Conroe = Clean price/performance sweep?

[harpoon84]

Let's take into account AMD's upcoming pricecuts into the equation:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2800

I will put a similarly performing Conroe next to the appropriate AMD chip:

X2 3800+ $169
X2 4200+ $240..........E6300 $183
X2 4600+ $301..........E6400 $224 (really kinda in between 4600+ and 5000+)
X2 5000+ $403
A64 FX62 $1031.........E6600 $316
In it's own league.......E6700 $530
Ditto..........................X6800 $999

Without even taking into account overclocking, who in their right mind would choose an AMD over Conroe?

When P-D was being slaughtered by AMD, it was at least a lot cheaper, especially the low end stuff, and still held it's own in niche apps such as video encoding.

But Conroe is a total clean sweep for Intel, it beats AMD in performance AND value, even after the projected heavy price cuts from AMD.

The only area where I see AMD could possibly have an edge is in the sub $150 market, perhaps a sub $150 X2 3600+ would appease those that are on a tight budget, but other than that the future looks rather grim for AMD at this stage.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Actually the Pentium D didn't start off cheaper. It got cheap on eBay and then got cheaper later when Intel started official price cuts, especially after Presler was released.

But yeah, as long as you don't mind spending a minimum of $183 on your CPU, Intel wins price/performance comparisons (especially if you overclock). I mean come on, an E6300 can be OCed to around 2.8 or 2.9 ghz (or so I've heard) on air which beats just about any X2 OC on air that I've seen.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Actually the Pentium D didn't start off cheaper. It got cheap on eBay and then got cheaper later when Intel started official price cuts, especially after Presler was released.

But yeah, as long as you don't mind spending a minimum of $183 on your CPU, Intel wins price/performance comparisons (especially if you overclock). I mean come on, an E6300 can be OCed to around 2.8 or 2.9 ghz (or so I've heard) on air which beats just about any X2 OC on air that I've seen.

uhh isnt that 3.8 or 3.9? putting them about 700mhz more than a gem of a X2 OC AND more performance per clock?

Im actually concerned that AMD is going to go far into the red again trying to compete with intel on price.

With an enormous advantage in performance, and pretty much relegating the entire enthusiast market with its current price structure... AMD has no where to go but down in price... This will mean less profitability for AMD until K8L...

AMD will go 65nm soon enough... but isnt Intel going to be close to 40(or is it 45?)nm by then?

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Actually the Pentium D didn't start off cheaper. It got cheap on eBay and then got cheaper later when Intel started official price cuts, especially after Presler was released.

But yeah, as long as you don't mind spending a minimum of $183 on your CPU, Intel wins price/performance comparisons (especially if you overclock). I mean come on, an E6300 can be OCed to around 2.8 or 2.9 ghz (or so I've heard) on air which beats just about any X2 OC on air that I've seen.

uhh isnt that 3.8 or 3.9? putting them about 700mhz more than a gem of a X2 OC AND more performance per clock?

Nah, E6300s are FSB limited by the mobo chipset.
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html

It's the E6600s and higher that are getting near 4GHz.

Still, using Xbitlabs example, E6300 @ 2.94GHz owns the pants of an X2 3800+ @ 3GHz.

One can imagine the kind of damage a E6600@3.5GHz or more will do...

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Actually the Pentium D didn't start off cheaper. It got cheap on eBay and then got cheaper later when Intel started official price cuts, especially after Presler was released.

But yeah, as long as you don't mind spending a minimum of $183 on your CPU, Intel wins price/performance comparisons (especially if you overclock). I mean come on, an E6300 can be OCed to around 2.8 or 2.9 ghz (or so I've heard) on air which beats just about any X2 OC on air that I've seen.

uhh isnt that 3.8 or 3.9? putting them about 700mhz more than a gem of a X2 OC AND more performance per clock?

Im actually concerned that AMD is going to go far into the red again trying to compete with intel on price.

With an enormous advantage in performance, and pretty much relegating the entire enthusiast market with its current price structure... AMD has no where to go but down in price... This will mean less profitability for AMD until K8L...

AMD will go 65nm soon enough... but isnt Intel going to be close to 40(or is it 45?)nm by then?

No its 2.8 to 2.9 the E6300 is a 1.8 part stock

 

[Amplifier]

People who already own an AMD system. The time spent gutting my computer plus the cost of DDR2 + New mobo, that's big economic cost. In my mind it isn't a $160 3800x2 vs a $180 E6300 it's a $160 AMD vs a $280 E6300.

 

[harpoon84]

I'm sure you could sell your existing mobo/RAM for around 75% of it's brand new market value.

That's what I do quite often when I move on to newer tech, I sell the old stuff, there are a lot of people who don't need cutting edge machines, and just want a decent performer at a good price.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
People who already own an AMD system. The time spent gutting my computer plus the cost of DDR2 + New mobo, that's big economic cost. In my mind it isn't a $160 3800x2 vs a $180 E6300 it's a $160 AMD vs a $280 E6300.

Unless they're the rare few that already have AM2 systems, they'll have to replace motherboard and RAM whether they buy a new Intel or AMD chip. s939 chips are still out there, for now, but anyone wanting one of the more interesting AMD offerings (such as the EE and SFF chips) will have to go for AM2.

Right now, the only advantage AM2 has cost-wise is that their overcloking boards aren't typically $200-$260 (while Bad Axe boards are). Granted, when you get a Bad Axe board, you get something capable of hitting 400+ mhz FSB which is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Duvie]

Keep in mind genius that games dont use dual core much if any...therefore that same X2 4200+ you compare the E6300 to for gamers they might just get the 3500+ (also 2.2ghz) or even the 3800+ AM2 single cores for 112 and 142 respectively..probably the 3800+ for the fact the added speed will make up for the loss in cache versus the 4200+ X2....

However in games except for quake 4 what other games are really employing multicore ability???


Now I say this as a non-gamer who loves multicores and uses multithreaded apps...so for me core 2 duo is a clear winner...However DO NOT try to generalize everyone..

<<who in their right mind would choose an AMD over Conroe>>

I think I gave you an example of someone...


Also low wattage 3800+ could be attractive to SFF users even if a tad bit more in price merely for the 35watt TDP....

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Keep in mind genius that games dont use dual core much if any...therefore that same X2 4200+ you compare the E6300 to for gamers they might just get the 3500+ (also 2.2ghz) or even the 3800+ AM2 single cores for 112 and 142 respectively..probably the 3800+ for the fact the added speed will make up for the loss in cache versus the 4200+ X2....

However in games except for quake 4 what other games are really employing multicore ability???


Now I say this as a non-gamer who loves multicores and uses multithreaded apps...so for me core 2 duo is a clear winner...However DO NOT try to generalize everyone..

<<who in their right mind would choose an AMD over Conroe>>

I think I gave you an example of someone...


Also low wattage 3800+ could be attractive to SFF users even if a tad bit more in price merely for the 35watt TDP....

Oblivion benefits from SMP, and no matter which way you spin it, any AMD X2 chip will lose out to Conroe in price/performance, unless it's under the $150 mark.

Sure, if someone is on a tight budget and plays JUST games and nothing else, then a cheap single core A64 might be a good option, but you're better off getting an Xbox 360 or PS3 if you just want to game and do nothing else.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Keep in mind genius that games dont use dual core much if any...therefore that same X2 4200+ you compare the E6300 to for gamers they might just get the 3500+ (also 2.2ghz) or even the 3800+ AM2 single cores for 112 and 142 respectively..probably the 3800+ for the fact the added speed will make up for the loss in cache versus the 4200+ X2....

However in games except for quake 4 what other games are really employing multicore ability???


Now I say this as a non-gamer who loves multicores and uses multithreaded apps...so for me core 2 duo is a clear winner...However DO NOT try to generalize everyone..

<<who in their right mind would choose an AMD over Conroe>>

I think I gave you an example of someone...


Also low wattage 3800+ could be attractive to SFF users even if a tad bit more in price merely for the 35watt TDP....

He didn't generalize everyone.
He said those looking at under $150 might not want to get Conroe, and AMD could win in that market.
Try not to be so hard on everyone, especially when they addressed what you are trying to get at them for. (Although he did mainly focus on dual core processors)

The only area where I see AMD could possibly have an edge is in the sub $150 market

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Duvie
Keep in mind genius that games dont use dual core much if any...therefore that same X2 4200+ you compare the E6300 to for gamers they might just get the 3500+ (also 2.2ghz) or even the 3800+ AM2 single cores for 112 and 142 respectively..probably the 3800+ for the fact the added speed will make up for the loss in cache versus the 4200+ X2....

However in games except for quake 4 what other games are really employing multicore ability???


Now I say this as a non-gamer who loves multicores and uses multithreaded apps...so for me core 2 duo is a clear winner...However DO NOT try to generalize everyone..

<<who in their right mind would choose an AMD over Conroe>>

I think I gave you an example of someone...


Also low wattage 3800+ could be attractive to SFF users even if a tad bit more in price merely for the 35watt TDP....

He didn't generalize everyone.
He said those looking at under $150 might not want to get Conroe, and AMD could win in that market.
Try not to be so hard on everyone, especially when they addressed what you are trying to get at them for. (Although he did mainly focus on dual core processors)

The only area where I see AMD could possibly have an edge is in the sub $150 market

He said on a tight budget...It has nothing to do with budget just the plain and simple truth that games (most all) dont take advantage of dual core and thus all this conroe versus X2 have little merit to some...Some chose to spend littl eon a 3200+ to 3500+ and throw the money at the better video card...I dont think that is budget considering some of them throw 500+ dollars down on the video card alone..along with 2gb of ram..they spent cash they just chose to spend it elsewhere where it gives more benefit...

There are many gamers in this forum who have not migrated to dual core for those reasons...

Sure, if someone is on a tight budget and plays JUST games and nothing else, then a cheap single core A64 might be a good option, but you're better off getting an Xbox 360 or PS3 if you just want to game and do nothing else.

I do agree with you on this....

I actually agree that 95% of ppl in their right mind could and should not be able to justify any purchase over the Core 2 Duo...that is mainly for ppl "building an entirely new system"...

Some ppl may just want to upgrade and not rebuild the house so to speak....For most sckt 939 ppl there was a lot of upgradeability. There is no significant performance advantage to go to AM2, and if ppl (amd gamers) felt cpu bound they could upgrade speeds perhaps cheaper then sell old system and build entirely new platform for Core 2 Duo...

 

[mhahnheuser]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Let's take into account AMD's upcoming pricecuts into the equation:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2800

I will put a similarly performing Conroe next to the appropriate AMD chip:

X2 3800+ $169
X2 4200+ $240..........E6300 $183
X2 4600+ $301..........E6400 $224 (really kinda in between 4600+ and 5000+)
X2 5000+ $403
A64 FX62 $1031.........E6600 $316
In it's own league.......E6700 $530
Ditto..........................X6800 $999

Without even taking into account overclocking, who in their right mind would choose an AMD over Conroe?

When P-D was being slaughtered by AMD, it was at least a lot cheaper, especially the low end stuff, and still held it's own in niche apps such as video encoding.

But Conroe is a total clean sweep for Intel, it beats AMD in performance AND value, even after the projected heavy price cuts from AMD.

The only area where I see AMD could possibly have an edge is in the sub $150 market, perhaps a sub $150 X2 3600+ would appease those that are on a tight budget, but other than that the future looks rather grim for AMD at this stage.

I hope your accounting included mobo's??? Cause some of the mobo prices i've seen listed for C2D are fairly hefty and maybe Intel is cross subsidising the low bin C2D with its own chipset. The nForce 5 is new and will also be pricey. Next question I have is are the 6600 and 6700 going to be paper releases with Intel relying on "customer Conroe frenzy" to snap up slower bin CPU's with the hope to get A64 FX speeds out of OCed parts?? I don't want to be overly negative, but i'd like to see the nag before i have a bet on it.

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Let's take into account AMD's upcoming pricecuts into the equation:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2800

I will put a similarly performing Conroe next to the appropriate AMD chip:

X2 3800+ $169
X2 4200+ $240..........E6300 $183
X2 4600+ $301..........E6400 $224 (really kinda in between 4600+ and 5000+)
X2 5000+ $403
A64 FX62 $1031.........E6600 $316
In it's own league.......E6700 $530
Ditto..........................X6800 $999

Without even taking into account overclocking, who in their right mind would choose an AMD over Conroe?

When P-D was being slaughtered by AMD, it was at least a lot cheaper, especially the low end stuff, and still held it's own in niche apps such as video encoding.

But Conroe is a total clean sweep for Intel, it beats AMD in performance AND value, even after the projected heavy price cuts from AMD.
...........

You're right - its a clean sweep across the board for Conroes.
Conroe's dominance extends to another area - power+heat. Even if AMD cuts prices to maintain performance/price parity, Conroes are the cooler running cpus.

At this point, I see no reason to recommend AMD for the mid-high level systems and gamers in general.

 

[mhahnheuser]

Before AMD can opt to cut their prices further, Intel will first need to be selling some real C2D's. They are still vapour chips at this stage. Also CPU price is only one part of the equation. What about the platform? There is also some bone of contention about the power draw on the respective CPU's in that it appears Intel are not factoring in the bridge chips which perform similar functions to the integrated mem controller on the Athlon die. Makes the overall Intel system power consumption a little higher than that stated. The AMD system is mature and should be the cheaper overall, and hence still has plenty of performance to recommend it.

 

[letdown427]

Availability and familiarity are the only thinks I can think of.

Familiarity as in, if one gets asked to build a system for someone, one might just go for a 3800+ (even a s939 one) because it is a mature product, any issues/bugs are probably already known about and so on. If I was asked to build a system for someone, I'd be a bit hesitant of going for a C2D as the numbers would suggest you should.

But from numbers perspective, yeah, Intel really are a long way ahead at the moment.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Keep in mind genius that games dont use dual core much if any...therefore that same X2 4200+ you compare the E6300 to for gamers they might just get the 3500+ (also 2.2ghz) or even the 3800+ AM2 single cores for 112 and 142 respectively..probably the 3800+ for the fact the added speed will make up for the loss in cache versus the 4200+ X2....

However in games except for quake 4 what other games are really employing multicore ability???


Now I say this as a non-gamer who loves multicores and uses multithreaded apps...so for me core 2 duo is a clear winner...However DO NOT try to generalize everyone..

<<who in their right mind would choose an AMD over Conroe>>

I think I gave you an example of someone...


Also low wattage 3800+ could be attractive to SFF users even if a tad bit more in price merely for the 35watt TDP....

Your also not factoring Intel's Single Core price cuts with...

Pentium 4 524 64US, Pentium 4 531 74US, Pentium 4 541 84US

Those are still enough for "gaming" whe nwere at high resolution with eye candy on single card systems.

The SFF X2 3800+ is a good option though it will cost over 200US minimum.

 

[Pederv]

Personally I think the A64 prices will fall between the Netburst chips and C2D chips, if this news bit is correct
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/14/amd_really_will_drop_athlon64_prices/
and AMD means to take the price/performance crown.
Which means the prices may be much lower than reported by the link posted by the OP.

 

[mhahnheuser]

After P4 being in the market so long at high MHz it's going to be interesting to see how average Joe in the street is going to work out that 2.4 GHz CPU is a better buy than one at 3.6 GHz. I can see a retail scam coming to a place near you. Remember when PR ratings first hit the scene. AMD have always measured up relative performance, confusing at times I agree, but 3800+ X2 or single isn't going affect the user experience, but 3.0 netburst Vs a 2.4 C2D that's gonna have an impact.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: mhahnheuser
After P4 being in the market so long at high MHz it's going to be interesting to see how average Joe in the street is going to work out that 2.4 GHz CPU is a better buy than one at 3.6 GHz. I can see a retail scam coming to a place near you. Remember when PR ratings first hit the scene. AMD have always measured up relative performance, confusing at times I agree, but 3800+ X2 or single isn't going affect the user experience, but 3.0 netburst Vs a 2.4 C2D that's gonna have an impact.

What rock have you been hiding under?

Pentium-M laptops outsell Pentium-4 laptops easily with lower clock speed.

 

[carlosd]

Yes, but somenoe looking for a laptop will buy the one with larger battery life (or with less weigth or size, they look for mobility...P4 laptops are power hungry and heavy), also P4 laptops are rarely found, you can find centrino based laptops everywhere.
People looking (Average consumers, with no ****** idea of CPU architechtures) for a desktop will look for a "fast" one... guess how they measure the speed?

 

[mhahnheuser]

What rock have you been hiding under?

Pentium-M laptops outsell Pentium-4 laptops easily with lower clock speed.

Power saving mostly. Nothing much to do with performance. They'll pay the full price when Vista hits the shelf.