• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Has everybody given up unlocking the new Athlons?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Bruno

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2000
Location
Location: Location:
Has everybody given up unlocking the new 32bit Athlons?

Is it one of those impossible tasks? Finally foiled?

What leverage do we have on the 32bit Pentium now.

If this is a ploy to force us into 64bit... they had better hope that M$ comes out w/ an OS quick. AND they best unlock the 64bitters.

Us overclockers were the only advertisment that AMD had going. If they fvck us... they'll fvck themselves.
 

c627627

c(n*199780) Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2002
Yes.
Still price/performance.
More like no more $49 for $400 CPUs.
Actually, word is overclockers made a small overall percantage...

It's still best bang for the buck, just not as much as it used to be.

Very fine systems can still be built for very little $ relatively speaking when you talk about people with little money, for whom $50 is quite a big deal.

They may have continued to give us ultra cheap higly overclockable CPUs if we gave them more than 16% of the market. We didn't. Intel continued to rake in $ from 83% of the market.

The who screwed whom list:
c627627 said:
AMD Net losses for the past two years, check out how Q4 2002 ended for them:

Q3 2001: -$98m (Athlon XP launched)
Q4 2001: -$16m
Q1 2002: -$16m
Q2 2002: -$185m
Q3 2002: -$254m
Q4 2002: -$855m
Q1 2003: -$146m
Q2 2003: -$140m
Q3 2003: -$31m


 

felinusz

Senior Overclocking Magus
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Location
Taiwan
If this is a ploy to force us into 64bit... they had better hope that M$ comes out w/ an OS quick. AND they best unlock the 64bitters.

It is not a ploy, and the 64-bit processors are also locked (barring the pricey FX-5X). AMD still offers an *INCREDIBLE* Price/Performance deal, even with the multiplier lock - so you shouldn't be complaining.

Us overclockers were the only advertisment that AMD had going. If they fvck us... they'll fvck themselves.

Overclockers make up such a small percentage of AMD's sales that it is completely irrelevant whether or not we buy their chips. AMD hasn't screwed themselves over at all - the exact opposite in fact :rolleyes: !

AMD might make some profits because of this change - and having them stay in business is good for *everyone* - even if us poor little overclockers have to suffer the terrible injustice, and the agonies of having to actually overclock incedibly inexpensive processors with locked multipliers, and still get good results too. Poor, poor us. AMD has betrayed our trust; let's all migrate to Intel, and their, expensive, locked processors, shall we? :rolleyes:

Would you rather have AMD continue to make cheap, unlocked processors, and go under (which would leave us with good ol' Intel, and no competition in the market, and as such, hugely inflated prices :rolleyes: )?

Easy decision. This new multiplier locking policy ain't the end of the world - or even too big a deal as far as I am concerned. If you really need that unlocked multiplier for some reason than buy a Duron Applebred, or a Mobile Barton 2400+ from newegg.
 

mR. STuPiD

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Location
Idaho
I will still by AMD processor even though their now locked. They still overclock well enough. Not as much as Intels with FSB overclocking, yes, but a 2500+ overclocked to 2.4GHz still has a much better price to performance ratio than a 2.4C overclocked to 3.4GHz. Beside that, WE NEED AMD. We need competition on the market. If you think Intel's processors are expensive now, just imagine whated they'ed be if they didn't need to stay competitive with them. Think of P4EE prices for their BASE processors. Case in Point: Even though AMD's processors aren't quite as much as a steal as they used to be, they are still better than the alterative, especially if everyone bought the alternative.
 

KnownKiller

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2002
Location
Macomb Twp, Michigan
I say they bit the hand that fed them!

If we are such a small % of sales then they wouldnt be locking down those CPU's, now would they?

Yeah right now its still ok since theres not much difference to an unlocked Barton to a locked one.. but the whole thing going for an unlocked CPU to me was the fact that you could max out the FSB speed which fixed the tiny FSB they have.. Now that it is locked your limited to what will max the CPU.. So if there gona lock'em down i'd hope they will continue to use a small mult so we can still run crazy FSB well over 200! That right there just makes ya wana buy intel with its 800FSB.

Word of mouth i think is gona kill them on this since mor enad more enthusiest will just buy Intel to continue to have some fun with overclocking.. not that you cant do that with the barton/64 line now but the current 64 system dont give that much leeway with FSB overclocking since theres no PCI lock. :(

The part that i hate most is that they want us to buy there massive top of the line just to have an unlocked mult! Now that what really ticks me! Its really stupid cause theres not many that will be buying them anyways! Not at that price.. And if they did.. damn thats like buying CPU's years ago at those prices of 700+.

Just think of all those companies out there that are gona suffer over this as well.. Like those that make high end fans and heatsinks and sub zero cooling items.. How are they gona stay in business if theres no reason, no need to run out there and cool down your system to help cool off that overclocked beast.. heh.
 

CalsonicGTR

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2001
Location
Illinois
The new locked 2500+ processors overclock just as well if not better than their unlocked counterparts. If you have decent RAM, then you shouldnt have any problems netting a very decent overclock.

This is just my opinion, but I think that people are overreacing a bit too much to this. The processors are still getting about the same speed overclocked. It might end up being 100MHz less, but really, are you going to be able to recognize a 100MHz difference in clock speed in games?
 

Evnas

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Location
Seattle, WA
felinusz said:
Would you rather have AMD continue to make cheap, unlocked processors, and go under (which would leave us with good ol' Intel, and no competition in the market, and as such, hugely inflated prices :rolleyes: )?

No matter what they decide, AMD wont go under. If they were going under, they would have by now, after racking up a 2 billion dollar debt. As long as Intel and AMD are the only two competitors in any market, the government wont let one, or the other, go under, as doing so would create one hell of a monopoly.
 

c627627

c(n*199780) Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2002
MHz speed = [FSB] x multiplier,

if you can't post any other multiplier on your CPU, it's a (multiplier) locked CPU.

You can still raise the FSB, but you need quality RAM sticks to be able to overclock FSB.
 

Hoot

Inactive Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2001
Location
Twin Cities
On my setup, with my locked Barton, if I select a multipier other than the locked 11, it still boots up fine, it just boots up at 11.

Hoot
 

Huckleberry

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Location
Just East of the mall
I don't think it's the end of the world at all.

I _do_ think it's too bad AMD locked the multiplier on the new procs - I think they were a bit shortsighted on this.

IMHO, AMD had built quite a good "buzz" with the enthusiast market by
1) having a great price/performance ratio and
2) giving us overclockers an overclocking platform that was more flexible than the Intel alternative.

No, our contribution to their bottom line wasn't great, but the aforementioned buzz certainly must have had a positive affect on normal sales. How many of us have suggested our friends and family purchase an AMD-based machine rather than Intel? Or maybe how many of our friends and family have purchased AMD-based machines based on the fact that "my overclocking neighbor Billy has an AMD system that ROCKS!" The fact that many of us prefer the AMD chips for overclocking (a much higher ratio than the current overall market share enjoyed by AMD) is proof that our market niche is much more AMD-friendly.

In my little world, this buzz should be worth much more than AMD apparently thinks it is.

In short, AMD has chosen to squeeze a few more dollars out of us (A very, very, very small amount) in exchange for greatly reduced word-of-mouth marketing.

Financially, I think they made the wrong choice.
 

c627627

c(n*199780) Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2002
Hoot said:
On my setup, with my locked Barton, if I select a multipier other than the locked 11, it still boots up fine, it just boots up at 11.

This is a good point, note that you can actually select any multiplier, it will just not post any multi other than default if you have a new multiplier locked chip.
 

tom10167

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Location
Phoenix. YOUR HAIR IS GOOD TO EAT
People are still getting awesome overclocks with the locked multiplier, usually the same speed, just less FSB and more multiplier as in:

200x11
opposed to 220x10 and considering barely anyone was hitting 220, it's really not hurting anyone.

I'm still glad mine's unlocked. ;)
 

johan851

Insatiably Malcontent, Senior Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Location
Seattle, WA
Wait a second...I think that one or two testing boards there was possibly no PCI lock. I'm pretty sure some of the later A64 boards have one, however. I thought the PCI lock was just a myth/hype/cattle-like freak out.
 

Henry Rollins II

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Location
The North Pole
c627627 said:


They may have continued to give us ultra cheap higly overclockable CPUs if we gave them more than 16% of the market. We didn't. Intel continued to rake in $ from 83% of the market.

The who screwed whom list:

It would certainly help AMD if OEM's could use their brains and see AMDs potential in the budget segment. If they would use Duron 1600s instead of those crappy Celerons it would benefit not only the users with faster computers but also a lower manufacturing cost.
 

Vaguerant

Registered
Joined
Nov 15, 2003
Location
Little Rock
I for one won't spend hundreds of dollars on a cpu and then overclock it. So what if the high end AMD cpus are unlocked? If you have the money to buy the latest and greatest, then you don't have to stretch your dollars to get that little extra bit of performance...you just buy it.
 

Evnas

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Location
Seattle, WA
Henry Rollins II said:


It would certainly help AMD if OEM's could use their brains and see AMDs potential in the budget segment. If they would use Duron 1600s instead of those crappy Celerons it would benefit not only the users with faster computers but also a lower manufacturing cost.

Thats the problem...AMD cant offer OEMs what Intel can. Intel offers OEMs a HUGE price cut, as well as (or so i hear) help with advertising (at least in the case of Dell)...stuff that AMD cant offer. Granted that for the consumer, Intel is more expensive. But for OEM's, Intel is the cheaper, more cost effective way to go, otherwise more OEM's would use AMD.

Its not because OEM's cant use their brains...its because they can, and they do what nets them the largest profit. Intel has a ton of cash to throw at OEM's to get them to use their product, and they have no problem doing it. AMD just doesnt have that luxury.
 

Henry Rollins II

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Location
The North Pole
Evnas said:


Thats the problem...AMD cant offer OEMs what Intel can. Intel offers OEMs a HUGE price cut, as well as (or so i hear) help with advertising (at least in the case of Dell)...stuff that AMD cant offer. Granted that for the consumer, Intel is more expensive. But for OEM's, Intel is the cheaper, more cost effective way to go, otherwise more OEM's would use AMD.

Its not because OEM's cant use their brains...its because they can, and they do what nets them the largest profit. Intel has a ton of cash to throw at OEM's to get them to use their product, and they have no problem doing it. AMD just doesnt have that luxury.

A Duron 1600 cost a 1/3 of the fastest celly in the stores.....what kinds of rebates are those oems getting?? :/ This adds upp to to fact that Intel is screwing the DIY customers. But hey, what else is new ? :(
 

Evnas

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Location
Seattle, WA
Henry Rollins II said:


A Duron 1600 cost a 1/3 of the fastest celly in the stores.....what kinds of rebates are those oems getting?? :/ This adds upp to to fact that Intel is screwing the DIY customers. But hey, what else is new ? :(

Well you also have to remember, that nobody pays those prices except the consumer. Resellers, OEM, etc buy factory direct, which always nets a much, much...MUCH lower price, no matter the product. They also buy bulk, usually in 1000 units, which also brings the prices down. Also the fact that resellers sell the product based on the MSRP. Factor in all those things, for all we know AMD and Intel processors cost the same for OEMs and resellers.