Why overpay for Conroe when performance is the same as AMD?

[imported_ITguy]

This thread will start the brawls going but this is a serious and good question.

Conroe is out now in limited release and is going for $1,359 and it will probably be selling for far over list prices for months to come. While it is a faster chip than AMD's current lineup, when you read HARDOCP's article on testing "REALWORLD" gaming situations it had basically zero lead on AMD's top end systems.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
So what that means is that for 99.9% of the world, a Conroe system will perform identical to an AMD system, even for gaming.

So the argument I make is this. If you already have some DDR RAM or an existing 939 system, you should use the price cuts and continue to build on 939 and still have a roughly identically performing system to conroe for dirt cheap and then upgrade only when both DDR3 and quads come out, and skip this little pitstop at DDR2 altogether. The video cards are just not there yet, even if you spend $1,200 bucks on the cards. Besides, DDR3 will be the real memory upgrade to get, not DDR2.

If you just have to have DDR2 ram, then you use the price cuts as an opportunity to get AM2 X2's for dirt cheap on your next build, because as predicted, it's looking like all versions of Conroes will be selling at over list prices for a long time due to the huge hype and limited release schedule.

According to their roadmap, P4's with netburst will continue to make up the bulk of Intel's desktop shipments through the remainder of 2006 and well into 2007 too.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Buying the FX-62 was a stupid waste of money too, but some people need the bragging rights.

Until the next generation of video cards come out an X2 4200+ or Core 2 6300 is fast enough for any single video card, you only need to go higher for SLI, and then only to a 6600 or X2 4600+.

If you already have a 939 setup then I agree upgrading to an X2 may still be the best choice if 939 prices drop enough.

Buying a complete system it depends on AM2 price cuts which need to be even deeper than 939 price cuts to be competitive.

 

[1N0V471V]

Well let's see...

An FX-62 costs somewhere between $900 and $1000.

An E6600 costs (MSRP) $316

They perform equally

I don't see where that is confusing...

Plus, nobody with their head on straght actually believes that DDR3 will come out anytime in the next two years.

 

[Howard]

Let's see here... either you actually believe what you're saying, in which case you're a fool and not worth replying to, or you don't, in which case you're a shill, and if you are, get the ****** out of here.

EDIT: To be fair, your argument has some merit, but nobody in their right mind buys the top of the line processor.

 

[1N0V471V]

I was pointing out what I consider common sense. If you put an X2 3800+ against an E6600 (same price points) the C2D would pwn.

EDIT: I was going from HardOCPs review. That is the only reason I mentioned the FX-62.

IMO it's unfair to put a $500 CPU (E6700) vs. a $1000 CPU (FX-62) and say the FX is better. It's like comparing a Kia to a Ferrari...

 

[jlbenedict]

From the reviews and benchmarks I've noted, doesn't the E6600 even beat AMD's top CPU?

 

[DaveSimmons]

That's why AMD will (has to!) drop prices. If the X2 4200+ drops to under $200 it will be a better choice for most people on a budget than a 6600 at $300. (Though a 6300 will probably be better than the X2, if you can find a 6300)

An X2 3800+ with 7900GT will perform better in games than a 6600 with 7600GT. (And a Sempron 2800+ with 7600GT will perform better than a 6600 with intel motherboard graphics.)

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Buying the FX-62 was a stupid waste of money too, but [/b]some people need the bragging rights.[/b]

OP, this is one reason why people will overpay for Conroe. There are a lot of people here that aren't bothered by spending stupid amounts of money for reserves of power that they might not even take full advantage of. If someone wants to spend an extra $2k just to get 3 more FPS or shave 15 seconds off of their encoding routine, who are we to question that?

Conroe is certainly impressive...I'm impressed, but then again I was never anti-Intel in the first place. I went with the A64 last time because Intel couldn't measure up for what I wanted. It looks like that has changed but I won't be jumping on the Conroe bandwagon just yet...I'll wait until someone has to have "the best" again in a couple of months and pick up an E6600/6700 at a nice little discount.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

With the price drop I'm sure the AMD will drop the price in the FX-62 and it will compete very well.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
That's why AMD will (has to!) drop prices. If the X2 4200+ drops to under $200 it will be a better choice for most people on a budget than a 6600 at $300. (Though a 6300 will probably be better than the X2, if you can find a 6300)

An X2 3800+ with 7900GT will perform better in games than a 6600 with 7600GT. (And a Sempron 2800+ with 7600GT will perform better than a 6600 with intel motherboard graphics.)

Of course, this is only assuming there won't be OCing. An E6300 OCed to 2.4GHz+ is the absolute value king.

 

[EvanAdams]

But I thought the Anand article said that a full blown Core-2 Mobo will take the quad core when they are released. In which case why not wait and get that then you are 1/2 way on your way with ~ speed of the 939 but with a quad core future. Also, we dont know how AMD pricing will change .. yet .. so it is kinda a futile 'arument' at this time. It is more of a hypothoses.

 

[ScrapSilicon]

Originally posted by: 1N0V471V
I was pointing out what I consider common sense. If you put an X2 3800+ against an E6600 (same price points) the C2D would pwn.

EDIT: I was going from HardOCPs review. That is the only reason I mentioned the FX-62.

IMO it's unfair to put a $500 CPU (E6700) vs. a $1000 CPU (FX-62) and say the FX is better. It's like comparing a Kia to a Ferrari...

Kia scheduled for production as a 2008 model...

 

[d3lt4]

Hey ITguy didn't you already post this in the cpu section? And why don't you join the discussions, instead of just saying something to cause arguments and running away to watch.

 

[Bayrus]

That's right, why we pay high for Intel Conroe when performance is the same as AMD.
AMD, is too fast for computing. While, Intel....

Lolz!, i am AMD user now. woot

 

[EvanAdams]

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,126342,pg,4,00.asp

Now that HyperTransport stuff sounds interesting. I wonder if it could allow for some major embetted GPU's.

 

[Kyanzes]

If I had an FX62 now, I would try to sell it as fast as I can before all human (and alike) buyer candidates who lived under a rock till now get convinced how unreasonable it is to choose the $1000 FX62 over a $300 CPU that can beat it. The real mistake you made was to compare AMD's flagship (more like a boat now) with INTEL's. But it's an unfair comparison, because even a mid-range Core 2 cpu beats the FX62. Don't get me wrong, it's not the FX62 that is a heap of crap, it's the Conroe that is very good. I wish I had an FX62, but it wouldn't do much to my gaming experience.

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: Kyanzes
If I had an FX62 now, I would try to sell it as fast as I can before all human (and alike) buyer candidates who lived under a rock till now get convinced how unreasonable it is to choose the $1000 FX62 over a $300 CPU that can beat it.

Right...unless I happened to be 100% satisfied with my FX-62 and I was anti-Intel. Otherwise, I'd be trying to off that FX chip in order to recover as much of my $$ as I could before AMD (supposedly) drops prices and the value sinks like a rock.

Originally posted by: Kyanzes
The real mistake you made was to compare AMD's flagship (more like a boat now) with INTEL's. But it's an unfair comparison, because even a mid-range Core 2 cpu beats the FX62. Don't get me wrong, it's not the FX62 that is a heap of crap, it's the Conroe that is very good.

And that (for the meantime anyway) AMD's high-end CPU lineup is way overpriced compared to their Intel counterparts that perform as well, or better, for less moolah.

 

[imported_ITguy]

This is for d3lt4.
I believe the following.

1. Conroe beats any AMD processor out now hands down in benchmark performance.
2. But in real world performance they will perform the same to the user for 99% of people due to modern CPU performance overkill and videocard and memory bottlenecks.
3. Conroe will continue to be sold at over list prices for a long while to come and will be used by Intel for bragging rights while the vast majority of their volumes will still be netburst.
4. AMD will release faster clocks and 65nm products and will cut prices as Conroe prices eventually fall.
5. AMD will announce 4X4's release soon to "try to steal the thunder from Conroe's release." 4X4 is expected to recapture the enthusiast crown and by that time X2 price cuts will be in full force and Conroe will even be dropping in price around that time.
6. I am not impressed with DDR2 over DDR.
7. I will consider waiting for DDR3, much better videocards, and Quad Cores before buying another high end system because right now, you get minimal realworld performance boosts for alot more money.
8. I would recommend only buying processors that cost <$200 for 99% of the gaming public until better and cheaper video cards are released.
9. I think bottlenecked PCI-E videocards is also why 4X4 with a GPU in one of the sockets could potentially be the holy grail of gaming. I just hope AMD is smart enough to recognize the potential and opportunity of the 2nd socket and spends money to partner and develop this. In the future, all top end gaming rigs could be dual socket by default.

 

[corkyg]

There's more to consider than simple performance benchmarks. I will add in factors like power used (lower is better), heat produced (lower is better), and program reliability (where the rubber meets the road.) I don't much care about cost, but unless AMD has some hidden rabbit in their hat, they are going to have to lower prices.

 

[Tsuwamono]

Originally posted by: 1N0V471V
Well let's see...

An FX-62 costs somewhere between $900 and $1000.

An E6600 costs (MSRP) $316

They perform equally

I don't see where that is confusing...

Plus, nobody with their head on straght actually believes that DDR3 will come out anytime in the next two years.

ya your right because AMD must by lying about Q1 2007 and they sure as hell must be lying about it working with AM2 sockets.... Ya... i guess your right.. AMD should be closing its doors in a few weeks eh?

 

[River Side]

we'd have to see real world Intel Conroe prices to make any decisions.. so far the MSRP's are quite competitive.. and deal a serious blow to AMD across the board.. let's see IF they actually are available for these prices though...

 

[soydios]

OP title: "...when performance is the same as AMD?"
There's the first problem.

"...when you read HARDOCP's article on testing 'REALWORLD' gaming situations it had basically zero lead on AMD's top end systems."
I trust Anand and the whole AnandTech crew to conduct a fair and balanced review, benchmarking, and comparison of real-world scenarios.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
From the reviews and benchmarks I've noted, doesn't the E6600 even beat AMD's top CPU?

Yes...exactly!!

If you go over to the CPU/PROCESSORS AND OVERCLOCKING forum you will find many threads concerning this.

AMD is no longer equal or better than Intel.
Also they are discussing benchmarks from different sites.
I believe it was said that the hardcops reviews is lacking.

Also how can anybody infer that AMD and Intel are now the same?

I have not read that in any of the reviews.

Ahh..I see..it must be AMD fanboys again..lol

 

[tfinch2]

Who's got the cheapest processor to replace my Sempron/nforce2. That's all I care about...

 

[drum]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Who's got the cheapest processor to replace my Sempron/nforce2. That's all I care about...

I concur completely