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

Will you stay AMD if multi/fsbs stay locked?

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

Ruiner

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2001
http://www.overclockers.com/articles911/

Assume Ed is right, and there remains an Intel-style internal multiplier lock, and only 10-20% headroom in FSB OCing.
Also assume that their lower end Newcastles stay at $200.

For those of you now running AMD systems, would you upgrade to such a system?

I think Ed is right. Loyalty to AMD will only go so far.

I would have made this a poll if I could have, but I go strictly bang/buck. Assuming new apps need the horsepower, forcing an upgrade in the first place, I would quickly go Intel if their equivalent OC'ed rig was cheaper.

I can see this backfiring bigtime, and AMD backpedalling to get their enthusiast business back.
 

RedArmy

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
I was just about to start a simmilar thread myself. the unswer is NO. I will not stay with AMD. I am going for the forbidden apple. My next upgrade I will be 2.4C/ASUS4P800P. Bang for the buck is the rule of thumb. AMD does not get one at this time of the year.:mad:
 

CalsonicGTR

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2001
Location
Illinois
After I did my most recent upgrade, I was planning on sitting tight with this system for two or so years until Socket939 comes out, and PCI Express/DDR2 become cheaper and more advanced. From the sound of that article, AMD isn't going to make a Socket 939 Newcastle very overclockable. If that becomes the case, then I guess a Tejas system might be my next major upgrade.
 
Last edited:

Deathknight

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2002
Location
Chicago
All depends where the A64 is next year ;) As it stands now its doubtful I could have built my gaming rig the way I wanted it, on a locked AMD chip.
 

Sintak

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Location
Minnesota
I will definitely stay with AMD. I've never had many problem with any AMD chips I have used and when it comes to price vs. performance AMD seems to always come out on top, or at least in my mind. So yeah, I will most likely always stay with AMD although I probably won't be upgrading the A64 for quite some time.



XP.jpg
 

7keys

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2001
Location
Montreal
Well,……for one thing, AMD will need a lot less customers to make a profit than with the way they have been doing it in the past.

Most AMD buyers are buying the $50 processors and overclocking them….. So AMD is going bankrupt with things the way they are now. Of course this is AMD’s fault for selling them so cheap that they can’t make a profit.

We all know that the pricing for the Athlon 64 will come down in a few months to reasonable levels and we will see then if this strategy works.

Really!....they need to do something to turn the company around.


Why should they care about overclockers, what have overclockers done for them except drive them into bankruptcy?
 

PingSpike

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Location
Vermont, USA
I don't plan to buy another processor for at least 9 months, and even it will probably be a high end xp like the 3000+ or 3200+. Maybe a 2500+ to overclock.
 
OP
Ruiner

Ruiner

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2001
You're assuming that those buyers would have purchased cpus at all at higher price levels. It's better to sell lots of 50 buck chips than very few (or none) at $4-700.

IMHO, enthusiasts will just upgrade much less often at these price levels. It's easy to pick up a cheap, new chip every few months when the steppings improve. It's also easy to risk frying it when pushing the limits....just buy another one.

If AMD persists in this, I think it opens wide the window to VIA to make cheap and 'fast enough' chips. Laugh at Nehemiah all you want, but it will get faster and might eventually be 'fast enough' for gaming.

FWIW, my price point for a cpu is around $100 or so (what I paid for my 2100).


7keys said:
Well,……for one thing, AMD will need a lot less customers to make a profit than with the way they have been doing it in the past.

Most AMD buyers are buying the $50 processors and overclocking them….. So AMD is going bankrupt with things the way they are now. Of course this is AMD’s fault for selling them so cheap that they can’t make a profit.

We all know that the pricing for the Athlon 64 will come down in a few months to reasonable levels and we will see then if this strategy works.

Really!....they need to do something to turn the company around.


Why should they care about overclockers, what have overclockers done for them except drive them into bankruptcy?
 

attack

Member
Joined
May 23, 2002
I just read an interview with henri..somthing, he's a vice pres of marketing for AMD. the article is at www.firingsquad.com. In it he seemed that they wouldn't be locking multipliers...atleast not the way intel does. There main concern is preventing people from selling easily OC'ed cpu's as high end ones. This is a major problem if you think about it! Joe six pack buys a budget AMD running at 3200+ (say it's normal a 1800+) and it dies quicker than a lemming, what is he gonna think about AMD?

I think they'll lock the chips so you'll need a wire pin trick, or bridge connecting/blowing scheme...and that's IF they are locked at all
 

cobray

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Sure, why not if an AMD chip is at the right price/performance ratio. I thought the goal was performance not how OC'able is it (at least it is for most people I know).
 

ArE_eYe_SeE_kAy

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
I disagree with about half of the posted opinions in this post!

Posted by 7 Keys
Why should they care about overclockers, what have overclockers done for them except drive them into bankruptcy?
Wrong! THEY SHOULD CARE ABOUT THE OVERCLOCKERS!
I had $100 to spend on a processor. I saw 2 cpu manufacturers. I saw that i could get a low mhz Pentium or I could get a high end AMD that could be overclocked very well. So I bought the AMD.
That gave AMD $100 and shorted Intel $100 worth of business.
Now that their locking the processors, if I was shopping today, I might have to go with the Pentium. I might spend a few more dollars but i could still overclock it! They got my business because i could overclock it!

With the processors locked, their nothing but a discount processor to me!

Posted by ajrettke
There main concern is preventing people from selling easily OC'ed cpu's as high end ones.

3 words: Slight of hand.

A very good reason to tell the public, but really, let's think about it. There's a ton more measures they could have done instead of lock them: have the processor name perm on the processor instead of on a sticker! Or Give them a color by clock!

Really, the real motivation was profit.

They just burnt us ( the overclockers )!
 
Last edited:

Tawcan

Registered
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Location
Vancouver, BC
It all depends on what's out when I will be getting my next new system. Right now AMD doesn't look as good considering the CPU cost. I kinda want to see what happens with the whole form change.

Right now the HT technology looks very good. :)
 

Avg

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
i'm going to wait until the summer anyway to do any major upgrade and since money is tight, I can't afford to be loyal to any company. So until then if they want my money they better make cheaper chips cause if I am to buy anonether 32bit chip it will be from intel.
 
OP
Ruiner

Ruiner

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2001
Tawcan said:


Right now the HT technology looks very good. :)

I've never played with HT, but if it gives at least some of the 'creamy goodness' that SMP is famous for, it's a plus over the currently useless 64 bit that AMD is touting. A year from now, things MAY be different on that (64 bit) end, for users. Devs will be on it sooner.


No word on the K8's, but the new XPs are all hard locked in the silicon, same as Intel's.
Once people start buying/testing/tweaking K8s, they will probably find the same thing (No pencil tricks, wire wraps, etc....).
 

Cuda

Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2003
Location
West Virginia
I'll stick with AMD. They have been good to me and to overclocking in general. Permenant locking of multipliers the way Intel did is not yet a certainty. I'll wait it out for at least a year and see what happens. I'm building a fourth machine in the spring around good ole tax time and it will be powered by AMD!
 

@md0Cer

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Location
Denver, CO

Assume Ed is right, and there remains an Intel-style internal multiplier lock, and only 10-20% headroom in FSB OCing.
Also assume that their lower end Newcastles stay at $200.

For those of you now running AMD systems, would you upgrade to such a system?

I think Ed is right. Loyalty to AMD will only go so far.

I would have made this a poll if I could have, but I go strictly bang/buck. Assuming new apps need the horsepower, forcing an upgrade in the first place, I would quickly go Intel if their equivalent OC'ed rig was cheaper.

I can see this backfiring bigtime, and AMD backpedalling to get their enthusiast business back.

hmm that is a good question. I am a real AMD fan boy, but if in the future they keep their prices exactly the same as Intel's and they keep it all locked, if the Intel overclocks better, I would definitely get the Intel. Well I guess it depends on how much heat it throws off, which one is faster etc. If it was right now I would probably still get AMD. If you have good ram, it shouldn’t be too bad becuase if you get a 2500 (multi of 11) to 215 FSB that’s somewhere within 2.3Ghz. And im sure if you got a 2800 Barton with a higher multiplier you could get around 2.6Ghz. Unfortunately, that could get expensive. So, if it was the same price as the equivalent Intel, it would depend what was faster and could be overclocked more. I hope AMD does drop their prices lower than Intel and at least keep the real high end stuff like the FX unlocked so if you have a phase change or whatever you can still overclock like mad. And if AMD kept their 2 highest models unlocked it wouldn’t hurt them as much because currently I believe their reasoning is because if they lock it, it will force us OC'ers to have to buy a chip with a higher multi which would be more expensive. So if the highest and 2nd most high were unlocked, that shouldn't affect AMD in a bad way. But that wouldn’t matter to me though because I probably will never have enough money to buy the high end models.

So, getting back to the original question, if they are locked and are priced similar to Intel, and if Intel stays relatively expensive compared to what AMD is at now, I probably will not upgrade for a LONG time.
 

NicePants42

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
My next upgrade will be the one that gives me the most bang for my buck. Period.

I got in on the Barton 2500+ in the nick of time, before they locked the multiplier, and I'm perfectly happy with my 2.35ghz system right now.

I also agree with Ed's article, particularly the part that goes:

"You won't make that determination now, simply because you (and I) don't have the hard facts and prices in yet. Only at that point will you (and I) do the little calculations in our heads to figure out whether to buy or not."
 

attack

Member
Joined
May 23, 2002
Hmm, in response to a couple of comments and the article by ed....

Mediacted, i didn't realize the it was that hard coded, I figured there was some easy trick around the new bartons that we just hadn't found yet.

ArE_eYe_SeE_kAy, Well, the processor speed is lasered into the core...i.e. XP1700DLT3Cxxxxxx
...also even if you make it obvious like, blue is 1.8ghz, red is 1.9, etc...think joe is gonna even know what color is which, let a lone how to remove a heatsink? I modded my XP1700+ so it boots up and is recognized as a 3200+ at 200 FSB, and it'll run that at defualt voltage, think I should sell it as a 3200+


Fro the article, I think ed's just been spoiled by AMD's incredible price and performance. I think the days od 50 dollor monstor OC's are done for a while. AMD tried the cheap cpu, please everyone...and it's bit em in the ***. There smartening up IMO. I'd rather see locked processors from 2 different companies, than one company selling locked processers at a much higher price because no one else can even come close. *shrug* you can't always get what ya want...maybe Ed should think about AMD's reasons for thier stances, not just a "I'm ****ed off and feel alienated" view.
 

ixnay

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
I'll go for whatever gives me the best bang for buck. I dont care if its Intel, AMD, VIA......Being 'loyal' to some random_company001 really doesnt make sense to me.