AMD's new consumer flagship proc, the X2 6000+

The 90nm Athlon 64 X2 processor line looks close to its last breath with the X2 6000+, a 3GHz monstrosity designed as a consumer equivalent to the FX-74. The 6000+ is limited to single processor systems, none of those quad-core frivolities the FX-74 is known to partake in, but the chip can still suck down a maximum of 125 watts, and carries 1MB of L2 cache per core. Where the 6000+ processor really departs from its enthusiast sibling is the $464 pricetag, less than half the cost of a FX-74. The chip is a few months late -- it was slated for Q4 2006 originally -- and will be followed by an 89 watt version in the third quarter of this year, along with a slightly less beefy 5800+ edition, but then its quitsville for AMD's 90nm creations. 65nm here we come!

[James Holden @ Feb 20th 2007 3:17PM]

It's been out for weeks.

Way to stay on top of the ball guys.

[Ben @ Feb 20th 2007 4:54PM]

I think your refering to the FX-74 in which case you need to get on the ball.

[stephentur @ Feb 20th 2007 3:34PM]

Socket 939???? Info anyone.

[Dan @ Feb 20th 2007 4:18PM]

I'm on 939 as well. The FX-60 just had a price drop, but why not go for this if I can? 939 please!

[John B @ Feb 20th 2007 4:55PM]

I thought that AMD was retiring the 939 in favor of AM2. Am I simply confused about this?

[NHAnimator @ Feb 20th 2007 3:48PM]

Oops. That one's scratched. Don't want to give that to a customer. I'll take it and dispose of it properly for you.

[Drew @ Feb 20th 2007 4:00PM]

You're trying to tell me, that even after Intel looks to be ahead of the curve for AT LEAST four years, people are still buying AMD? Christ.

[Revrant2394 @ Feb 21st 2007 9:04AM]

Yeah, what amongst the massive heating issues, being outperformed with comparably priced AMDs on EVERYTHING except large matrices, and meaner power consumption, and exorbitantly higher prices for nearly three of those years, Intel really showed us all didn't they?

I think what you Meant to say, what didn't make you look like you off on Planet Bizarro, was Intel *may* dominate the next four years thanks to their excellent re imagining we call "Core 2".

As for this, I'm still waiting on native quad-core, c'mon AMD.

[Matt B @ Feb 20th 2007 4:05PM]

I always have used AMD since the 1400 MHZ Thunderbird. Yes the Core 2's are benching faster, but not fast enough to pay the extra for IMO.

[Blunt @ Feb 20th 2007 9:21PM]

Yes it is.

[Keaton @ Feb 20th 2007 4:23PM]

Quitsville.... like Hicksville?

[Kev50027 @ Feb 20th 2007 4:24PM]

Bah.. nothing special. My Core 2 Quadro can pounce on it and eat it alive.

[Drew @ Feb 20th 2007 4:29PM]

Aye, that's what I was thinking. Even my lowly E6300 slaughters this thing (granted, it's overclocked, but it's overclocked with the stock cooler to over 3GHz). Thanks, but no thanks.

[Jesse S @ Feb 20th 2007 4:44PM]

Rofl. It's called K8L guys. K8L trounces Core 2 Duo. I know, a friend has an engineering sample.

And, LOL. You bought a Quad core processor? Unless you're running OS X, Linux, or a Windows Server OS, you're not going to get any use out of those 2 extra cores. XP and Vista can't correctly handle more than 2 cores.

Idiots.

[Filip Serban @ Feb 20th 2007 5:45PM]

...as well as 3DStudio Max, Maya, Photoshop, Audition, Premiere and a very loooooong list of pro-level apps that takes full advantage of multi-core technology. Or, perhaps in your world computers=gaming machines, right?

[Nobuyuki Idei @ Feb 21st 2007 1:33PM]

"XP and Vista can't correctly handle more than 2 cores"

Proof, please.

[F1ghter @ Feb 20th 2007 4:48PM]

For all of you trashing AMD, don't forget just *why* Intel is doing so well right now. If it wasn't for pressure from the underdog, Intel would still be sloshing along at a snail's pace like it was four years ago.

There's this thing called "competition". It is *good for the industry*. AMD may never beat out Intel. That's fine. As long as they command a significant chunk of the market, and stay a step or less behind, they will continue to drive processor improvements for years to come.

[Drew @ Feb 20th 2007 4:59PM]

I never trashed AMD, hell, before Core 2, I was an AMD man myself. I don't doubt the fact that competition is bad, quite the contrary. It's just I don't see why anyone, at this point in time, would be purchasing AMD, when you can get far superior performance with a much lower price point from Intel. Common sense, one would think.

And Jesse, if I recall correctly, the performance lead on K8L was iffy, at best. Besides, by the time it really is able to gain any momentum, Penryn will be revved up and ready to go.

[professor @ Feb 20th 2007 4:56PM]

Does anyone else see '2005' on the processor?

[Nobuyuki Idei @ Feb 21st 2007 1:34PM]

It's not the same price point. I can get a dual core AMD much cheaper than the cheapest Core 2 Duo. Granted, the C2D will be faster, but if my concern is price, AMD is still a valid choice.

[Drew @ Feb 20th 2007 5:02PM]

Uh, wow. I just made a fool of myself. I meant to say "I don't doubt the fact that competition is good, quite the contrary, I think it's great."

Excuse me, I'm kinda tired. D:

[Jesse S @ Feb 20th 2007 6:39PM]

No, you idiot. I'm talking about OPERATING SYSTEMS. Not programs. Anyway, even many pro apps don't support 64-bit yet, let alone quad cores.

Again, XP and Vista cannot properly divert calculations to the 3rd and 4th cores, whereas OSX, Linux, and other OS's CAN.

[Evan @ Feb 20th 2007 6:12PM]

Fanboys ATTACK!

[Jesse S @ Feb 20th 2007 6:36PM]

lol.

Hey, I'm an AMD/ATI fanboy through and through. Yet, I'm building a Core 2 Duo and 8800GTX pc currently.

Ah, competition!

[Filip Serban @ Feb 20th 2007 6:45PM]

What makes you think that real pros are using the bulky WinXP instead of WIN Server? As I remember, I've been very polite. Making me an idiot makes you 3 inches taller (or 1 inch longer)? Think again, youngster!

[Nobuyuki Idei @ Feb 21st 2007 1:35PM]

Proof, please

[Jesse S @ Feb 20th 2007 7:19PM]

You still ignored my original comment. I was talking about OS's, not programs. You were talking about programs, thus ignoring my comment.

[tau zero @ Feb 20th 2007 9:26PM]

why does the IHS say ©2005 on it?

[Joje @ Feb 20th 2007 11:40PM]

Core 2 Duo is a superior processor, but AMD trounces in the budget/value sector. You can pick up a nice X2 3800+ 65w for around $110. Not to mention AM2 has plenty of great motherboards for under $125. If you've got the cash, Core 2 Duo is worth it. If not, AM2's got your back covered...
Competition ftw?

[GhostDoggy @ Feb 21st 2007 5:35AM]

Probably the biggest problem for some of us old-schoolers out here is that we cannot make a confident decision based on effective comparison between Intel and AMD processors. For instance, let's say I was looking at a Pentium 4 630/631, Pentium D 935, or a Core 2 Duo E6300. How does the average consumer capable of building a pc compare these to AMD offerings?

[Revrant2394 @ Feb 21st 2007 9:07AM]

That's true, when the family went out to buy a new Vista PC I had to guide them every which way, it disgusted me that they even allow Celerons to interact with Vista, and if I hadn't of been there, they might have gotten that and been miserable with the performance.

The average consumer needs a common chart of performance in the retail sect, from some trusted source or another, to guage price and features, better yet, if they knew to just Google the processor in question they could find a bevy of reviews.

[Jesse S @ Feb 21st 2007 2:37PM]

Look at benchmarks. Notice how C2D do as well, sometimes even better, than the Quads, in a Windows OS?

[Nobuyuki Idei @ Feb 26th 2007 12:56PM]

"Look at benchmarks. Notice how C2D do as well, sometimes even better, than the Quads, in a Windows OS?"
I will bet that even a single core CPU would do better than dual core in those benchmarks too, provided the clock speed was faster. The quad core CPUs typically have lower clock speed that the dual cores, so that tells you absolutely nothing about how the OS handles threads.

[tobin92 @ Feb 21st 2007 4:27PM]

Bah, I got the E6600 for $315, overclocked to 3ghz, barely no temp gain, Could blow this thing up is performance too paired with my 8800GTS.