FX55 and 4000 Coming Oct. 11

[Kunaak]

for all those waiting for the FX55, it's just about 3 weeks away.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18540

I sure hope this doesn't end up being AMD's first $1000 chip.

[saaya]

i dont think they will rise the price... but they could if they wanted... intel has nothing to compete with it...

the next EE chip will be a prescot with 2mb of L2 cache and 1066fsb, thats nice, but not enough to match an fx at 2.6ghz and 1mb L2 cache :/

is it true that intel will replace all prescotts with new prescotts with 2mb L2 cache soon, so the only difference between an ee and a normal prescott will be the 1066fsb then ?

[Kunaak]

I have been hearing that they are redoing the prescott and re releasing it with a 2 meg cache, and a 800 FSB sometime around febuary of next year.

so yeah, soon it sounds like theres not gonna be much difference between EE's and normal P4's.

[saaya]

why dont they make prescott based xeons with L3 cache and sell those as ee chips again like they did with the gallatins? intel is not making any sence :/

[Geforce4ti4200]

Intel throws cache at their problems, meh I stopped paying attention to Intel many years ago, I am glad Intel is here if nothing else to keep AMD's prices at sane levels.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those that want the advantages of Athlon64 'Winchester' 90nm core over current 130nm cores.

- full SSE3 instruction set implementation, with the exception of the HyperThreading-specific instructions
- improved hardware data prefetch mechanism
- more write-combine buffers
- improved on-die memory controller with more advanced open page policy
- on-die thermal throttling (a la Pentium 4)
- Black Diamond low-k dielectric process
- reduced execution times on some instructions (can convert LEA intructions into ADD instructions in certain situations wich can then be executed in a single clock cycle wich should also give a performence boost in some apps).

And 90nm Athlon64 should run cooler, faster and with less vcore.


w00t! I can almost smell 3GHz cooking up and at $170 ish for one of those, I wonder how many people are mad they spend $400+ for a 3500, 3800 or even fx53! Can those 90nm cpus run in current s939 mobos? Will a bios flash all that be needed or will those companies need to make a new revision, perhaps 2.0 with support for 90nm? I still wonder how those overclock, the only info I have is an engineering sample of a moble did 2.7GHz with a .1v bump so im guessing the 3000s will do 2.6 to 2.8GHz, the 3200+ around 2.9 and the 3500 will hit 3GHz average. Ill probably cheap out and settle for 2.9GHz with a good 3000+ for like $170 mmmmmmm I can smell 21k marks with ti4200, 22k with 9500@9700 and like 25k with a really good 9800 pro. MAYBE 30k with a nice x800xt which I wont buy anyway

[pik-ard v1.1]

first off.... an amd at 2.9ghz will EASILY give an x800xt 30k... even at stock speeds... and the 9800pro will hit 26-27k most likely.

wheres word of this ES mobile that did 2.7ghz? what cooling, etc?

[Geforce4ti4200]

with only 512k cache of the winchester? I dont get close to 30k at 640x480 dude, I get mid 25k with my softmodded 9500 at low res, 16 bit color and 2.6GHz with nature at like 210fps I think. This is faster than a stock x800pro. the x800xt would get me 260 in nature, thats only 1000 marks more. mid 26k for 2.6GHz, can 300MHz and dual channel give you over 3k marks more?

[pik-ard v1.1]

i dont see how what your 9500 gets is any indication of what an x800pro will get...

go to the orb, put in for max cpu anywhere between 2300 and 2700, choose x800xt, and put max score for around 3100... now, ofcourse those mostly wont be stock gfx clocks, but tell me how many scores with low clocks on the cpu are that high... then add a few hundred mhz, from your prediction on how high these new cpu's will get and...

[CodeRed]

a little OT, but 33780 for me with stock XT clocks and 3400+ S754 @ 3019 (11x274)

if you cant hit 30k with a fast A64 and a X800XT then you are doing something majorly wrong

[Geforce4ti4200]

you have 3GHz with much higher fsb than me, vdimm mods and 1mb cache. I have none of this and the 512k cache hurts performance bad with the x800 and 6800 cards, especially in car and drag low. you got 274fsb too. I am hoping for around 250fsb. take a 3200+ at 300x10 with 5:6 on the ram for 250 ram and I just might hit 30k then. I could get close to your 22.2k with ti4200, perhaps 21 to 21.5k since the loss of cache doesnt hurt much on older gpus. also I have yet to vmod my ti4200 and it already does 340/760, I think I can get my ti4200s ram to where yours is at any plans on getting a winchester? although I doubt any records will be set unless 3.5GHz plus due to 512k cache handicap

[Shade00]

w00t! I can almost smell 3GHz cooking up and at $170 ish for one of those, I wonder how many people are mad they spend $400+ for a 3500, 3800 or even fx53! Can those 90nm cpus run in current s939 mobos? Will a bios flash all that be needed or will those companies need to make a new revision, perhaps 2.0 with support for 90nm? I still wonder how those overclock, the only info I have is an engineering sample of a moble did 2.7GHz with a .1v bump so im guessing the 3000s will do 2.6 to 2.8GHz, the 3200+ around 2.9 and the 3500 will hit 3GHz average. Ill probably cheap out and settle for 2.9GHz with a good 3000+ for like $170 mmmmmmm I can smell 21k marks with ti4200, 22k with 9500@9700 and like 25k with a really good 9800 pro. MAYBE 30k with a nice x800xt which I wont buy anyway

Here we go again. He cooled down for a while, but the speculation is flying again.

Look, I asked you before to provide us with a link to your info about the 90nm ES chip that overclocks like crazy. You couldn't provide it before and you only threw us a link to Google. So where is it?

Until you see even one retail overclocking result, then stop. You have no idea how they'll overclock, and all indicators point to less-than-incredible results at the beginning. Why else do you think AMD is only putting out low-speed 90nm chips at first?

So, I like I said, back up your statement about the mobile.

[CodeRed]

you have 3GHz with much higher fsb than me, vdimm mods and 1mb cache. I have none of this and the 512k cache hurts performance bad with the x800 and 6800 cards, especially in car and drag low. you got 274fsb too. I am hoping for around 250fsb. take a 3200+ at 300x10 with 5:6 on the ram for 250 ram and I just might hit 30k then. I could get close to your 22.2k with ti4200, perhaps 21 to 21.5k since the loss of cache doesnt hurt much on older gpus. also I have yet to vmod my ti4200 and it already does 340/760, I think I can get my ti4200s ram to where yours is at any plans on getting a winchester? although I doubt any records will be set unless 3.5GHz plus due to 512k cache handicap

When (if) you get a 3GHz A64 you will see how much of a walk in the park 30k will be. It wouldnt matter if you only had 512k cache and 250 on the mem ... 30k still wont be a challenge on a X800XT.

Anyway by then 40k will be the mark to hit

[WildKard]

I think somebody posted 30130 or @ 2.65ghz stock x800xt pe, I get 27300 STOCK x800XT and STOCK 3400+ newcastle, 30k isnt that hard to hit with an A64

[Geforce4ti4200]

you guys have a point, but even if 30k is met, the 1mb cache would just be worth like 2k marks over 512k though, anyone agree on that? also I am not gonna be wildly predicting who can hit 40k, but anyone think winchesters will set new records vs. fx53?

[pik-ard v1.1]

pfft, i dont think 1mb cache is worth 2k points.... maybe 1k... but not 2k...

at stock speeds, i think its only like 500 points, so i dont see it growing 4x that OC'ed 35-50%

[Geforce4ti4200]

you dont believe me, ask eshbash he knows from experience. I have checked the orb, very few people hit 30k with 512k cache cpus, I know this. we have talked and 28k was the conclusion what id get with my current cpu and any x800 since only nature would change

[jjcom]

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/3622/

the link on that page is bad but, 2.5ghz on that chip is 300mhz overclock....on an early chip.

[Shade00]

Erm... that was a link back to XS Forums. How odd.

[jjcom]

I know....too bad that fourm thread is gone I wonder if AMD made them take it off...like with the Semprons...

[Geforce4ti4200]

he probably had no clue how to overclock, I saw some guy hit 2.7 on a moble 90nm a64. If the desktop 90nm dont do around 2.8GHz ill pity amd and just wait till they get their act strait

[jjcom]

@ GF
could you send me the link to that guy?...could be interesting to see his cooling setup, board, RAM, etc.

[pik-ard v1.1]

where did you see this 2.7ghz?

[Anemone]

Seems to me if it was possible to clock them high, then they'd just replace the whole line top to bottom and sell off the old stock at slightly reduced prices. If the .13 FX-55 is a pick of the bin chip, why keep making it if you could get a .09 to do the job at less cost to you? At the price of the FX you'd make money hand over fist. In fact its the top end chips that have the highest margin, and thus the ones you'd have to make the least of to make the most money.

No the ONLY reason to make a cheaper chip .09 in the slower speed range is BECAUSE it cannot be clocked high enough reliably enough to make a faster speed grade. That means, even to those of you extreme folks, that finding one of those 90nm chips that actually gets a high clock is a lottery, because the manufacturer wasn't sure enough they could clock them high enough to even sell them.

That's my thought on things. Still love the A64 but the truth seems evident by what they are making.

[blinky]

i hear AMD was having scaling troubles with 90nm similar to intel, which is why they were releasing only 3200 and 3000 versions first.

and GF: could u post links and screenies backing up your argument

[Shade00]

i hear AMD was having scaling troubles with 90nm similar to intel, which is why they were releasing only 3200 and 3000 versions first.

and GF: could u post links and screenies backing up your argument

I asked him in another thread recently for that same information, and a while back I demanded the same thing when he was making baseless claims again.

He'll ignore your request because he doesn't have anything to back it up with. He gave us a link to Google when we asked for the information before, and then he acted like we didn't even notice.

Nope. The information doesn't exist. His claims of seeing "some guy" hit 2.7ghz are not enough to convince me by ANY means.