AMD fanboys,time to admit.

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Cruise51

the "value" segment is an e6600 @ $350 compared to an FX-62 @ $1000+. [/quote]
A projected price compared to a current price, I expect FX-62 prices to be cut by at least two thirds when e6600 is readily available.

I agree it is a great time for upgrading.[/quote]

No I am afraid that won't happen FX and XE don't get price cuts until a new FX or XE is there to take it's place, on intel' side they are always 999US and never budget.

With the FX's they are always 827US or 1031US these days and don't budge from those numbers. AMD will not have a performance competitor against the E6600.

 

[broly8877]

I've been an AMD user since the Tbird.

Conroe destroys AMD's offerings.

C2D PC coming this summer.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Pandaren

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Umm, I think the A64's use less power than Core 2 Duo when idle, but more when under loads.

I don't think this is necessarily the case:

THG Power Consumption figures

The Core 2 Extreme system consumes 160 watts at idle with SpeedStep enabled. The FX-60 consumes 161 watts with Cool n' Quiet enabled. The FX-62 consumes 192 watts at idle.

The AnandTech article shows a small lead for the AMD systems. My guess is that on average, it's a wash at idle speeds, depending on motherboards, BIOS versions, and other small factors.

Unfortunately, we cant really go by Toms as they have been known to favor intel since that ridiculous Dual Core Stress test thing they turned into a fiasco.
H has a more trustworthy power consumption bench here.

And here is AT's here.

Lol wtf?

Tomshardware/AT/TechReport/XbitLabs power consumption tests are within line of each other. HardOCP's is the one thats off by a large margin.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=16

And what part of his statement is false? Chipset differential, PSU differences, memory differences, all that small stuff, can easily account for +/- 10% in idle and load consumption.

 

[linkgoron]

Originally posted by: hardwareking
I guess its about time all the amd fanboys out there admitted that Core 2 Duo from Intel a.k.a Conroe destroys all K8 AMD processors(in their price segment)in all benchmarks except memory bandwidth/latency.And it performs better while consuming less power at both idle and load.
So its about time u admitted it.Intel is on top!!!!!
Say it with me.Intel is on top,yeah!!!!
And how many of u are gonna get core 2 duo?(non amd fanboys included)?

Please ban.
Really, this is just flamebait. It's obvious that Conroe owns the K8, on every benchmark and by a large margin, but these kind of posts are uncalled for.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Pandaren

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Umm, I think the A64's use less power than Core 2 Duo when idle, but more when under loads.

I don't think this is necessarily the case:

THG Power Consumption figures

The Core 2 Extreme system consumes 160 watts at idle with SpeedStep enabled. The FX-60 consumes 161 watts with Cool n' Quiet enabled. The FX-62 consumes 192 watts at idle.

The AnandTech article shows a small lead for the AMD systems. My guess is that on average, it's a wash at idle speeds, depending on motherboards, BIOS versions, and other small factors.

Unfortunately, we cant really go by Toms as they have been known to favor intel since that ridiculous Dual Core Stress test thing they turned into a fiasco.
H has a more trustworthy power consumption bench here.

And here is AT's here.

Lol wtf?

Tomshardware/AT/TechReport/XbitLabs power consumption tests are within line of each other. HardOCP's is the one thats off by a large margin.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=16

And what part of his statement is false? Chipset differential, PSU differences, memory differences, all that small stuff, can easily account for +/- 10% in idle and load consumption.

That's good!! I always welcome more info, of course. Just not from Toms is all. And how do we actually know "which" one is off? Do we pick and choose at leisure? I'll just go by Anandtech's article if ya don't mind. It is after all, where I spend most my time as far as forums and review sites go. AT review was very good, with more information than I thought they would cover. So you can just keep on laughing if you wish.

 

[Cruise51]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Cruise51

the "value" segment is an e6600 @ $350 compared to an FX-62 @ $1000+.

A projected price compared to a current price, I expect FX-62 prices to be cut by at least two thirds when e6600 is readily available.

I agree it is a great time for upgrading.[/quote]

No I am afraid that won't happen FX and XE don't get price cuts until a new FX or XE is there to take it's place, on intel' side they are always 999US and never budget.

With the FX's they are always 827US or 1031US these days and don't budge from those numbers. AMD will not have a performance competitor against the E6600.[/quote]

The only situations where I could see the FX prices not dropping by very much is if AMD discontinues them, or if they have very limited stock left. Otherwise they simply won't be able to sell them. Only a few FX chips will be sold if the price remains anywhere near this high.
AMD will make a choice... Cut prices by two thirds or discontinue the FX line until they can compete.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Pandaren

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Umm, I think the A64's use less power than Core 2 Duo when idle, but more when under loads.

I don't think this is necessarily the case:

THG Power Consumption figures

The Core 2 Extreme system consumes 160 watts at idle with SpeedStep enabled. The FX-60 consumes 161 watts with Cool n' Quiet enabled. The FX-62 consumes 192 watts at idle.

The AnandTech article shows a small lead for the AMD systems. My guess is that on average, it's a wash at idle speeds, depending on motherboards, BIOS versions, and other small factors.

Unfortunately, we cant really go by Toms as they have been known to favor intel since that ridiculous Dual Core Stress test thing they turned into a fiasco.
H has a more trustworthy power consumption bench here.

And here is AT's here.

Lol wtf?

Tomshardware/AT/TechReport/XbitLabs power consumption tests are within line of each other. HardOCP's is the one thats off by a large margin.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=16

And what part of his statement is false? Chipset differential, PSU differences, memory differences, all that small stuff, can easily account for +/- 10% in idle and load consumption.

That's good!! I always welcome more info, of course. Just not from Toms is all. And how do we actually know "which" one is off? Do we pick and choose at leisure? I'll just go by Anandtech's article if ya don't mind. It is after all, where I spend most my time as far as forums and review sites go. AT review was very good, with more information than I thought they would cover. So you can just keep on laughing if you wish.

Toms's Hardware information is fine, as long as they correlate to data reported by the other review sites. I weclome more data, like you, but I have to see if it fits considering the chipset infromation and settings they used. So they made some mistakes at certains points in their existance, TechReport and Anandtech aren't immune to something like that as well, and have been shown to make mistakes as well from tiem to time.

Well it depends, you have to know enough information to see which is accurate and which is not. You don't pick and choose based on nothing.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Cruise51

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Cruise51

the "value" segment is an e6600 @ $350 compared to an FX-62 @ $1000+.

A projected price compared to a current price, I expect FX-62 prices to be cut by at least two thirds when e6600 is readily available.

I agree it is a great time for upgrading.

No I am afraid that won't happen FX and XE don't get price cuts until a new FX or XE is there to take it's place, on intel' side they are always 999US and never budget.

With the FX's they are always 827US or 1031US these days and don't budge from those numbers. AMD will not have a performance competitor against the E6600.[/quote]

The only situations where I could see the FX prices not dropping by very much is if AMD discontinues them, or if they have very limited stock left. Otherwise they simply won't be able to sell them. Only a few FX chips will be sold if the price remains anywhere near this high.
AMD will make a choice... Cut prices by two thirds or discontinue the FX line until they can compete.[/quote]

No I am afraid it doens't wokr that way, look at Intel they shoved the Pentium EE 955 and 965 out the door at 999US regardless of how competitive it was against AMD's Athlon FX 60 and Athlon FX 62.

These are glamour products, they aren't meant to be sold in high quantities, they are jsut there to cast a warm glow across the product line to sell the resst of it. I will say it again, they are not designed to be sold in massive quantities.

They will take neither or your 2 choices, they will leave the FX line intact and they will still be priced exactly where they are, they will compete in price/performance only on the lower end.

The bulk of AMD's revenue is from the lower end processor and they are selling those cheaper with the 3800+, 4200+, 4600+, 5000+ getting some price cuts on the 24th of July.

 

[Cruise51]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Cruise51

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Cruise51

the "value" segment is an e6600 @ $350 compared to an FX-62 @ $1000+.

A projected price compared to a current price, I expect FX-62 prices to be cut by at least two thirds when e6600 is readily available.

I agree it is a great time for upgrading.

No I am afraid that won't happen FX and XE don't get price cuts until a new FX or XE is there to take it's place, on intel' side they are always 999US and never budget.

With the FX's they are always 827US or 1031US these days and don't budge from those numbers. AMD will not have a performance competitor against the E6600.

The only situations where I could see the FX prices not dropping by very much is if AMD discontinues them, or if they have very limited stock left. Otherwise they simply won't be able to sell them. Only a few FX chips will be sold if the price remains anywhere near this high.
AMD will make a choice... Cut prices by two thirds or discontinue the FX line until they can compete.[/quote]

No I am afraid it doens't wokr that way, look at Intel they shoved the Pentium EE 955 and 965 out the door at 999US regardless of how competitive it was against AMD's Athlon FX 60 and Athlon FX 62.

These are glamour products, they aren't meant to be sold in high quantities, they are jsut there to cast a warm glow across the product line to sell the resst of it. I will say it again, they are not designed to be sold in massive quantities.

They will take neither or your 2 choices, they will leave the FX line intact and they will still be priced exactly where they are, they will compete in price/performance only on the lower end.

The bulk of AMD's revenue is from the lower end processor and they are selling those cheaper with the 3800+, 4200+, 4600+, 5000+ getting some price cuts on the 24th of July.
[/quote]

I suppose you might be right. FX chips likely make up a insignificant amount of AMD income. Very few are produced so they may keep it around as a glamour product.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Cruise51

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Cruise51

the "value" segment is an e6600 @ $350 compared to an FX-62 @ $1000+.

A projected price compared to a current price, I expect FX-62 prices to be cut by at least two thirds when e6600 is readily available.

I agree it is a great time for upgrading.

No I am afraid that won't happen FX and XE don't get price cuts until a new FX or XE is there to take it's place, on intel' side they are always 999US and never budget.

With the FX's they are always 827US or 1031US these days and don't budge from those numbers. AMD will not have a performance competitor against the E6600.

The only situations where I could see the FX prices not dropping by very much is if AMD discontinues them, or if they have very limited stock left. Otherwise they simply won't be able to sell them. Only a few FX chips will be sold if the price remains anywhere near this high.
AMD will make a choice... Cut prices by two thirds or discontinue the FX line until they can compete.[/quote]

No I am afraid it doens't wokr that way, look at Intel they shoved the Pentium EE 955 and 965 out the door at 999US regardless of how competitive it was against AMD's Athlon FX 60 and Athlon FX 62.

These are glamour products, they aren't meant to be sold in high quantities, they are jsut there to cast a warm glow across the product line to sell the resst of it. I will say it again, they are not designed to be sold in massive quantities.

They will take neither or your 2 choices, they will leave the FX line intact and they will still be priced exactly where they are, they will compete in price/performance only on the lower end.

The bulk of AMD's revenue is from the lower end processor and they are selling those cheaper with the 3800+, 4200+, 4600+, 5000+ getting some price cuts on the 24th of July.
[/quote]

I think you're right. AMD has to have something comparable to Intels high end, in price, if at nothing else. FX prices are not going to budge, I'm afraid.

 

[unfalliblekrutch]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Cruise51

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Cruise51

the "value" segment is an e6600 @ $350 compared to an FX-62 @ $1000+.

A projected price compared to a current price, I expect FX-62 prices to be cut by at least two thirds when e6600 is readily available.

I agree it is a great time for upgrading.

No I am afraid that won't happen FX and XE don't get price cuts until a new FX or XE is there to take it's place, on intel' side they are always 999US and never budget.

With the FX's they are always 827US or 1031US these days and don't budge from those numbers. AMD will not have a performance competitor against the E6600.

The only situations where I could see the FX prices not dropping by very much is if AMD discontinues them, or if they have very limited stock left. Otherwise they simply won't be able to sell them. Only a few FX chips will be sold if the price remains anywhere near this high.
AMD will make a choice... Cut prices by two thirds or discontinue the FX line until they can compete.

No I am afraid it doens't wokr that way, look at Intel they shoved the Pentium EE 955 and 965 out the door at 999US regardless of how competitive it was against AMD's Athlon FX 60 and Athlon FX 62.

These are glamour products, they aren't meant to be sold in high quantities, they are jsut there to cast a warm glow across the product line to sell the resst of it. I will say it again, they are not designed to be sold in massive quantities.

They will take neither or your 2 choices, they will leave the FX line intact and they will still be priced exactly where they are, they will compete in price/performance only on the lower end.

The bulk of AMD's revenue is from the lower end processor and they are selling those cheaper with the 3800+, 4200+, 4600+, 5000+ getting some price cuts on the 24th of July.
[/quote]

I think you're right. AMD has to have something comparable to Intels high end, in price, if at nothing else. FX prices are not going to budge, I'm afraid.

[/quote]

Makes sense...but perhaps AMD won't be as arrogant as Intel? After all, they like to appeal to us techies who don't care so much for the "glamour" as much for performance/value.

 

[Cruise51]

A $350 FX-62... One can dream can't they? lol

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: unfalliblekrutch
Makes sense...but perhaps AMD won't be as arrogant as Intel? After all, they like to appeal to us techies who don't care so much for the "glamour" as much for performance/value.

Really are you sure? Did AMD really care about "us" when they introduced their Athlno 64x2 between 500 and 1001US pricing?

 

[Imyourzero]

Thread was posted this morning and its already got 552 views. It is a shame that the people who create threads that are obviously intended to troll get the most attention.

38 replies and no one has noticed that the OP hasn't even bothered to post again? :disgust:

 

[Grimner]

So Intel has finally caught up with little AMD. Great!
That means competition either on price or speed. It's probably good for AMD to get a kick from time to time.

So Conroe is faster; but not by so much - looks more like evolution than some quantum leap.

Me, I'm happy with good old Barton until next year - right now storage solutions and memory is far more interestning than another CPU or platform. Guess I'm growing old

 

[theteamaqua]

boy i hope K8L comes out quickily ... if they cant get this thing out ASAP. they r doomed

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Imyourzero
Thread was posted this morning and its already got 552 views. It is a shame that the people who create threads that are obviously intended to troll get the most attention.

38 replies and no one has noticed that the OP hasn't even bothered to post again? :disgust:

I noticed I was just assuming he got an early start on the vacation....

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: unfalliblekrutch

I think you're right. AMD has to have something comparable to Intels high end, in price, if at nothing else. FX prices are not going to budge, I'm afraid.

Makes sense...but perhaps AMD won't be as arrogant as Intel? After all, they like to appeal to us techies who don't care so much for the "glamour" as much for performance/value.[/quote]

Well, AMD takes up 3 spots in the INQ's top ten "snob" or "arrogant" list this year.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: theteamaqua
boy i hope K8L comes out quickily ... if they cant get this thing out ASAP. they r doomed

Oh don't count AMD out even if they can't get K8L out till Mid 2007, it's currently doubtful we will get a derivatives based on K8L architecture on desktop in 2007 but we will see.

 

[fliguy84]

Ok, ok we know Conroe beats Athlon's panties off. So can these kinds of threads stop?

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: fliguy84
Ok, ok we know Conroe beats Athlon's panties off. So can these kinds of threads stop?

Heh, oh you know it's time for Intel fanboy revenge now and they need to keep rubbing Conroe into all the AMD fanboy's face considering how long they have been forced to live with being behind AMD in gaming. It's time to let off major steam no surprise there.

 

[mithrandir2001]

Why do fanboys exist? AMD and Intel are just capitalist organizations trying to make a buck off of anybody they can. I don't see why one would have hardcore allegiance to either. Whoever offers the best value gets my business.

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: fliguy84
Ok, ok we know Conroe beats Athlon's panties off. So can these kinds of threads stop?

Heh, oh you know it's time for Intel fanboy revenge now and they need to keep rubbing Conroe into all the AMD fanboy's face considering how long they have been forced to live with being behind AMD in gaming. It's time to let off major steam no surprise there.

Fine, then we should make a single "Intel finally tops AMD for games--fanbois let off steam here!!" thread and let everyone post there. It would be a heck of a lot easier and a heck of a lot less annoying than having to disregard all the Conroe threads when you're looking for other info.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: unfalliblekrutch

I think you're right. AMD has to have something comparable to Intels high end, in price, if at nothing else. FX prices are not going to budge, I'm afraid.

Makes sense...but perhaps AMD won't be as arrogant as Intel? After all, they like to appeal to us techies who don't care so much for the "glamour" as much for performance/value.

Well, AMD takes up 3 spots in the INQ's top ten "snob" or "arrogant" list this year.

[/quote]

If it's on the INQ it's probably a lie.

 

[sandorski]

Will the OP do the same if 1 year from now AMD Murders Conroe?