View Full Version : AMD & Intel Price War -- Awwww, Yeah!
This is the kind of news I love to hear. (http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/06/28/pricing-earnings-intel-cx_ck_0628intel.html)
Computer Hardware & Software
AMD, Intel Race to the Bottom
Chris Kraeuter, 06.28.06, 5:55 PM ET
Burlingame, Calif - Advanced Micro Devices and Intel both wrap up their fiscal quarters this week. It can't have come soon enough for either of them: The two chip giants have been engaged in a brutal price war that may force them to cut their financial forecasts.
The stocks of both companies are already in the doldrums, but more pain could be ahead if one or both have to issue financial warnings in the coming weeks. That scenario is plausible, given that both are looking at significant price cuts as the only way to boost sales.
The two companies are once again locked in a situation where pricing will help consumers but not themselves. The situation is especially acute now that Microsoft's Vista operating system won't be around during the holiday sales season to stoke demand.
Intel , the largest chipmaker in the world, has been fighting back with its scale and dropping prices on chips in an effort to throw off inventory and stem market share losses to AMD. AMD has responded by cutting prices on some products as well.
"Suppliers are not the winners in a price war," says analyst John Lau with Jefferies, who reduced his estimates already and expects more reductions ahead.
Intel cut prices in May on its dual-core Pentium D chips by up to 50% and on its lower-end Celeron D chips by up to 43%. Additional cuts of more than 40% for dual-core Pentium Ds and more than 50% on single-core Pentium IVs are slated for late July, according to reports from Merrill Lynch analyst Joe Osha.
AMD has been forced to respond, with analyst Hans Mosesmann of Moors & Cabot finding in early June 30% reductions by AMD for its low-end desktop chips and predicting possible cuts for high-end chips as well.
Executives at AMD have acknowledged the potential impact of Intel's price cuts on their business. But they argue that they offer value by providing better products that give them a degree of pricing power.
That may change in July, when Intel launches its Core 2 Duo desktop chip, which will replace its Pentium lineup. Even in the first quarter, ahead of last week's Xeon product launch from Intel, AMD cut prices on its server chips in order to gain market share.
Investors have already responded to the pricing war by selling both stocks. AMD's share have dropped 26%, to $24, in the last two months, while Intel shares are down 6%, to $18.36, in the same period.
Intel already lowered its full-year sales targets in April, to $37.6 billion, a 3% decline from 2005 (see: "Scorched Earth"). Some analysts say even those goals may be a stretch. Thomson Financial says analysts are projecting a full-year sales range of $34.4 billion and $40.4 billion, with the average settling around $36.5 billion.
Intel doesn't offer guidance on profits, but analysts have been cutting targets here too: The current consensus prediction for net income is $5.3 billion, or 91 cents per share, for the full year, down from $1.06 per share three months ago and 94 cents per share two months ago.
If Intel takes another whack at its targets, consensus estimates will have to fall again. Analysts are currently predicting sales of $8.3 billion in the second quarter, then a 10% jump, to $9.1 billion, in the third quarter, and another 12% jump, to $10.2 billion, in the fourth quarter.
Those would be remarkable leaps even in a blazing chip market, let alone one with inventory bloat and price pressures. Even during the boom of 1999 and the stellar year of 2004, Intel maxed out at sequential growth of 12% in the fourth quarter, while only managing 5% growth in the preceding quarter, notes Bill McClean of research firm IC Insights. Intel is slated to report financial results July 19.
AMD provides even less financial guidance than Intel, predicting general sales targets just one quarter in advance. For the current period, AMD predicted sales would be "flat to down slightly" from the last quarter.
Analysts currently have AMD's sales at $1.31 billion, down 1.5% from the previous quarter. For the rest of the year, AMD's sales are expected to increase 7.6% in the third quarter and 11% in the fourth quarter. For the full year, that would yield sales of $5.61 billion, up 42% from last year.
In April, executives acknowledged the potential for price cuts from Intel but maintained that their flat-to-down-slightly goal represented a cautious approach. The company reports results in mid-July. Only then will investors find out if it was cautious enough.
tibilicus
06-29-2006, 15:30
I don't care how cheap Intel will be im a AMD fan.
One of those crazy over the top ones. :book:
Hey, there's polenty of room in this world for die-hard AMD fans. But a price war between the two chipmakers benefits everybody. That's what has me grinning -- especially since I intend to replace my old PC sometime this summer.
tibilicus
06-29-2006, 16:02
How about a cheap AMD dule core with the price drops duel cores will drop alot. I have a 4200+ x2 and although I havn't really had to test it yet it seems to do the job very well.
And of course you wouldn't want an Intel chip would you Lemur?
;)
I love AMD, but in a fickle way. If Intel releases the Conroe and it's all that and a bag of chips, and the price is right, I might jump into bed with them. We shall see.
Point of fact, I'm waiting to see how Conroe shakes out before I build my new machine. I want the new box to last as long as the last one, i.e., four years.
DukeofSerbia
06-29-2006, 18:36
I don't care how cheap Intel will be im a AMD fan.
Agree. AMD + nVidia cheapset are the best combination.
But the new Intel Dual Core are pretty good.
tibilicus
06-29-2006, 19:37
Im personly running my AMD 4200+ x2 with an Asus ATi EAX1600 Pro 512mb which does the job great. Although you are right seemign most AMD chipsets come with Nivida on bored grpahcis so that and Nividia grapahics card are more compatible in a way.
And yes new Intel duel core is good but AMD duel core is better.
And Lemur you can't get a conroe! It's an intel chip! The sort of chip that comes in horrible pre made pc!
;)
tibilicus
06-29-2006, 19:40
Also a more interesting topic conroe, the death pf the pentium 4 chip?
Hey, there's polenty of room in this world for die-hard AMD fans. But a price war between the two chipmakers benefits everybody. That's what has me grinning -- especially since I intend to replace my old PC sometime this summer.
Same here.
One of my computer's CPU's melted :no:, so this is definatly good news.
I'm a die hard AMD fan too but I gotta say that Conroe is very tempting on account of taking back the lower clock + more work per clock ethos that held AMD in good stead through the P4 years.
Yup, thats right, Conroe does more per clock than A64 & intel can pump them out on 4 fabs at 65nm with 300mm wafers while AMD doesn't yet have even one fab fully up at 65nm.
There are only 4 things I hold against Conroe:
Its an intel chip.
It doesn't have an onboard memory controller.
AMD anti hyperthreading if it turns out to provide a real boost & intel can't release its own version for conroe.
Its from intel.
Bring on the price war I say!
Papewaio
06-30-2006, 07:50
Apparently Conroe will not allow SLI on Nvidia cards as Intel has made a deal with ATI.
A quick look at the history of PCs and who does the best? The ones with the most open/adaptable set... in Nvidia suddenly drop their manufacturing costs and pass that onto customers it will drop the viability of getting Conroe chips... etc etc.
edyzmedieval
06-30-2006, 09:14
Apparently Conroe will not allow SLI on Nvidia cards as Intel has made a deal with ATI.
You have to be kidding. :inquisitive:
If so, I'm switching to AMD FOREVER.
Apparently Conroe will not allow SLI on Nvidia cards as Intel has made a deal with ATI.
Surely that could be challenged in courts as anti-competitive as it involves two companies colluding to close off a large segment of a market...
On topic, although in the short term this may be good for consumers as it means lower prices, I'm concerned a price war could have a longer term negative impact. The price war will drive down profits, which means less investment into R&D, possibly causing CPU's to act as a bottleneck in computer systems as they won't be able to keep up technologically with other components.
If the no-SLI rumor is true, I guess I will stay an AMD kinda guy. And why not, eh? My OC'd Barton-core Athlon has served me well ...
Meh, if I go conroe I won't be fussed about no SLI.
Sir Robin
07-01-2006, 15:45
The price war, in a way, has already begun.
Dell is starting to offer some major discounts on their systems in, probably, an attempt to clear out their old Intel chip inventories.
As a Dell EPP customer I normally get a twelve percent discount. Dell sent me a one time use coupon for 30, 50, or 75% percent off.
Used it to get a $3,600+ XPS 700 for $2,100. While it may not be conroe I figure I can live with an XE 965 for a couple of years, especially when it has a 7950 GX2.
So even if you don't plan to go Conroe and don't mind Intel you should start seeing major discounts in July even on the big PC builders' top systems.
Now if Dell can get that bloody Mobo configuration issue keeping the XPS 700's from shipping yet I will be a happy man.
Even if the rumour is true, there are always Via, Nvidia chipsets that will support Conroes and sli.
edyzmedieval
07-01-2006, 21:13
Yeah, but I think AMD is starting to build more efficient and more powerful processors.
I like the smaller companies. :balloon2:
The Conroe is the cooler running more efficient processor with higher ipc.
Ahh, its only the intel chipset that supports crossfire but not sli?
That makes much more sense.
If you want conroe + SLI buy a mobo with nvidia chipset.
Papewaio
07-02-2006, 00:18
The Inquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32667)
Intel is in the bed with ATI and signed a cross-licensing agreement quite some time ago, the upshot of which is that it officially supports ATI's Crossfire on Intel 975/965 boards. We hear that Intel doesn’t want to let Nvidia's SLI to run on its boards, at least not officially.
There will no-doubt be a leaked driver that will allow such a scenario, but even if the high-end tweakers society might be happy about it, none of the system integrators or OEMs will make such a machine as the driver would never be official and WHQL.
So it might be an undocumented feature that they 'accidentally' put in place. There is nothing stopping a manufacturer only making Mobos for certain hardware, that is fairly common. What isn't is making Mobos not work with a large slice of the market.
Still early days and it might be bypassed by Intel getting pressure to release a driver set, but it might also indicate poor support for the config in the future.
edyzmedieval
07-02-2006, 08:49
So, if we have an Intel Conroe and nVidia Chips in SLI, this means we're gonna get busted if someone finds out? :inquisitive:
Stupid. I'm switching to AMD.
shifty157
07-09-2006, 14:54
So, if we have an Intel Conroe and nVidia Chips in SLI, this means we're gonna get busted if someone finds out? :inquisitive:
Stupid. I'm switching to AMD.
No you wont get 'busted'. It just means that average Joe Idiot who wants to buy a computer wont be able to get Nvidia SLI with a Conroe CPU from the manufacturer. Customization is NOT illegal.
The reason a huge price war is starting up is because of Conroe. Conroe is supposed to come out late July (some sources say on the 27). Prelimerinary public benchmarking of Conroe has placed it well above pretty much anything else out on the market including anything AMD and Intel have out already. AMD wants to boost its market share beforehand because they know theyll be losing market share after the launch until they can come up with something to compete. Intel wants to get rid of its supply of P4 chips and other older chips before Conroe comes out because theyll be obselete and out of production when it does.
If you look at the sechduled price cuts youll find that the largest ones are coming around July 20 which is one week before Conroe launches. That doesnt seem like a very large window for selling off supply but you also have to figure that Conroe will be expensive when it comes out meaning alot of average people wont want to spend that kind of money. You also have to figure that the availability of Conroe CPUs wont be very good.
So yes the price war is good because it means lower prices but personally Ill be getting a Conroe when it comes out because even though the price will be hefty you just cant argue the performance figures.
And to whoever said that the price war will reduce R&D you couldnt be more wrong. Intel and AMD know that the only way to succeed in such a heated competition is to have the better chipset. They would never cut their R&D budget because that would mean losing technological ground to their opponent which could translate into a significant loss in market share if the opponent makes a significant breakthrough. No the R&D budget can never be cut. Itd be unthinkable for either of them. Intel can afford the price cuts because itll be cutting alot of chips from production resulting in lower overhead costs. Also the P4s are such a long running and successful line that theyve already more than paid for themselves. AMD may not be able to afford the price cuts (although they arent cutting their prices nearly as much as Intel is) but the short term gain is more desirable not to mention theyll be coming out with their new line of CPUs this winter.
x-dANGEr
07-09-2006, 19:46
Just one question.. Does a CPU matter that much?! I can't see a difference between a P4 and another, wheather one old or another new ?!
shifty157
07-09-2006, 21:41
Well CPU stands for Central Processing Unit and thats exactly what it is. Any information that your computer deals with goes through your CPU at least once. So yes your CPU is very important because it basically runs your computer.
So obviously a faster CPU can handle more things and faster. For the most part you can look at the GHz number for a relative indication of how fast a CPU is compared to others.
Obviously you wont notice a difference when youre running simple application like a word processor or simply surfing the internet. Its when you get into more demanding tasks that a fast CPU becomes more important. There are some very technologically advanced games out on the market now that require a very good CPU to handle everything thats going on at once. Or if youre like me and you have RTW, 3dsmax8, Photoshop 7, and a few other applications all running at once and youre switching back and forth between all of them then a fast CPU is necessary. Editting movies is another indication fo where a good CPU can really help out.
The other reason that you dont want a cheap CPU is because you dont want to push your CPU to its limits for long periods of time on a regular basis. Overclocking your CPU is almost always a bad idea. So much energy is going through so small space that your CPU can start to deteriorate and (if you dont have a good cooling system) it can even completely melt on you. So its better to have a very powerful CPU that handles everything you throw at it with an average effort than a lesser CPU that you overwork.
Theres alot more to consider when youre buying a CPU than just speed but yes this was a very long answer to say that your CPU matters alot if youre going to be using large applications.
You know guys, AFAIK nVidia already has the rights to manufacture mobos for intel chips.
Unless I've missed something major, it's not that you won't be able to run Conroe and SLI, you just won't be able to to do so on an intel chipset mobo - but since nVidia is making their own intel chipsets, you will be able to do conroe/SLI on an nForce for intel mobo.
edyzmedieval
07-10-2006, 15:54
The price war is good for the whole market, and for the users.
More power, less price. :balloon2:
........
The other reason that you dont want a cheap CPU is because you dont want to push your CPU to its limits for long periods of time on a regular basis. Overclocking your CPU is almost always a bad idea. So much energy is going through so small space that your CPU can start to deteriorate and (if you dont have a good cooling system) it can even completely melt on you. So its better to have a very powerful CPU that handles everything you throw at it with an average effort than a lesser CPU that you overwork.
Theres alot more to consider when youre buying a CPU than just speed but yes this was a very long answer to say that your CPU matters alot if youre going to be using large applications.
This is so wrong, I'm simply shuddering in disbelief.
Is Shifty talking about internal combusion engines or CPUs?
x-dANGEr
07-10-2006, 19:26
I think Shifty is right in someways..
I remember we ran a normal PC like a server that other day (No restarts, and with those monitoring programs and security thingies), and after around 6 months the CPU melted down.. (Not all of it, some sort of thick pins in it..).
Though, I think RAM matters more in the example you mentioned than the CPU. Maybe, the CPU speed helps making the Graphics effecting process faster, but it isn't that much except maybe in 3D Max and editing videos..
Though, I mean it isn't that important that you're going to buy a conroe as soon as it is out no matter what is its price..
shifty157
07-10-2006, 20:18
This is so wrong, I'm simply shuddering in disbelief.
Youve never heard of a CPU completely melting down? Ive seen it happen.
Or perhaps youve never bothered to look into the basic principles of electrical engineering.
The simple fact is that putting any sort of current through any conductor will slowly deteriorate the conductor. The more current you put through, the faster it will deteriorate. So yes that extension cord that allows you to hook your vacuum cleaner to an outlet will eventually deteriorate. For something like that though it would take decades of constant use to get to that point. A CPU however has alot more electricity going through it in a much smaller space making it alot more fragile and susceptible to deterioration. Most people dont keep their PCs around long enough to really notice it because they want to keep current with technology so it isnt something thats very common. Most people also operate their CPUs at the lower end of their capabilities for the most part.
So no im not saying this is a prevalent thing because most likely you will be scrapping your PC for a new one before you start noticing the deterioration of the various components. Not to mention the deterioration happens so slowly that youd never really notice it.
I have a six year old PC that over the past two years ive been pushing it to the edge of its capabilities and working it at this level for about 18 hours a day every day of the week. Being so old already and under such constant burden Ive been able to over the months see the various components of the PC deteriorate. Applications that once loaded instantly now take about 10 or 20 seconds to fully load. Its kind of sad in a way to watch the PC get run into the ground. Needless to say im looking into getting a new one.
But thats beside the point. My point is that its a simple fact that electricity going through a conductor will slowly deteriorate the conductor.
You'll need to learn or review basic electrical and electronic principles again.
This is what you said which I find laughably ridiculous in post #25
........
The other reason that you dont want a cheap CPU is because you dont want to push your CPU to its limits for long periods of time on a regular basis.
So what you are saying is that the cpu will keel over if its kept running continuously. Cpu's do degrade but never to the extent where a user will have to overspec just to keep it from dying even under heavy use.
In short you are stating a fallacy. Cpu's will not melt under normal use unless the cooling solution is inadequate or impaired. There are many systems kept running continuously 24x7 for years on end.
But I now see you have backpedalled by stating the "...deterioration happens so slowly that youd never really notice it..". And you're talking about deterioration of various components in your six year old pc but not specifically about the cpu.
Uesugi Kenshin
07-11-2006, 00:42
Also there are now temperature sensors that will turn off your computer if the cpu reaches something in the neighborhood of 60 or 70 degrees celsius, so it will not actually melt unless that somehow fails and you manage to reach those temperatures.
On another note overclocking some cpu's isn't a big deal because they are designed to be run at higher frequencies than they are sold at. The only line I am certain that is like this is the Athlon 64's. The cpu in my computer (a 3200 iirc) runs at 2ghz, but it iks the same as the 40000, and so with a bigger fan can be overclocked to the same speeds without any noticeable difference. For a while I did this without the upgraded fan and the only detrimental effect was increased heat.
Papewaio
07-11-2006, 03:06
We have desktops and servers that have been running well over 6 years in constant 24x8 useage. The CPUs are fine and as solid state gear they will fall over well after the 15,000 RPM harddrives in them seize. CPUs melt when pushed past their performance specs by overclocking not by general use. The other form is when fans break and the chips heat up, but this isn't a wear and tear sceanrio from use as much as an accident. Like comparing a tire that goes bald from driving with one that has a puncture.
(24x8 is like 24x7 but you get no time off for holidays period)
The biggest killer of semiconductor material is voltage not temperature. Alot of novice overclockers keep pushing up the core voltage to increase stability while overlocking more and more. Think of it as hot water pipes, and you are turning up the pressure continuously until... BANG. The die will of course eventually burn out after proglonged use (years and years!). Not immediately, but it's lifespan will be shortened if it's running OC'd. Those who don't overclock shouldn't encounter any such problems providing the CPU's active cooling is in order. While CPU's are designed to be run at a higher clock rate than marked, it doesn't necessarily mean you can push, e.g, a 2000MHz cpu up to 2300MHz and expect perfect stability. Also overclocking by adjusting the FSB can have an extremely undesirable effect upon devices on the PCI bus, because it's clock is calculated by a division of the FSB. Increasing the FSB can give a non standard PCI bus clock of say 40MHz (Standard frequency for the PCI bus is 33MHz) which may cause some of these devices to malfunction. Some novice overclockers believe this instability to be caused by the PC core voltage being insufficient, and begin pushing it up, with fairly predictable results... This can all depend on the age/type of your motherboard however.
Running a "cheap" (?) CPU continuously for long periods won't cause it to 'melt' either. CPU's are designed to keep functioning when under load, not die through overuse. If a CPU fails when a system is under heavy load it's usually due to inadequate / badly fitted cooling or improper overclocking.
The biggest killer of semiconductor material is voltage not temperature. Alot of novice overclockers keep pushing up the core voltage to increase stability while overlocking more and more. Think of it as hot water pipes, and you are turning up the pressure continuously until... BANG. The die will of course eventually burn out after proglonged use (years and years!). Not immediately, but it's lifespan will be shortened if it's running OC'd. Those who don't overclock shouldn't encounter any such problems providing the CPU's active cooling is in order. While CPU's are designed to be run at a higher clock rate than marked, it doesn't necessarily mean you can push, e.g, a 2000MHz cpu up to 2300MHz and expect perfect stability. Also overclocking by adjusting the FSB can have an extremely undesirable effect upon devices on the PCI bus, because it's clock is calculated by a division of the FSB. Increasing the FSB can give a non standard PCI bus clock of say 40MHz (Standard frequency for the PCI bus is 33MHz) which may cause some of these devices to malfunction. Some novice overclockers believe this instability to be caused by the PC core voltage being insufficient, and begin pushing it up, with fairly predictable results... This can all depend on the age/type of your motherboard however.
Running a "cheap" (?) CPU continuously for long periods won't cause it to 'melt' either. CPU's are designed to keep functioning when under load, not die through overuse. If a CPU fails when a system is under heavy load it's usually due to inadequate / badly fitted cooling or improper overclocking.
Good post.
There are so many applications of embedded systems running at full steam 24x7, its simply ignorant to say that cpu's need to be overspec'd to run at half capacity just to avoid killing it.
A vibrant debate.
But let us keep it civil and without personal comments please. :bow:
LeftEyeNine
07-14-2006, 20:01
Agreed. Know it but don't blow it.
:bow:
For want of a more apt quote:
My God, its full of stars!
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795
Or anywhere else you might find a review...
NZ$600 2.4ghz Conroe destroys NZ$2000 2.8ghz A64 :dizzy2:
AMD is really going to have to go on a mega price drop to compete with that :sweatdrop:
A quick link to a Tomshardware.com review.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/
All this is just fine with me. Those lovely AMD FX CPUs will drop in price and I'll be able to pick one up and tear through M:TW2 and the new flight sims.
Happy -happy. :yes:
Big_John
07-16-2006, 00:29
For want of a more apt quote:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795
Or anywhere else you might find a review...
NZ$600 2.4ghz Conroe destroys NZ$2000 2.8ghz A64 :dizzy2:
AMD is really going to have to go on a mega price drop to compete with that :sweatdrop:eh.. kind of. remember, those benchmrks are CPU-bound. sounds good for a CPU test, right? but unless you play games at low resolutions or have a very high-end system ($1000 vid cards in sli/xfire, for example) you're not really going such huge differences between core2s and X2s. if you're in the market for a new cpu now, it'd make sense to get a core2 since they will probably deal with future games better than X2s, as you upgrade gfx cards. but if you just put an X2 system together, i wouldn't worry about it. by the time you upgrade in 2 years, who knows what the situation will be.
also, once the core2 actually hits the streets, amd will undoubtedly drop their prices accross the board.
eh.. kind of. remember, those benchmrks are CPU-bound. sounds good for a CPU test, right? but unless you play games at low resolutions or have a very high-end system ($1000 vid cards in sli/xfire, for example) you're not really going such huge differences between core2s and X2s. if you're in the market for a new cpu now, it'd make sense to get a core2 since they will probably deal with future games better than X2s, as you upgrade gfx cards. but if you just put an X2 system together, i wouldn't worry about it. by the time you upgrade in 2 years, who knows what the situation will be.
also, once the core2 actually hits the streets, amd will undoubtedly drop their prices accross the board.
Thats the whole point of the benchmarks - to test more of the cpu not the gpu. And in the past debuting AMD cpu's got to show off in more cpu bound gaming benchmarks at as well. And the AT benchmarked at 1600x1200 - not what I would call a 'low resolution'.
Face it, the performance improvement of the Conroe compared to AMD is significantly larger over anything AMD had in turn in the past over the P4 in games. In other applications, the Conroe is also significantly faster all around. . If I were to follow your logic then the P4 is still a good buy because most newer games are gpu bound anyway.
The Conroe is a cheaper (at least until the pricecuts from AMD), faster and cooler running cpu. Even if AMD cuts prices to maintain parity, the Conroe runs cooler and consumes less power under load.
Big_John
07-16-2006, 18:28
the anandtech test systems used 2 radeon X1900 xts in xfire mode. that's like $800-1000 in video card alone. my point is that unless you have a similar setup, you're not going to see real-world differences between the these high-end chips, because you're gaming will be GPU-bound with either (unless you run at low resolutions and/or low quality settings).
the anandtech test systems used 2 radeon X1900 xts in xfire mode. that's like $800-1000 in video card alone. my point is that unless you have a similar setup, you're not going to see real-world differences between the these high-end chips, because you're gaming will be GPU-bound with either (unless you run at low resolutions and/or low quality settings).
Well the Conroe also beats AMD in single card benches at 1024x768 which is a reasonable setting.
AMD users and fans never mentioned real world differences when AMD cpu's were only abit faster than Intel's in gaming benchmarks which were rigged to be somewhat cpu limited in the past.
This time however the Conroe is simply faster across the board by in games and other applications. The A64 used to be up to 40% slower in encoding until the X2 which managed to achieve some parity. Now there is simply no good reason to recommend an AMD. Conroe is simply faster in everything, cheaper (until the price cuts from AMD) and runs cooler.
Yup, I've been sitting on a single core 2.2ghz A64 socket 754 waiting on the price/performance for something faster to improve considerably before upgrading.
I was going to upgrade not too long ago but balked when the price for CPU + GPU + Mobo + RAM came out at NZ$3000.
A spot of economising on GPU & 2.4ghz conroe brings the price down to NZ$2000 or less (with rough aproximations on RAM & mobo atm, may well come down from that) which makes me very happy.
Sure, if you have a decent x2 setup already & are GPU bound switching to conroe isn't going to help gaming performance.
If I had one of those, I wouldn't be so excited at all. (But looking forward to much improved price/performance for next upgrade be it to conroe or AMDs response)
Big_John
07-16-2006, 21:54
Well the Conroe also beats AMD in single card benches at 1024x768 which is a reasonable setting.yes, but not by much (from the benchmarks i've seen).
AMD users and fans never mentioned real world differences when AMD cpu's were only abit faster than Intel's in gaming benchmarks which were rigged to be somewhat cpu limited in the past.i don't know about this, but what does this have to do with anything, anyway?
Now there is simply no good reason to recommend an AMD.i've already said as much. my point, again, is that unless you have 2 high-end gfx cards running in sli/xfire, there's no need to upgrade from an X2 (or from pentium Ds, probably) to these new intel chips, because you won't see the 50% inceases in performance seen in some of these bechmarks. as i've said before, if you're in the market for a new processor right now, the core2s make the most sense, atm.
yes, but not by much (from the benchmarks i've seen).
i don't know about this, but what does this have to do with anything, anyway?
The performance increase of the conroe in real world gaming benchmarks is at least as significant of AMD over the equivalent P4s. If you going to argue real world results then the A64s never had any real advantage pre-conroe anyway since newer games like FEAR are mostly gpu limited.
It simply makes no sense to recommend an AMD at this point. When AMDs were the cpu's to get the cheap $150 pentium d's at least had some value for budget overclockers for encoding apps but now the conroe is simply faster in every major benchmark and runs cooler to boot.
Big_John
07-17-2006, 04:56
If you going to argue real world results then the A64s never had any real advantage pre-conroe anyway since newer games like FEAR are mostly gpu limited.that's probably true, but again, how is this relevant to the discussion?
It simply makes no sense to recommend an AMD at this point.lol, you've said more-or-less the same thing for 3 posts in a row, and no one is disagreeing with that. but carry on.. i guess you're a fan of the new intel chips, eh? :wink:
Papewaio
07-17-2006, 04:57
Anyone thinking of holding off until Vista gets launched... as it should spur a mass amount of hardware upgrades... hopefully driving prices down by mass production... or it could push prices up due to bottlenecks... so buy before or after the launch of Vista?
A quick link to a Tomshardware.com review.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/
All this is just fine with me. Those lovely AMD FX CPUs will drop in price and I'll be able to pick one up and tear through M:TW2 and the new flight sims.
Happy -happy. :yes:
Indeed. Depending on the kind of price cuts were tlaking about I'll try and get my greedy mits on an FX-57 or FX-60.
Eternal Champion
07-17-2006, 15:04
The best part is everybody wins no matter which side of thr isle your on, especially if your mobo accepts either sides best. :2thumbsup:
that's probably true, but again, how is this relevant to the discussion?
lol, you've said more-or-less the same thing for 3 posts in a row, and no one is disagreeing with that. but carry on.. i guess you're a fan of the new intel chips, eh? :wink:
We were never only talking about people who might be thinking of upgrading from their AMD boxes. You keep insisting that people shouldn't upgrade if they have AMD which I never disputed. But do carry on if you wish.
I'm not a fan of Intel or AMD :wink: In fact I haven't built or generally recommended using Intels since the Athlons came out 5-6 years ago. I just use whichever cpu has better bang for the buck at the time.
Big_John
07-17-2006, 20:58
well, it's good we had several posts quoting each other when neither of us was talking about anything of interest to the other, apparently. :blank2:
Ordered my PC last night :)
2.4ghz conroe + mobo + 2gb 667mhz ddr2 + x1900gt + case comes to decently under NZ$2000 instead of the NZ$3000+ (with 1GB ram) I was looking at last month :D
AMD fights back with bigger price cuts than I'd expected.
I'm still happy with the performance/price of the Conroe, just sad to buy my first intel CPU :embarassed:
Big_John
07-25-2006, 07:56
just sad to buy my first intel CPU :embarassed:lol, why? if you're going to buy one, this would be the one to get, i suppose.
Well, indeed, if there was ever a time to buy intel its conroe.
But I have a tendency towards underdogs & against abusers of dominant positions so I have never liked intel.
That said, the extent to which AMD has been gauging the price on the upper end of its CPUs has bugged the heck out of me, I would have upgraded much sooner (& to AMD) if the prices hadn't been so ludicrous.
x-dANGEr
07-25-2006, 11:56
Ordered my PC last night :)
2.4ghz conroe + mobo + 2gb 667mhz ddr2 + x1900gt + case comes to decently under NZ$2000 instead of the NZ$3000+ (with 1GB ram) I was looking at last month :D
Smoothe cream I suppose.. No GFX card though ?!
tibilicus
07-25-2006, 12:10
Smoothe cream I suppose.. No GFX card though ?!
x1900gt.
;)
Gah! Very good price I found for the x1900gt turns out to be an 'error' & they are refusing to sell at the price :furious3:
Means I need to fork out a fair bit more :(
x-dANGEr
07-26-2006, 19:42
It looked too cheap that there must have been something wrong.. ~:) (JK) :P
As some would say, it has begun (http://wavcentral.com/cgi-bin/log/log.cgi?id=4405&sound=/sounds/movies/mortal_kombat/begun.mp3).
AMD slashes prices on dual cores: (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060724-7332.html)
AMD's flagship processor, the Athlon 64 FX-62 for Socket AM2, has dropped to $827 from $1,031 (all prices are per CPU in quantities of 1,000). The rest of the company's dual-core CPU lineup has seen price reductions as well:
Athlon 64 X2 5000+ from $696 to $301
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ from $558 to $242
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ from $365 to $187
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ from $303 to $152
AntiochusIII
07-27-2006, 06:40
:wacky:
Wow, just look at that slashing and gnashing of prices...
GOD BLESS EVERYTHING!
MY TIME HAS COME!
(For the new computer, of course)
And today just happens to be the day when my haggling had finally gotten myself a solid permission to start researching/building a new comp, which had been an issue since God-knows-when, as some orgers might noticed by me asking for advice over here...
Hm, somebody likes me.
Geezer57
07-28-2006, 02:01
I attended a meeting today at a local computer distributor (as a former reseller, still on their contact list), where a presentation was made by a regional AMD representative. He indicated they're migrating their desktop processors from .90 micron process to .65 micron by the end of the year (earlier for mobile processors), and that this migration will also include an architechture "refresh". He was quite confident that Intel's recent gaining of the performance lead (with their Conroe series) won't last more than a quarter (3 months or so), and that AMD will be back on top again performance-wise soon.
By mid-2007, they should have introduced Socket AM3, which is backwards-compatible with Socket AM2 processors, but offers much higher Hypertransport speed (5X) and support for both DDR2 and DDR3 memory. Interesting stuff... :2cents:
Big_John
07-28-2006, 05:19
I attended a meeting today at a local computer distributor (as a former reseller, still on their contact list), where a presentation was made by a regional AMD representative. He indicated they're migrating their desktop processors from .90 micron process to .65 micron by the end of the year (earlier for mobile processors), and that this migration will also include an architechture "refresh". He was quite confident that Intel's recent gaining of the performance lead (with their Conroe series) won't last more than a quarter (3 months or so), and that AMD will be back on top again performance-wise soon.
By mid-2007, they should have introduced Socket AM3, which is backwards-compatible with Socket AM2 processors, but offers much higher Hypertransport speed (5X) and support for both DDR2 and DDR3 memory. Interesting stuff... :2cents:that could be true, but that could also be AMD propaganda to keep the distributors and retailers on board. fabing a smaller process is great, but i doubt that will boost the K8 much. imo, AMD's going to need a new architecture to jump ahead of conroe in the benchmarks, not just a "refresh". but you never know...
regardless, right now is a great time to buy a new processor no matter which way you go!
There is no way AMD is going to catch up in a quarter with some tweaking, not to mention the Conroes could still improve by integrating the memory controller.
And the K8L is not due till 2008. It'll be a while before AMD regains the lead.
Geezer57
07-28-2006, 17:49
There may have been an element of "damage control" in the statements by AMD's rep mentioned in post #64 - he was, after all, a sales representative rather than an engineering/technical one. Granted, the projections brought forth in that meeting were probably optimistic, but AMD (being smaller) should at least theoretically be able to move faster than Intel, so I wouldn't count them completely out.
Intel's new Conroe cores can only be good for the enthusiast/consumer, as AMD (as underdog) is doing what they've done several times before: become the low-cost/midrange value provider, until they can catch up. Remember the K6 vs. Pentium II situation, etc.? Intel has a tendency to rest on their laurels when not pushed (and charge a premium while doing so), so we as consumers need AMD to not be too far behind. The closer and fiercer their fight, the happier we should all be at this end! :laugh4:
Big_John
07-28-2006, 20:05
There may have been an element of "damage control" in the statements by AMD's rep mentioned in post #64 - he was, after all, a sales representative rather than an engineering/technical one. Granted, the projections brought forth in that meeting were probably optimistic, but AMD (being smaller) should at least theoretically be able to move faster than Intel, so I wouldn't count them completely out.
Intel's new Conroe cores can only be good for the enthusiast/consumer, as AMD (as underdog) is doing what they've done several times before: become the low-cost/midrange value provider, until they can catch up. Remember the K6 vs. Pentium II situation, etc.? Intel has a tendency to rest on their laurels when not pushed (and charge a premium while doing so), so we as consumers need AMD to not be too far behind. The closer and fiercer their fight, the happier we should all be at this end! :laugh4:definitely. the conroe wouldn't exist if it weren't for AMD. competition is a good thing, and that's reason enough to buy AMD (the current 'underdog') for some.
anyway, here's a funny little story i ran across. ~:)
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33329
Architecturally the A64 is pretty much tapped out and no quick fix is going to be able to surpass the Conroe. Its going to be a long wait till 2008.
x-dANGEr
07-28-2006, 21:06
I guess I'll postpone my new PC to 2008 then.. It only has been waiting 3 years.. 0-0
I think there is less that needs to be changed in A64 to catch up to Conroe than some think.
Its already the right basic architecture (short pipes doing more per clock).
A64 is only marginally weaker per clock in theory, actually does more per clock in a bunch of places but Conroe is just more efficient at keeping its functional units actually doing stuff, & handling cache.
I think it would not take too much tweaking to improve those aspects of A64 & at least get closer to conroes efficiency.
I think there is less that needs to be changed in A64 to catch up to Conroe than some think.
Its already the right basic architecture (short pipes doing more per clock).
A64 is only marginally weaker per clock in theory, actually does more per clock in a bunch of places but Conroe is just more efficient at keeping its functional units actually doing stuff, & handling cache.
I think it would not take too much tweaking to improve those aspects of A64 & at least get closer to conroes efficiency.
What do you mean by the A64 doing more per clock in a bunch of places?
Theoretically in terms of numbers of functional units & how many cycles it takes to do a certain instruction.
Conroe is not far behind (P4 was way behind) & gets the lead in a bunch of other bits.
Theoretically in terms of numbers of functional units & how many cycles it takes to do a certain instruction.
Conroe is not far behind (P4 was way behind) & gets the lead in a bunch of other bits.
What functional units/instructions?
See here (http://www.behardware.com/articles/623-5/intel-core-2-duo-test.html) & next page.
Though in re-reading it the balance seems more in favour of conroe than I thought on first reading.
See here (http://www.behardware.com/articles/623-5/intel-core-2-duo-test.html) & next page.
Though in re-reading it the balance seems more in favour of conroe than I thought on first reading.
I still fail to see how you can consider the A64 'to be doing more per clock'.
From the article, the only advantage of the A64 is its throughput for simple shift/rotates which is because it has more independant agu's not because of better latency. The Conroe is simply just as good or better overall in the back end especially in the fpu pipeline where it definitely better.
OK so 'a bunch' was overstating it but my point is that K8L is already stated to be addressing most of the shortfalls (branch prediction, wider SSE, out of order instruction etc).
If AMD can bring those improvements into dual core before the official K8L (quad core), I think the gap will be much reduced.
Quad core wise, AMD is looking healthier unless Intel can pull out some sort of double frontside bus since each AMD core has its own direct access to memory & conroe is already pretty constrained by frontside bus.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.