Priceslash on FX7x series. [Archive]

likewhoa

12-06-2006, 06:32 AM

not bad but $499 for a processor is to much for an overclocker like me,.. I rather pay $150 and overclock that sucka to FX speeds :D
maybe when they slash Fx prices to the $200-300 range i'll bite.

madman2233

12-06-2006, 06:43 AM

dont they sell the FX7x paired? So it would be $499 for 2 FX70s?

L'enFer

12-06-2006, 09:39 AM

madman2233, due to this (http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-quad-fx_2.html) u're right, they're sold paired:

Note that the above listed CPUs are sold only in pairs, so you cannot purchase a system with only one dual-core CPU intending to upgrade in the future.

tvdang7

12-06-2006, 10:17 AM

well i thinks its normal.
they released the 90nm part which is kinda slow.
right before 65nm is about to pop up so already it should be loosing its value and popularity.

awdrifter

12-06-2006, 10:21 PM

Now that's looking better. If someone would make a cheap motherboard for this, the Quad FX would be a good deal.

uOpt

12-07-2006, 08:22 AM

These are pair prices.

I have to say that two FXes at $250 each look interesting.

But for now it seems that chipset and board are dealbreakers. The chipset seems to take insane amounts of power and the board so far didn't overclock one MHz extra FSB according to at least two reviews. Of course you can overclock using the unlocked multiplier but that's really not an enthusiast thing.

L'enFer

12-07-2006, 09:09 AM

But for now it seems that chipset and board are dealbreakers
some time will pass and it'll be alright... i hope...

v0dka

12-07-2006, 09:24 AM

uOpt

12-07-2006, 09:47 AM

How far did they get on multi overclocking?

Raising the multi from 15 to 16 worked, 17 did not.

I don't think the voltage was given. The reviews are overall pretty lame, IMHO.

oicurafox2000

12-07-2006, 09:55 AM

* UPDATE* AMD denies this is happening.

awdrifter

12-07-2006, 04:20 PM

Raising the multi from 15 to 16 worked, 17 did not.

I don't think the voltage was given. The reviews are overall pretty lame, IMHO.

With the 16x multi it's at 3.2ghz, that's pretty damn fast.

uOpt

12-07-2006, 08:00 PM

With the 16x multi it's at 3.2ghz, that's pretty damn fast.

I hardly consider a 6.6% overclock even remotely worthy of a FX chip.

But it is most likely Asus' fault. Hopefully only in the prerelease board.

awdrifter

12-07-2006, 08:33 PM

But 3.2ghz on air is not bad, the only reason why the oc percent is so low is because the FX-70 is already pretty fast. With better cooling it might go higher. But man, if the price cut is not true then the cost/performance ratio just go worse.

L'enFer

12-08-2006, 01:19 AM

the only reason why the oc percent is so low is because the FX-70 is already pretty fast
and what about motherboard? as far as i know there's only 1 mb for 4x4 platform, or not? even though i don't think they can provide a good overclocking.

mofoman

12-08-2006, 06:37 AM

and what about motherboard? as far as i know there's only 1 mb for 4x4 platform, or not? even though i don't think they can provide a good overclocking.

People are now reporting that Amd themselves have a crossfire board ready for the system to be released alongside the R600.Lert's hope this is true, as I am desperate to build a Quadfather but I want to be able to use two R600's in the beast.

Having seen the machine running and overclocked with an Asus board, it really is a great machine.I saw two Fx72's clocked up to 3.1GHz on air which I thought was fantastic!!

I am sure, in fact I am nearly positive I will be able to do the same with FX70's, as the guy I spoke to who demoing the system said he had achieved it on air.

Shintai

12-08-2006, 06:49 AM

People are now reporting that Amd themselves have a crossfire board ready for the system to be released alongside the R600.Lert's hope this is true, as I am desperate to build a Quadfather but I want to be able to use two R600's in the beast.

Having seen the machine running and overclocked with an Asus board, it really is a great machine.I saw two Fx72's clocked up to 3.1GHz on air which I thought was fantastic!!

I am sure, in fact I am nearly positive I will be able to do the same with FX70's, as the guy I spoke to who demoing the system said he had achieved it on air.

Uhmm....the Asus board is also a crossfire board. Also they still need some third party producer if they do.

L'enFer

12-08-2006, 07:42 AM

mofoman, but what will such PC be for? the tests showed that 4x4 isn't good at most of applications... but it may be because of inability of current software to use 4 cores, but in the same time qx6700 is better in the tests where fx's are not so fast...

Pipi

12-08-2006, 01:13 PM

Uhmm....the Asus board is also a crossfire board. Also they still need some third party producer if they do.

Really? On an nVidia chipset???

mofoman

12-08-2006, 03:30 PM

mofoman, but what such PC will be for? the tests showed that 4x4 isn't good at most of applications... but it may be because of inability of current software to use 4 cores, but in the same time qx6700 is better in the tests where fx's are not so fast...

I will mainly use it for gaming, and business, I compress alot of files at once for business and it would be nice to do whilst gaming.In this area, I can compress more files at once and get better results whilst gaming with the AMD quad FX platform.

And the Asus board does not do crossfire on an Nvidia chipset as far as I am aware, and all the reviews I have read have not mentioned this and the guy who showed me the system had one and stated it couldn't, so I think I am more inclined to believe it does not do crossfire.

Lightman

12-08-2006, 03:43 PM

Anandtech updated their Power Consumption numbers with C'n'C on ;) .

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2879&p=13

Nothing changed on full load but idle power now is OK :p:

Shintai

12-08-2006, 04:35 PM

Really? On an nVidia chipset???

Yes, the chipset itself doesnt matter. They are all generic PCIe, the chipset does absolutely nothing. The only and single reason you cant run SLI officially on 975X, P965, RD580 etc is ONLY due to a driver limitation. That limitation aint in ATI drivers, yet.

Shintai

12-08-2006, 04:36 PM

Anandtech updated their Power Consumption numbers with C'n'C on ;) .

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2879&p=13

Nothing changed on full load but idle power now is OK :p:

Now he just needs to fix the C2Qs speedstep and EIST :p:

kais

12-08-2006, 04:46 PM

it looks like a reat platform to me, but from the benches ive seen at anandtech, i think ill stick with the core's

Asazman

12-08-2006, 06:14 PM

daaayam i may just have to upgrade thanks bud

Serge84

12-11-2006, 05:13 PM

Nobody will ever need that much power with 4 cores on 2 sockets or 4 cores in one socket for the next 3 years. Our dual cores will be fine for prob 10. Single cores lasted for this long. Dual cores will last plunty long enough for normal tasks and games until 64bit and dual core is really used in everything is when quad cores will be useful in everything else. Right now they are only good for servers for game hosting or rendering and the sort.

[XC] Teroedni

12-12-2006, 01:20 AM

too bad this is inquirer bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: :mad:

499 for 2 high clocked 2,6 ghz 2mb cache cores with possibillity to go higher would give a nice performance/$ for Wcg crunching.