If prices are set this way , expect the AMD product to be better ,period..
-
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.
First bulldozer benches from AMD - surprising results (beats 980x)
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
If prices are set this way , expect the AMD product to be better ,period..
LOL_Wut_Axel
Diamond Member
When CPUs perform relative in games to how they normally do in CPU benchmarks, taking into account also how many threads the game is made to run with. On normal games that take advantage of two-four threads, I can understand i5-2500K=i7-2600K>i5-750=X4 980>Phenom II X6 1100T. In the rare case, I can understand if a game is completely multi-threaded that--games don't take advantage of HyperThreading, so take that into account--2500K=2600K>X6 1100T>i5-750=X4 980. It's obvious that if you end up i5-750>X6 1100T>X4 980>2500K=2600K there's something else going on. In this case, it's easily explained by the fact AMD worked closely with Codemasters to optimize the game and Codemasters forgot about Sandy Bridge.
Arkaign
Lifer
How so?
I think the general consensus is that BD will be better in some things, worse than others. But I don't know why you'd expect just on this pricing that the AMD will be just flat better. Every single time AMD has had the better product, they've priced it accordingly. Sometimes they gave a bit of a break, but overall not really much of one, and never for their top-level chip (when their top-level chip was a top performer).
You call a "fact" your trollish assumptions..??..
LOL_Wut_Axel
Diamond Member
Yes, let's forget about the performance lost from the module design and the deeper pipeline than Sandy Bridge. Let's also forget that because of these choices they need to clock the CPUs as high as they can to not be completely embarrassed in single-threaded. If Bulldozer was competitive overall, why does it need so many revisions and why does AMD keep pushing for even higher clock speeds, even when they have TWICE the cores?
BlueBlazer
Senior member
Actually AMD did worked closely with Codemasters, its well known... 😛
Historically , at the same price point , AMD always offered
better perfs , even when they had the lead in performances...
And ?....
Do you imply that they worked to reduce the competitors products
performances also ; like said intel did in its ICC..?...🙂
BlueBlazer
Senior member
Years ago when AMD had the lead in performance, the AMD FX-60 used to cost around $1000 buckeroos. And guess how much the Athlon X2 costs. Its all about business sense. 😛
BlueBlazer
Senior member
They work to improve and optimize performance of their own products. As simple as that. 😛
Just look at Excel from Microsoft. It favors Intel CPUs, and can you blame that on ICC when its using Microsoft's own compilers? :hmm:
LOL_Wut_Axel
Diamond Member
Alright, let's look here at relatively recent history:
AMD released the Phenom II X4 940 to compete with the Core 2 Quad Q9400. Its launch MSRP was $275, the Q9400 was $280 at the time. It was priced similarly, and it was just a tiny bit faster--around 5% overall. The Phenom II X4 920 was also competing with the Q8300 at the time, and it had the same result: a tiny bit faster, a comparable price.
AMD released the Phenom II X6 1090T at $295 to compete with the $285 Core i7-860. It was faster in encoding, rendering and content creation, but it lost in gaming, photo editing, and audio encoding. Overall, though, I'd say the X6 was a bit better.
So you see, even in recent history, AMD releases products to be a bit better at the same price point.
Last edited:
You are trolling , not answering to the post...
As said , at the same price point , AMD was cheaper even in those days...
Dare to tell us what was the price of the Extreme Edition P4 that had
trouble battling A64 that did cost a fraction of its price ?...😀
Arkaign
Lifer
You may be confusing a couple of things. When AMD is completely getting clobbered (ie; Athlon X2 vs. Core 2 Duo, or Phenom II vs. Core iX), they price extremely low. When AMD is roughly competitive, they price approximately equal (the following link showing AXP pricing shows this, pricing the 3000+ only 8% lower than the 3.06 P4 that was actually faster in a majority of benches). When AMD has a performance lead, they price hugely above Intel to maximize profits (the era of $300 X2-3800, $600 X2-4200, $1000 X2-4800 / FX-Series).
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_athlon_xp_3000_review/page3.asp
AMD is a corporation.
Their sole duty is to make $ for their shareholders.
They do that by maximizing profits, and by volume they do that by maintaining the highest ASPs possible given their ability to compete in the performance sector. Barring that, they are forced to reduce ASPs to remain viable.
Intel is the exact same.
NOW, the smart folks always skipped the expensive CPUs anyway, and overclocked capable value ones, and AMD usually had a great choice there. Whether it was a K6, an AXP-1700 mobile, a 2500+ that ran at 3200+ speeds for 1/3 the price, etc, etc, there was usually a good choice to find. Intel was no stranger to that either, with things like the 300a, 733 coppermine, 1.6a, 2.4b, PD-805, etc, often being able to perform at the same level as $500-$1000 cpus for the low cost of $100-$200.
People need to get it out of their mind that these companies actually give a crap about their customers, or want to offer any special value beyond what makes sense to the bottom line for their stock value and profit/loss sheets.
MS compilers have to use Intel s libraries , dont they ??...
The X2 concurrence was pentium D , in a few words , none,
yet these were priced as much as the X2s....
BlueBlazer
Senior member
Microsoft have their own libraries. Note, Microsoft Compilers are commercial products. 😛
Maybe your AMD fanboyism is blinding you from the truth, but let me just put it out there:
When Phenom I was introduced, the 2.3 GHz Phenom 9600 cost $283 (and you got the TLB bug for free!). During that time, a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600 cost $269 and outperformed the Phenom in just about every benchmark while drawing less power at load.
Imagine that! An Intel processor that cost less than the AMD equivalent, drew less power than the AMD equivalent, outperformed the AMD equivalent, and overclocked better than the AMD equivalent!
If you don't believe what I say, have a look at what Anand said:
Last edited:
BlueBlazer
Senior member
Who's really trolling? I've answered your posts. Calling others troll is akin to "pot calling kettle black". 😛
Arkaign already answered that. I might add that the Pentium EE 965 (highest Extreme Edition) costs $999 which is about the same price as Athlon FX-60. As you can see when AMD has the lead, they can charge prices as much as their competitors. 😉
Looks like Abwx was looking for AMDzone, got lost, and found Anandtech forums instead 😀
Arkaign
Lifer
Not really.
The Pentium Ds quickly fell out of pricing contention with the X2s due to them just not being competitive.
It's the same problem AMD went through after C2D was released. I could say that the X2s were priced as much as the much faster C2Ds, and it would be true, but that didn't last very long at all, because people figured it out and flat out wouldn't pay $500+ for X2s that got kicked around by $300 C2D.
I remember picking up a Pentium D 805 for $100 when the X2-3800+ was $300. After overclocking, it was about as fast as the X2 for 1/3rd the price. Of course the X2 was still better, and once overclocked was out of the range of the 805, but $300 was a little much for me to swallow for AMD's slowest dual-core at the time.
This has been discussed at lentgh in another tread , and as i said
there , C2Q was no match in HPC environnement, not even penryn could be good enough.
So for such use , it did more than worth its price...
Go back to AMDZone man, your trolling here isn't wanted...
If you use Waybackmachine and look at the prices of S939 Athlon 64s and S775 Pentium 4s around the time they first came out in 2004, you'll see that the 2.2 A64 3200+ was $190 while the 3 GHz Pentium 4 530 was $180. The 3200+ is a bit faster than the P4 530, but certainly not a "lot cheaper."
Now, we can go back even earlier to the days of the first S754 Athlon 64s and Socket 478 Pentium 4s.
A few months after the Athlon 64's introduction, the 2 GHz S754 Athlon 64 3200+ was $282 while the 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 Northwood was $290. Again, not really much of a difference in price for similar performance.
Now, we can take this comparison further and look at the Athlon X2. Wen the Athlon X2 was launched, the cheapest 2.2 GHz model (4200+) cost $537. During that time you could buy a Pentium D 3.0 GHz for under $300. Was the Athlon X2 faster? Yes. Was it twice as fast to justify twice the cost? Heck no. So much for AMD "historically" being the better value, huh?
Last edited:
The D8XX did fell in price because they were replaced by D9XX
wich were also not on par with A64 but did cost as much...
Vesku
Diamond Member
996GT2:
AMD was still riding high on their success with the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2s. Just as Intel rode their reputation to sell P4s for a song. Main difference in pricing between Intel and AMD is that when AMD is behind for a while they start price slashing while Intel has internal rules about maintaining a high gross profit margins.
AMD was still riding high on their success with the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2s. Just as Intel rode their reputation to sell P4s for a song. Main difference in pricing between Intel and AMD is that when AMD is behind for a while they start price slashing while Intel has internal rules about maintaining a high gross profit margins.
Arkaign
Lifer
How is C2Q not a match for Phenom I.
How the fsck is Penryn not an overwhelming match?
lol 😀
Am I in backwards land?
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
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
