I had them in my newegg cart this morning - yes 5 chips. I check the shipping several different ways - overnight was only $40. Alas even at $239 i figured they go like hot cakes. But i did not hit send????
 
Well first, I though 2.8-3.2ghz was no issue with the unlocked multiplier and full control bios. I was wrong a quick 30 min google search and i read some people believe these chips may not clock over 2.5ghz.  With the 5 baby q's in my cart and just did not bite. I had been waiting almost 6 weeks since I heard about these. Based on the q6600 2.5ghz is just too slow assuming clock 4 clock equal or even slightly better from amd.
 
I really could not beleive how low the price was, as it turns out it was not low enough for me to get them. I figured i needed 5 to get a good one???
 
What I have found with Intel quad cores, even at 2.8ghz the quad is not nearly as good as low end dual core for most apps including gaming (ok gaming that's what i do make gaming systems) - I am excluding video encoding where the big gain in speed for quads has been seen from day one in tests.
 
At 3.2-3.4 the quad Q6600 works good and games like a nice dual core, so the amd chip needs 3.0-3.2ghz - min!
 
Even at $239 and the ability to run 4 hd 3870 (I am a hard core ati fan) I still have to stick to Intel and nvidia chip set SLI set ups. AMD WHERE IS MY $1000 3.4GHZ QUAD BLACK - BIG BLACK! dOUBLE b = db
 
I have been watching for phenom BLACK and really was going to build a prototype as soon as the black came out - but that google (AMD READ: WITH MY CART FULL) search convinced me this morning that amd still does not offer enough reason to switch from intel.
 
Stick with the 6400+ if want to run gaming systems on the quad crossfirex - it is really ashamed that amd could not save up enough good chips to sell a "real black". I guess its really a grey chip or greenie black - NOTE TO AMD: YOU NEED A 3GHZ CHIPS ASAP!
 
BY THE WAY AMD - I WILL PAY $500 FOR A CHIP THAT RUNS 3.2-3.4GHZ AND 3GHZ OUT OF THE BOX!
 
I really do not wish to pick (i will not) through and then only to have to sell the dogs even if its 30% or more rejects to get to 2.8ghz.  AMD I am not buying 5 cpu's to get 1 3.2ghz chip! Not when i can get 4ghz from intel right now.  Note: to amd forget it!
 
AMD (AMD READ THIS) please bin the chips and sell some good ones - i pay $800!
So even at $239 the "phenom black quad" or "pbq" no bargin!     (say it like barbie que) its a baby q
 
Add your thoughts, other intel fan boys and neutrals - hard core amd too!

Their true quad-core doesn't allow them to bin like Intel does.  MCM @65nm is superior in this regard.
 
Like I said before:  Where the hell are the K10 dual-cores?  Those would be capable of binning a lot more at higher frequencies, and yields would be better too.

I do not understand enough about that  TC- interesting points - epecially the k10 dual core. My feeling is the k10 dual are inferior to k8 - the k10 are less expensive right? smaller?
 
maybe they are clearing inventory with the k8?
 
I just want to run 4 ati cards and i need a frikin good amd chip!

You want my 3700? I bet it's better than a Phenom.

Neh, the k10 dual core and tri core would have the advantage of the extra L3 cache memory that the k8 doesn't have.  

 
K10 duals will hardly be any better than K8 duals, unless they can exceed 3GHz...

here is the retail link for black:
 
http://www.isorm.com/product_info.php?products_id=2643

 
Maybe.  HOWEVER, a high clocked K10 dual will be better at single threaded applications (read: most games out today) than a slower clocked quad core.
 
 
AMD did it backwards.
 
 
AMD should have started with a K10 dual core.  Then they should have done a K10 MCM quad.  Then go for monolithic @ 45nm.
 
 
Instead they go straight to monolithic quad core @65nm.  Then sometime this year (only God knows when, we sure know Hector doesn't) they will release K10 dual cores.  Then later on (2009???) they are going to do a MCM octal core.
 
 
While Intel is doing the opposite!  Intel did MCM @65nm.  Now they are going to a monolithic octo core (2009???), and are going to throw in a integrated memory controller!
 
 
While AMD's designs are more complicated and more impressive in power point form, Intel's designs are more practical and more implementable with today's current manufacturing technology.
 
 
AMD is being innovative and cutting edge at the cost of practicality and performance.  While hardware enthusiasts may appreciate the complexity and potential of a monolithic quad core with an integrated memory controller, our wallets will favor the better performing, and available design.
 
 
If AMD wishes to save itself it needs to still be very innovative, but implement the technology where their manufacturing processes are ready.
 
All of this in my humble opinion, of course.

 
The K10/10h was designed to be a server CPU first and foremost. AMD needed an answer to Intel's Xeon 5300 quad-cores as they were eating into AMD's 2P and 4P server sales. The 5300s were by far the least expensive way to get eight cores in one box and not all that much more expensive than a 2P dual-core AMD setup. AMD also promised drop-in compatibility with existing Socket F users (with an appropriate vendor BIOS), so they had to make a chip that would work with F, and that meant making an MCM would be very tough. Thus they made a monolithic quad-core CPU.
 
It's a different ballgame with desktops, though. AMD probably should have made a dual-core 10h first and then done quads later as a 10h dual would be much smaller and easier to yield at a good clock speed than the quad. I suppose they did the quads first since they have a limited number of lines available and couldn't make 10h duals yet, so they just diverted some of the Opteron 10h dies for use in Phenoms. That should sound oddly familiar to anybody that remembers the K8 launch- the FX-51 was simply a rebadged Opteron 148 with an unlocked multiplier.
 

 
AMD and Intel are targeting markets a little differently. AMD is concentrating on the server market and Intel is concentrating on the mobile market and to a lesser extent on the desktop market. As such, AMD's CPUs have traits that are really not needed at the present on the desktop (such as the IMC and HT) but are in a server setup. Intel's CPUs are more suited for notebooks and desktops but have to make some concessions in the server realm, such as much worse scaling.
 

 
Intel's biggest advantage over AMD is its process technology. Say what you will about the Core microarchitecture, but process technology is Intel's #1 asset. If Intel didn't have their advantage in process technology, they would not have the transistor budget to put in as large of caches and push clock speeds as high as they do without running into horrible thermal problems. They would have to try to extract as much from their current transistor budget and thermal envelope, which probably results in more complex designs of trying to do work smarter rather than harder. Basically, they'd be doing things very similarly to AMD, except they might have more money to get multiple lines up and going without adversely affecting current product supply.
 

 
The market was demanding quad-core server chips, so AMD had to bite or they'd really take it on the chin. I agree- 45 nm should have been where the 10h was first made, but AMD probably didn't think they could try to pump dual-core CPUs until then and stay in business. They had to do what they needed to do with what they had. I am pretty impressed that it's turned out this well. The quad-core 10h is a damn complicated and damn big chip and the fact that they're managing to yield it in any quantity at the prices that it's offered at is pretty amazing.  

The fact is the memory controller all a long has been the power beast and limited the chu's. Intel waited until the thermal profile was low with high speed chips before they added the mcm.
 
remember too that then ones are much smaller and lower in power required.
 
o well

 
I was not aware of that being a problem since AMD has been able to implement some very low-powered CPUs using MCMs, such as the fanless mobile Sempron 2100+ as well as fanless K8-based blade server CPUs with little bitty heatsinks. If anything, I'd think that an IMC would be more efficient than a northbridge memory controller since an MCM is made on the same process as the CPU (which is state-of-the-art) versus a northbridge memory controller typically being made on older processes. Case in point: AMD's mobile CPUs have an integrated IMC made from 65 nm transistors, while Intel's mobile CPUs use either the 965 chipset, made on 90 nm or the 945 chipset, which is made from 130 nm transistors. This difference is pretty obvious when you look at the power draws of an NVIDIA or AMD mobile chipset for an AMD CPU versus the power draws of an Intel mobile chipset. The 965GM/PM chipset is rated at 11-14 watts TDP versus 8 watts for AMD's RS690 series. Also consider that Intel's standard dual-core mobile CPUs are rated at a higher TDP (35 W) than many of AMD's mobile CPUs (most are 31 W, some are 35 W.) Yes, TDP doesn't equal power draw, but a lower TDP generally coincides with power power draws, especially in laptops, where the TDP bins are more closely associated with actual power draw than on the desktop.

I changed my mind i am building these - good job amd you sold me with all these fancy graphics and nice mobos and cool spiders

Dragonsprayer buys AMD: Noted for historical records.

Hey, let me know what kinda luck you have with OCing those.  Wanna see what they can hit, then probably gonna buy one myself.

I second that. I'm very interested in information regarding the overclocking and stability of these processors.

 
 
I always find buying new computer stuff anti-climatic. But good for you, give us your unbiased opinion and maybe I will send you some cookies.    

well its the 4 pci-e slots on the mobo, i guess i should use a 6400+.
 
amd screwed me on the triple crossfire with asus so i stuck with spider
 
i really want to buy amd at this point - i think like most people on this site we just want better parts or stuff we can sell!