX still performs like a bandit.

Anyhow, complaining about the cost of the best cpu AMD makes, is to me like complaining about the cost of buying a private Leerjet. Will I likely ever own one in my lifetime? No. If I had the means would a standard twin engine plane do the trick? You betcha.

I'm not here to bang the drum for AMD or Intel, just stating that if you want the best in any industry you are going to have to pay for it. Complaing of the cost is rather pointless, it's the best, and they aren't going to give it away for free to everybody.

Look into the cost of a single CPU for an HP SuperDome sometime, thats the best HP-UX server in the world, costs three arms, four legs & a healthy liver, if no healthy liver is available two good kiddneys will work in place of the liver.
 
The difference between an Audi 1.8T and VW 1.8T is the same. The VW performs about the same, can be tweaked with a chip to Audi speeds, but costs less because of the name and not being the greatest. Do you really think a Ferrari costing 500K performs 10X better than an M3?
 
But the Audi 1.8T and VW 1.8T are the same car really, same owner/mfg. Could you really do enough to the M3 yet keep it street legal & beat the Ferarri Enzo in every category? Prob not, not and still keep the refinement of the vehicle, yes if you stripped it to it's guts, did every possible mod known to man, built up the engine big time, turbo from hell & back, suspension tweaks out the wazoo, etc... but it's still no Enzo. Personally I think the Enzo is ugly, but its a screamer. I'd take the Merc CLK-GTR myself, or the TVR Cerberra-LM, but in reality I'd be happy with a 280Z, much how I'd like an FX, but will be plenty happy with a Venice or SD core cpu for less than half the price, will I get FX performance out of the box? No, but I'm not expecting that either.

Besides, in cars & computers alike, some ppl like to have bragging rights ;) I'd sooner spend my money on something else personally. I'd sooner save $600 on buying a 3200+ Venice over an FX55 and put that $600 into my next race bike :D But Venice wasn't around when the current FX line came out, so it's not a very fair comparision. The FX chips are still great tho, no doubt about it.
 
I got a FX-51 and i got a FX-53 as well and ive been trying no to buy a FX-55 for no reason, keep waiting on the FX-57, but i will tell you, I see no differnce between the 2 in genral, and a slight improvement over my 3000 @ 2.50, so In all honesty its a big wasdte of money for the most part, But i think i sleep better at night knowing i got it running under my hood LOL
 
because they have the money to do it now stop rubbing it in my face.... that's all my summer earnings in one cpu :(
 
Invest, retire with 1.5 Million in 65 years, and then you can get that Pentium 7 10Ghz octacore with 1GB Cache with quad hyperthreading built on 1nm technoloyg.
 
fenderltd said:
they are having touble getting it to bench around 3.6-3.7 last I heard. How many people have a setup like that in their room for gaming lol? Good thread though, I know a lot of people are wondering the fx price points/performace. I make good money, but if I did spend 800 on a processor, I dont know if I would over clock it!!
Click to expand...

Good friggin point. If it really is using the most advanced proccessing methods and the best of the best silicon, I would hope that it would be clocked in a 3 ghz to justify the 3x the price of a similar chip.
 
Shakezilla said:
That made my day, sorta


FX is all about the bling, rappers got "ice" nerds got the FXs.
Click to expand...

lol If i spent that much money on a processor I'd set it in gold and wear it around my kneck.

But upgrading your processor every year really isn't viable unless you really need the speed for video encoding or 3d rendering and what not. But generally a 60 dollar amd is alot of power for the average user. I have three computers and the fastest is an athlon xp 3000+ and the slowest a 1.2ghz duron. And I can do tons of stuff at a nice speed. Just upgrade when there is a processor thats like twice as fast. Having the fastest processor will not get you laid. :D
 
EQTakeOffense said:
Invest, retire with 1.5 Million in 65 years, and then you can get that Pentium 7 10Ghz octacore with 1GB Cache with quad hyperthreading built on 1nm technoloyg.
Click to expand...

::golf clap::
 
With AMD's yield rates (assuming the things I've read are correct...LOL), they need to charge more money for the FX series. Apparently they have a 50% waste per wafer manufacturing the FX series of chips. If they had a 90% ability, I'm sure the FX wouldn't cost what it does.
 
freeloader1969 said:
With AMD's yield rates (assuming the things I've read are correct...LOL), they need to charge more money for the FX series. Apparently they have a 50% waste per wafer manufacturing the FX series of chips. If they had a 90% ability, I'm sure the FX wouldn't cost what it does.
Click to expand...


Failure rate (actual bad dies that just plain don't work) for the FX would not be signifigantly different than the rate for the basic Athlon64 line. (A bit higher, but only because they dove into strained silicon for the FX55). Which by the way is consistantly rumored to be a bit better than 50% on SOI, though AMD won't confirm any of those numbers.

Now the percentage of good dies that can hack it at 2.6ghz (at accetable volatge and power dissipation) is obviously going to be substantially lower than the percentage that can run at 2-2.4ghz. (Enter the 4000+ to pick up some of the slack).
If there was still enough headroom in the strained silicon 130nm process that even the very bad dies were hitting 2.6ghz (a very high percentage of good dies would mak the FX55 cut), I'd venture to guess that we'd already be seeing a 2.8ghz part.

FX is intended to be exclusive and expensive. That's it's market.
You don't worry about how many 427 Shelby Cobra's you can you make, you just make sure every one is the pinicale of performance. Because if you accomplish that, you can charge whatever you want and there will be a line out the door people looking to buy the best thing going.
 
Offcourse theve ben tested... Just think that Uve bought and paid for that FX and it was on the way for 3 day. When it finally arrives it wont do the stock speed - what will your mail to AMD contain after that experience and which CPU will B your next INTEL or AMD?

0.02€ as usual...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top