seems pretty hot to me. thanks

EDIT: It's $174.99 + $9.99 S/H on eBay. The case is so so, I have got better cases for less. Plus with the Live.com CashBack, its even cheaper.

This is a new AMD product that just came out this year. I believe it is the most powerful AMD Desktop processor.

PirateSteve said:So, this is $5 cheaper than you can get the processor on eBay.

You have gotten better cases for negative $5?

Comes to be $171 on eBay w/Microsof CB. Link

But you can get it for $174.59 ($169.59 if you submit the PG rebate), plus you get a free Antec 300 case that you can sell on eBay.

possible reason for discount is that the 140 watt 9950BE is being replaced by a 125 watt part but who knows how long that takes.....ZipZoom has it for $179 so something is causing this chip to lower its price....

No whisper, Shanghai. It is due to the commercial market in 3 months and will be a 4.0ghz+ core. Let's put it this way. DOE has placed orders for 60,000 Shanghai cpus not for Nehlam. In High Productivity Computing Nehlam breaks even with Barcelona or a little faster with <8k page files(trivial applications). At 64k page files Barcelona walks on Nehlam based on the performance results from the TACC at the University of Texas. Shanghai will be more nearly 100watts TDP at 25mflops/watt vs about 125 watts for Nehlam and 16mflops/watt. 16mflops/watt is less than what the current Brisbane cores do. Here is a comparison between AMD and Intel architectures done to IEEE and NIST testing standards. Intel needs a 50% improvement in flops/watt ratio to catch up to AMD. Go back and see what garbage the trade press results are. Of course none of them would be good enough quality to be published in professional journals let alone win top prize at the IEEE conference.

and more info: read this on price changes:Text

intelslacker said:how good is this CPU compared to Intel??

Which one? I can tell you that a quad-core is better than a dual-core or single-core.

There are various metrics to be found on this CPU vs. Intel on Tom's Hardware. AMD has not performed well in benchmarks, even on their 4 core processors to the top dual-core Intel chips. However, they are less expensive and still are amazing processors.

smeagle said:There are various metrics to be found on this CPU vs. Intel on Tom's Hardware. AMD has not performed well in benchmarks, even on their 4 core processors to the top dual-core Intel chips. However, they are less expensive and still are amazing processors.

Only teenyboppers and children use Anandtech and Tom's as sources. Here is the peer reviewed benchmark between the AMD quad core CFP2006 162 and Intel CFP2006 113. Now show me any benchmarks that are valid under IEEE testing rules that show Intel ahead. Tom's isn't smart enough to enable the 16k page files for the AMD so that alone invalidates their results in addition to being a comment on their and heir readers competence.