http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8729
Tentative pricing is listed.
Would it be fair to assume AMD has priced their cpu's competitively against Intel performance-wise?
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Barcelona pricing gives clue to performance?
- Thread starter her34
- Start date
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8729
Tentative pricing is listed.
Would it be fair to assume AMD has priced their cpu's competitively against Intel performance-wise?
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
Theres only two logical explanations. Ones good and ones bad.
The "good" explanation is that AMDs new CPUs does compete well against Intel performance wise. A 2.0ghz barc taking on the Intel counterpart at the same price range which is ~3Ghz?
The "bad" is that AMD cannot clock the new barc high enough and the highest they can reach right now is 2.0ghz. This inidicates several things to yields being poor above 2ghz mark, the new barc chip doesn't clock well (yet), and each 100Mhz (as seen by the pricing) is worth the amount due to the new CPUs inability to clock very well.
Atleast its better than having nothing. (K8 is hanging onto its dear life against the competition)
The "good" explanation is that AMDs new CPUs does compete well against Intel performance wise. A 2.0ghz barc taking on the Intel counterpart at the same price range which is ~3Ghz?
The "bad" is that AMD cannot clock the new barc high enough and the highest they can reach right now is 2.0ghz. This inidicates several things to yields being poor above 2ghz mark, the new barc chip doesn't clock well (yet), and each 100Mhz (as seen by the pricing) is worth the amount due to the new CPUs inability to clock very well.
Atleast its better than having nothing. (K8 is hanging onto its dear life against the competition)
SerpentRoyal
Banned
The more $ you spend on a CPU, the greater chance that you will want to oveclock that CPU. If the AMD product tops out at 2.5GHz, then AMD will probably need to drastically reduce the MSRP to stay competitive with INTEL.
coldpower27
Golden Member
They are being reasonable and pricing to performance, it's very doubtful at this point a 2.0GHZ Barcelona will even come close to 3.0GHZ Clovertown, if AMD is willing to price it at $372 and Intel charges $1172 for that SKU. That only like somewhat between the E5345 and E5335, around E5330 which does exist but has no official pricing attached to it.
thecoolnessrune
Diamond Member
Am I the only one that sees that these are Opterons vs. Xeons rather than AMD's-new-name vs. Core 2s? The AMD Opterons not only have extra HT lanes, but also both are of a higher binning process than what will trickle down to the consumer segment. Heck, you can't really even overclock these without voltmods. So why is everyone using them to guess what the consumer models will do? The pricing can't even really be compared either because they are two separate segments.
Just calm down everyone, it will all be known soon enough 😛
Just calm down everyone, it will all be known soon enough 😛
Cogman
Lifer
Brisbane != Barcelona. Barcelona is a very different architecture which will bring different results (just like Conroe != Prescott). If they could clock higher I would GARENTEE we would see higher clocked AMD cpus. AMD want to be able to say "Hey look, Barcelona is faster then penryn" as that will ultimately be what it is going to be compared to. They just can't sit back in the performance market right now, IE they are not going to hold back (like intel is doing) as they need to get more customers and fast.
$205 sounds cheap for the 1.7ghz Barcelona to me.
Keep in mind, however, that there are reports that the next 'spin' of the chip will allow much higher clockspeeds (3ghz like the one AMD demoed).
My guess is that the first batch will hit 2.4-2.5ghz or so. If they're 20% faster than the CDQ's (clock-for-clock), then they will be a good buy at the prices they are listed at.
I can't see the second spin being more expensive than the first, so I have a feeling they may be an even better bargain than the G0 quads.
Keep in mind, however, that there are reports that the next 'spin' of the chip will allow much higher clockspeeds (3ghz like the one AMD demoed).
My guess is that the first batch will hit 2.4-2.5ghz or so. If they're 20% faster than the CDQ's (clock-for-clock), then they will be a good buy at the prices they are listed at.
I can't see the second spin being more expensive than the first, so I have a feeling they may be an even better bargain than the G0 quads.
Wow with this kind of ASP at time of intro I can only wonder why AMD?s Chief Sales and Marketing Officer Henri Richard is leaving so suddenly.
Anyone here old enough to vividly remember the K7 "sledgehammer" introduction? Now THAT was a product release. The Athlon clobbered AMD's pre-existing product line of K2's and K3's, not only IPC wise but also raw-MHz wise. Core2 release was kinda similiar (versus Prescott at the time) although quite the same quantum-jump in performance expectations since we had some ideas how Core performed since it Core Duo was already released for laptops.
This K10 is setting up to be about as exciting of a new product launch as Cedar Mill. Sure it is superior to its predecessor, but by the time it came out no one cared because the competition had mooooved on.
Anyone here old enough to vividly remember the K7 "sledgehammer" introduction? Now THAT was a product release. The Athlon clobbered AMD's pre-existing product line of K2's and K3's, not only IPC wise but also raw-MHz wise. Core2 release was kinda similiar (versus Prescott at the time) although quite the same quantum-jump in performance expectations since we had some ideas how Core performed since it Core Duo was already released for laptops.
This K10 is setting up to be about as exciting of a new product launch as Cedar Mill. Sure it is superior to its predecessor, but by the time it came out no one cared because the competition had mooooved on.
bryanW1995
Lifer
I hope that they will be 20 % faster, but I think that is a VERY optimistic assesment.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
I would have to agre with you!!
Too little too late!!!
The AMD camp divides itself into 3 camps....
Those who are die hard wait and see.....
Those who jumped ship and went Intel but will gladly ditch their core2 duo for a faster AMD chip...
Those who jumped ship and will never look back....
I am afraid AMD screwed itself rayally by not being able to answer Intel sooner....
Even when AMD was king Intel had all the time in the world to wait things out and then make sure that they could answer anything AMD did with a death blow!!!
Intel wins this Chess match!!
Richard tried to leave a little over a year ago, but AMD paid him a bonus to stay on an extra year...basically he has never stayed with a company more than 2-3 years, and he's been with AMD for 5 years...
I remember the K7 very well! Do you remember the big difference though? When K7 was released, AMD didn't have a single top tier OEM contract, so they HAD to make a big splash!
I think that C2D was a much bigger jump, but that's mainly because the aging PentD was doing so poorly...
You're making the (IMHO incorrect) assumption that K10 won't outperform Penryn. I guess we'll see over the next 2 months though...
bryanW1995
Lifer
intel has definitely won the battle, but the war is still to be decided. amd can recruit more allies (samsung comes to mind) with resources that would put them on a more even playing field with intel. they might even HAVE TO do that, but they are far from dead. In fact, didn't I just read that amd has more than 50 % of the retail desktop US market? Putting them in dells/hp/acer/gateway/etc has been a big boon for amd, plus they are still VERY strong in the highly profitable server segment. Enthusiasts like us might not be buying a lot of amd cpus in the near future, but they only had us for the past few years b/c they were kicking intel's ass all over the floor. What % of the total cpu market do enthusiasts make up? 1 %? less?
btw, I consider myself to be in field 2, as are probably 75% + of people here.
I think for OP2350 $372 2Ghz model isn't a better value for OCers compare to Q6600 which can actually surpass 3Ghz with good cooling. I have my doubt this chip can do more than 2.4-5 or else AMD would have introduced much higher speed. Anyhow, even if IPC is 20% above Intel's current quads, that's still slower than OCed Q6600. So for us OCers AMD's new offerings probably not going to be exciting.
But, as for general/OEM markets which is about 95+% of the business, that's where things will be decided. If you compare similarly priced model, Xeon X3120 quad at 2.13Ghz is priced similarly to 2346 HE which is 1.8Ghz. If the AMD +20% advantage holds plus AMD's power consumption advantage holds. choosing between the two, I think AMD does have some advantages. speed will be similar factor in that +20% and AMD if consumes less energy will be more attractive for server markets.
However, the situation is not too good even if AMD can compete with Intels pricewise at this segment because AMD chips will be just holding on to the low end of quad core market. Everyone knows it's the mid range and high end that makes a lot more money and the low end is only good for market shares etc. So the AMD offerings are too slow, so even if at their respective segment they might look good, they won't make too much money. On top of that, the 65nm process seems so immature, while Intel is already moving on to 45nm and each upcoming chip seems to raise the bar steadily although not by leaps and bounds.
This situation can be even more dangerous for AMD if that +20% isn't true with their recent tight-lipped policy and all the top execs jumping ship. I do have some serious doubt as to how fast is this core. I think everyone has a flop from time to time, but Intel can take it but AMD might not be able to esp. after spending all the cash on the ATI merge.
But, as for general/OEM markets which is about 95+% of the business, that's where things will be decided. If you compare similarly priced model, Xeon X3120 quad at 2.13Ghz is priced similarly to 2346 HE which is 1.8Ghz. If the AMD +20% advantage holds plus AMD's power consumption advantage holds. choosing between the two, I think AMD does have some advantages. speed will be similar factor in that +20% and AMD if consumes less energy will be more attractive for server markets.
However, the situation is not too good even if AMD can compete with Intels pricewise at this segment because AMD chips will be just holding on to the low end of quad core market. Everyone knows it's the mid range and high end that makes a lot more money and the low end is only good for market shares etc. So the AMD offerings are too slow, so even if at their respective segment they might look good, they won't make too much money. On top of that, the 65nm process seems so immature, while Intel is already moving on to 45nm and each upcoming chip seems to raise the bar steadily although not by leaps and bounds.
This situation can be even more dangerous for AMD if that +20% isn't true with their recent tight-lipped policy and all the top execs jumping ship. I do have some serious doubt as to how fast is this core. I think everyone has a flop from time to time, but Intel can take it but AMD might not be able to esp. after spending all the cash on the ATI merge.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
😕 Last time I checked, it would seem more logical the more $ you have the less likely you will want to overclock your processor (perhaps other than XE editions with unlocked multipliers). Think about it if you already have enough money to not care, you would just buy the fastest processor to begin with. On the other hand, you would generally want to overclock budget or mainstream processors to get to top speeds to save $. Although, I would still be reluctant to draw a direct link between having $ and wanting to overclock since some people overclock for fun or as a hobby regardless of what processor they can afford.
As far as pricing goes:
K10 2346 HE 1.8 GHz 68W $251
K10 2344 HE 1.7 GHz 68W $206
vs.
C2Q Penryn E5410 2.33 GHz 80W $256
C2Q E5405 2.00 GHz 80W $209
Looks like AMD is aiming to have a 20-25% clock speed advantage while offering lower power consumption. Fingers *crossed*
bryanW1995
Lifer
russian, you might catch me now, but I will just buy up all the phenoms at bargain basement prices when amd goes under. You'll be toast in, um, er, 9 months or so...
RussianSensation
Elite Member
I hope not. If AMD goes down, then it'll drag ATI with it. I am really not looking forward to $1,000 Nehalem and $1,000 GF10. At the same time I cannot believe that after developing a new architecture for what 4-5 years they will remain uncompetitive to C2D? Afterall, all they have to do is increase performance by 25% per clock relative to C2D to be competitive (maybe not have the performance crown since Penryn will scale to past 3.33ghz soon). I am pretty sure AMD's greatest problem right now is not performance per clock cycle, but actually frequency scaling. Until they get 2.6-2.8ghz parts out there, it's a long shot for top performance crown. Add to the fact that I can hardly imagine any current C2D or C2Q owners switching to all new mobos and new cpus to get 25% speed increase (that's not considering overclocking of Intel right now). AMD needs to target new customers and at sub-$300 price levels. If they can provide similar performance to Intel at lower power consumption, they'll have a winner.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-