Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 15 Jun 2006.
with less chips to manufactor. wont that lower the prices a little?
but when i bought my processor. i opted for the lower clock speed. but more cache. and then overclocked
so bye bye 1meg cache processors
doesn't sound like they've thought things through properlly, A large portion of their sales are to the enthusiast market Who buy these because of the large cache, overclockability and performance in games. With less cache the processor will be slightly slower and with intel about to release what looks like a great gaming chip (altough that still needs to be proven), it just leaves me wondering what they have in their bag of tricks..
I really doubt that. No matter how many enthusiasts there are out there, we're always insignificant compared to the OEM's.
Due to the onboard memerory controler the downside is reduce. But the next generation is going to include L3 cache. I don't see this as a bad thing as a smaller core is cheaper to make.
That's just stupid.
L3 cache just increases the latency of access and when youve got an onchip mem controller which reduces latency the net gains will be far far less than just increasing the L2.
They could start using the same socket for all their CPUs while they're at it.
The cynic in me says this is less to do with simplifying the range and making it less confusing to consumers, and more a marketing ploy to distinguish (and justify the price difference) between the X2 at the lower/desktop end and the Opteron/FX at the server/workstation/enthusiast end of the market.
They're making a transition, but it's pretty simple for home users. You buy AM2. For server users, you use 940.
Isn't AM2 940 pins anyway? I could see that confusing someone who didnt know the difference between the earleir 940 pin servers and AM2. Also, the transition is not that simple as "buy AM2", so far I personally haven't seen a reason to do it. The thing I dislike about AM2 is that it seemed like they rushed it out, they announced it while 939 was still very young, and it seems so far that it is mostly a change of memory(so far).
AM2 has Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2, Athlon 64 FX and Sempron. Socket 940 is for servers and Socket F will be the updated server socket when its ready.
It's a reason why we spent time showing the differences between the three sockets: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/05/23/am2_athlon_64_fx-62_x2_5000/1.html
They didn't need to change sockets, but they did to alleviate the confusion. If the CPU doesn't fit, it isn't meant for the board/socket.
No processor maker is going to fret about catering to the over-clocker. Remember multiplier-locking? Apart from reducing sales of the faster chips, dealing with fake RMA claims from failed overclocks is a big cost.
What I want to know is who stocks them in the first place? It's hard to find the 1mb Level 2 Cache chips anywhere, with most expecting very limited stock sometime in the future.
Maybe AMD has already wound production right down? I guess that, given that these are to be discontinued, any remaining in the channel will be in high demand.
I hope this does lower prices I think £600 for a cpu is abit steep tbh..
The real reason for all of this might be found here:
Pity, but well to be fair except from some very few apps i can barely see the difference in day-to-day use.
This will probably just force more people over to the opterons, i personally like the 1mb L2 cache, i believe it is a good performance boost
Perhaps they could call is a AMD A64 3700++ or somthing with 1mb cache - i would rather be able to buy my cache
Ditto here as well!
I was going to buy a 4800 for an AM2 PC, Now to get near the same performance I have to get a 5000 instead as an FX62 is just too expensive.
Separate names with a comma.