AMD Phenom X4 retail prices surface

These should be some well performing processors. This is what I am looking to get for my next workstation.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34720/135/

Chicago (IL) – If we ever had some doubt that AMD would be able to deliver its desktop quad-core processors in time for Christmas, there are now signs that a release of the CPUs may be closer than we previously thought: Several online stores have published retail prices of AMD’s new processors, indicating how AMD’s new CPUs will be competing with Intel’s Penryn processors.

Curious minds anticipating the launch of the new processors can check Google’s Product Search as well as the usual suspects such as it4profit.com to see in which price range AMD’s Phenom CPU may land. At this time, three CPUs are being published. The 2.2 GHz Phenom X4 9500, the 2.3 GHz 9600 and the 2.4 GHz 9700. While we always have to take these pre-launch prices with a grain of salt, it is already clear that AMD will be aggressive in its pricing and is unlikely to be able to attack Intel in the $500+ segment.

The 9500 is currently indicated to hit the retail market in the $260-$270 range; the 9600 could be available for prices between $290 and $300 and the 9700 is listed for prices between $310 and $330. These numbers would put the new Phenoms squarely against Intel’s new Penryn quad-core desktop processors, which are scheduled to debut with the high-end QX9650 next Monday.

According to sources, Intel will not deviate from the pricing strategy that has been in place since the introduction of the Core architecture in July of last year. Its high-end enthusiast chip (QX9650, 3.0 GHz, 12 MB L2 cache) will launch at $999, the high-end mainstream-processor (in this case the Q9550, 2.83 GHz, 12 MB L2 cache) at $530 and the mainstream versions below at $316 (Q9450, 2.66 GHz, 12 MB L2 cache) and $266 (Q9300, 2.50 GHz, 6 MB L2 cache). History tells us that retail prices of these new processors will be substantially higher for at least several weeks after launch.

If AMD follows through with its strategy, then the new dual-core (Phenom X2) will be positioned below the $260 mark to compete with Intel’s Penryn-based dual-cores E8500 (3.16 GHz, 6 MB L2 cache, $266), E8400 (3.0 GHz, $183), E8300 (2.83 GHz, $174) and E8200 (2.66 GHz, $163).

While quad-core pricing is now nearing mainstream levels and quad-core PCs may become more affordable for more consumers, dual-core systems will continue to dominate the desktop market for the foreseeable time. In that view, it will be interesting to see how AMD will position its triple-core Phenom X3 against Intel’s dual-core CPUs – and between its own X2 and X4 processors.

The company will have to shift pricing of either the dual-cores or the quad-cores and, from today’s view, there appears to be virtual no chance for AMD to increase pricing of its X4 CPUs. It is more likely that the company will drop the prices of its X2 chips to protect its higher-margin X4 processors, which in turn, could put some pressure on Intel’s dual-core processors and ring in a new round of the price war between the two companies.

Looks like another interesting year to us.

Interesting…this will hopefully bring down the cost of the dual cores and place them into the “cheap” upgrade class.

they had better have some significant price advantages, cause AMD’s new shit is weak compared to intel.

[quote=“Joe,post:3,topic:38753"”]

they had better have some significant price advantages, cause AMD’s new shit is weak compared to intel.

[/quote]

no it’s not…the new true quad is supposed to be better performing. I am waiting for benchmarks just like everyone else.

nice :tup: can’t wait to see some numbers. I love AMD’s pricing

it’s interesting to see that they’re releasing 3 core processors as well. Although, for those prices… it seems like a no brainer to go with a 4 core over the 3 or 2 though

[quote=“Marcus,post:4,topic:38753"”]

no it’s not…the new true quad is supposed to be better performing. I am waiting for benchmarks just like everyone else.

[/quote]

It’s not better performing…

http://techreport.com/articles.x/13176/5

the above benchmarks are for the OLDER Xeons, not the Penryn process ones that were released on the 12th…

http://www.expreview.com/news/hard/2007-11-06/1194333585d6811_1.html

AMD is in such deep shit, it’s not even funny…

god damn intel leg humpers!!!

Let us AMD guys have some fun

so denying the facts makes us…amd humpers? Back in the day amd was on top, not anymore.

im so glad i waited :slight_smile:

When is the OctoCore coming out?

I am def getting quad core next year when I build a set up

i heard octo was to be out at the end of 08. But being so far off, im sure thats subject to change. Unless your waiting for 2 months or less, youll drive youself nuts trying to wait for new hardware, because as soon as you do something else will be announced and youll wanna wait for that instead. Basically, you cant win.

this is getting ridiculous, daily use for most people require

1 ghz Athlon XP, 512 mb ram and a 128MB graphics card

When I ordered a dell for my moms work, they said a 3.0 ghz P4 processor and 512 mb ram would run the internet slow, basically i LOLed.

I agree JCuz, but with pc gaming starting to catch on, having multiple cores and serious video power is a must. And really, all in all, p4’s arent that bad besides for new games. When it comes to ms office and the internet, there is no need to upgrade. Many people do video editing, burn dvds, transfer large files over networks and play games that they must have on high settings or it just isnt the same. For stuff like that youll want/need at least a dual core. I dont know about this octo core thing though. Seems like a waste to me, but then again thats what everybody said a year or 2 ago when quads were introduced. Stuff catches on, but it just takes time. If you are content with being basic and just using your pc for the internet and a few applications, then screw the upgrading. It cost too much. But if your are on your computer alot and you are constantly putting it under stress, youll gladly upgrade it frequently.

word ^, completely agree

as for the octo core, I did not know it was even thought of yet, I was just being a sarcastic asshole.

gaming is probably the most wide spread personal reason to upgrade, then video editing and stuff

this kind of stuff is excellent for servers, which is required for the higher demand we put on them

As far as games go, Crysis is the only title (so far AFAIK) that can utilize all 4 cores. Games are catching on but they are primarily a single thread more or less.

Supcom is another one I can think of offhand. Uses 4 cores.

Actually…AMD is going to be selling bundles…MB, Graphics card and Processor. They are beginning to get into Solution sales rather than just components.

that might not be a bad idea to those who don’t know much about compatibility. I personally think since the desktop race is far in favor of intel/nvidia, why doesnt amd/ati just try to focus all their efforts on laptops? Might not be a bad strategy. Then again im sure they’ve thought about that at some pt and aren’t doing it for a reason.

Im curious what everyone on here does with their computers to even consider needing a Quad core.