HAHAHA Had to laugh Intel sad :( Need cookie.

[sbuckler]

Not sure about AMD strategy here, basically if you don't play games or compile code then there's really not that much difference between AMD and Intel other then price. So Intel will win every time because price difference is huge.

However no games use two cores yet so why spend so much money on a cpu that's no faster then a single core cpu costing half the price, particularly as the motherboard will accept a dual core one in the future when it's needed.

In summary:
1) If you don't play games seriously and just want a machine thats nice and fast for general desktop useage at a reasonable price (98% of people) a dual core intel wins. AMD loose out here as you can no longer really recomend a single core A64 over pentium D's.
2) If you are a serious gamer then you'd be best holding off for now or buying a single core A64 with an eye to buying a dual core in later after the rip off pricing ends and games start to use multiple threads (1.99% of people).
3) If you are a hardcore AMD fan boy, rich, and need dual core bragging rights then buy a dual A64 (0.01% of people)

So what it comes down too is AMD loose market share to intel because most people are best off with cheap pentium D's, and will have trouble finding homes for their dual A64's after the initial rich fan boy base buys one.

 

[Duvie]

Exactly on number 3...they are the king of second fiddle....rumor has it in years INtel may really blow the doors off on technology so this is the time to gain marketshare and get market penetration....

 

[Capt Caveman]

Seeing that this is the first generation of DCs, what will we see in the 2nd generation of DCs next year? 65nm, DDR2, ???, etc...

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Seeing that this is the first generation of DCs, what will we see in the 2nd generation of DCs next year? 65nm, DDR2, ???, etc...

I believe so...new socket, DDR2 memory controller, higher HTT....

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: PetNorth
I've made some numbers with Anand preview. Comparying real apps, games and multitasking tests (I've omitted winstones, sysmarks and worldbenchs. I don't confide in them).

I've compared same range price: A64 X2 4400+ 2,2GHz Vs. P4 D 3.2GHz ($500-600).

OK, here it is:

-AutoGK/DivX: A64 X2, 4.37% faster than Pentium D.
-AutoGK/XviD: 9.78% faster.
-WM Encoder: 10.92% faster.

-Doom 3: 13.31% faster.
-Splinter Cell: 2.66% faster.
-Half Life 2: 25.34% faster.
-Halo: 29.08% faster.
-Unreal Tournament 2004: 17.27% faster.
-Wolfenstein: 14.14% faster.

-3DSMax 6/SPEC - rendering composite: 16.29% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering 3dsmasx5.rays scene: 15.31% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering cballs2 scene: 13.59% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering singlepipe2 scene: 15.34% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering underwater scene: 10.43% faster.

-Compiling Firefox: 28.18% faster.

-DVD Shrink + Multitasking scenario: 15.20% faster.
-File compression + Multitasking enviroment: 18.72% slower.
-Outlook PST import + Multitasking enviroment: 8.48% slower.
-Web browsing + Multitasking enviroment: 17.38% faster.
-3D Rendering + Multitasking enviroment: 46.02% faster.
-Compiling + Multitasking enviroment: 25.27% faster.
-DVD Skrink + Multitasking enviroment: 15.57% faster.
-Doom 3 + Multitasking enviroment: 36.19% faster.
-Spinter Cell + Multitasking enviroment: 16.21% faster.


So:

A64 X2: 21 wins.
P4 D: 2 wins.

great work now take that and compare it versus the 3800+ or FX55 and then tell us why we should pay a 180-200% premium.....How many of those apps id the FX55 beat the dual core by??? AMD already had leads...Th fact is they are doubling the price of current single core chips for nowhere near 2x performance. It also cost nowhere near double to make a dual core chip...So I say screw them and their prices at this point...

hmmm, pay a 180-200% premium?

A64 X2 4400+: $581
A64 X2 4200+: $537
FX-55: $837 (Monarch)
3800+: $389 (Monarch)


And now view it from this POV:

Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2,2GHz/2x512Kb L2: $537
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2,2GHz/2x1MB L2: $581
2x Opteron 248 2,2GHz/2x1MB L2: $950 (Monarch)

Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 2,4GHz/2x512Kb L2: $803
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2,4GHz/1MB L2: $1,001
2x Opteron 250 2,4GHz/2x1MB L2: $1,384 (Monarch)

Or what do you want? that AMD regale you an outstanding performer?

Sure, AMD at this moment hasn't announced a "value" desktop dual core ($250-300). Thats the fail. Anyway, perhaps, in June will. But these DC models perfomance/ratio price is really very good. Don't be wrong.

 

[Jeff7181]

Maybe AMD's theory is that by the time dual cores will be beneficial to everyone, 1.8 GHz won't be enough... so they're extending their model line with dual cores, not replacing existing single core models with dual core models.

 

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: sbuckler
Not sure about AMD strategy here, basically if you don't play games or compile code then there's really not that much difference between AMD and Intel other then price. So Intel will win every time because price difference is huge.

However no games use two cores yet so why spend so much money on a cpu that's no faster then a single core cpu costing half the price, particularly as the motherboard will accept a dual core one in the future when it's needed.

In summary:
1) If you don't play games seriously and just want a machine thats nice and fast for general desktop useage at a reasonable price (98% of people) a dual core intel wins. AMD loose out here as you can no longer really recomend a single core A64 over pentium D's.
2) If you are a serious gamer then you'd be best holding off for now or buying a single core A64 with an eye to buying a dual core in later after the rip off pricing ends and games start to use multiple threads (1.99% of people).
3) If you are a hardcore AMD fan boy, rich, and need dual core bragging rights then buy a dual A64 (0.01% of people)

So what it comes down too is AMD loose market share to intel because most people are best off with cheap pentium D's, and will have trouble finding homes for their dual A64's after the initial rich fan boy base buys one.

Are you kidding? Dual core P4 got its ass kicked by an EE that benches have shown is only slightly faster than a standard p4. A dual core P4 is probably the worst purchase you could make.

 

[Brian23]

AMD's pricing stratagy makes sense. I remember when the slot A Athlon was launched and it wasn't very competitive price wise, but after a while more and more people started buying them.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Well said PetNorth, and don't forget the Opteron requires more expensive reg ram too. Then consider the 2series dual core can offer some performance benefits that were only available with the 8series single core before and the price starts to fall in line a bit better there. AMD is through selling at low profit margins on their low volume, they did it for years and got no where fast from a profitability standpoint. Now they are maximize profits by targeting the enterprise sector where the outstanding performance of these dual cores will still offer good value while giving them the best return on a small volume for now.

Paying double for a dual core desktop chip makes sense for those who really want the multitasking performance, in that it is still equitable compared to the same speed 2x single core Opteron, and reg ram right now. Not to mention the number of ATX dual opteron workstation boards under $250 that can use a standard PSU is far more limited than the selection of 939 boards that all fit in a standard ATX case and can use the same PSU. That makes the cost of moving to MP performance easier and less expensive.

When fab36 gets up and running, AMD states they will be able to go from 50 million units on 90nm to approx. a 100 million. Some of those will be on 65nm relatively soon, as they stated they are closer on Intel's heels moving to the process size than most think. Once they have that increased manufacturing capacity I surmise the current pricing structure and selection of single and dual core CPUs from them will improve.

Intel is going to own the dual core desktop market for a good bit with the selection and pricing they plan, AMD doubtless understands that, and is trying to exploit the opportunity to make more headway in the enterprise sector while the new Xeon is still MIA. How well they will do, who can say? But until fab36 production is rolling, they won't have many CPUs to fill orders with anyways, from what Anand reports.

 

[Insomniak]

lol god, on the server side it's a massacre. Anyone notice those times when dual Opteron dual core almost held up to Quad Xeon servers?

Wow.

Looks like the first wave of dual core is going to be A64 vs P4 Prescott again - Intel's immediate future doesn't look any brighter.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: PetNorth

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: PetNorth
I've made some numbers with Anand preview. Comparying real apps, games and multitasking tests (I've omitted winstones, sysmarks and worldbenchs. I don't confide in them).

I've compared same range price: A64 X2 4400+ 2,2GHz Vs. P4 D 3.2GHz ($500-600).

OK, here it is:

-AutoGK/DivX: A64 X2, 4.37% faster than Pentium D.
-AutoGK/XviD: 9.78% faster.
-WM Encoder: 10.92% faster.

-Doom 3: 13.31% faster.
-Splinter Cell: 2.66% faster.
-Half Life 2: 25.34% faster.
-Halo: 29.08% faster.
-Unreal Tournament 2004: 17.27% faster.
-Wolfenstein: 14.14% faster.

-3DSMax 6/SPEC - rendering composite: 16.29% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering 3dsmasx5.rays scene: 15.31% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering cballs2 scene: 13.59% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering singlepipe2 scene: 15.34% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering underwater scene: 10.43% faster.

-Compiling Firefox: 28.18% faster.

-DVD Shrink + Multitasking scenario: 15.20% faster.
-File compression + Multitasking enviroment: 18.72% slower.
-Outlook PST import + Multitasking enviroment: 8.48% slower.
-Web browsing + Multitasking enviroment: 17.38% faster.
-3D Rendering + Multitasking enviroment: 46.02% faster.
-Compiling + Multitasking enviroment: 25.27% faster.
-DVD Skrink + Multitasking enviroment: 15.57% faster.
-Doom 3 + Multitasking enviroment: 36.19% faster.
-Spinter Cell + Multitasking enviroment: 16.21% faster.


So:

A64 X2: 21 wins.
P4 D: 2 wins.

great work now take that and compare it versus the 3800+ or FX55 and then tell us why we should pay a 180-200% premium.....How many of those apps id the FX55 beat the dual core by??? AMD already had leads...Th fact is they are doubling the price of current single core chips for nowhere near 2x performance. It also cost nowhere near double to make a dual core chip...So I say screw them and their prices at this point...

hmmm, pay a 180-200% premium?

A64 X2 4400+: $581
A64 X2 4200+: $537
FX-55: $837 (Monarch)
3800+: $389 (Monarch)


And now view it from this POV:

Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2,2GHz/2x512Kb L2: $537
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2,2GHz/2x1MB L2: $581
2x Opteron 248 2,2GHz/2x1MB L2: $950 (Monarch)

Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 2,4GHz/2x512Kb L2: $803
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2,4GHz/1MB L2: $1,001
2x Opteron 250 2,4GHz/2x1MB L2: $1,384 (Monarch)

Or what do you want? that AMD regale you an outstanding performer?

Sure, AMD at this moment hasn't announced a "value" desktop dual core ($250-300). Thats the fail. Anyway, perhaps, in June will. But these DC models perfomance/ratio price is really very good. Don't be wrong.

What part dont you get??? I said from the AT review...Go to like the 4th page where they break don the premium for the 2nd core...Do the math and you will see the 180-200% premium I am talking about...I did not say over the 3800+ or FX55

 

[Duvie]

Also I guess if we have to buy their terrible and terribly incorrect PR rating (for anyhting other then games) then we have to uy their terrible notion of what a dual core is worth eventhough the benches in real world dot show it.....Mayeb they base their PR rating and prices off of sisoft sandra score now.

 

[carlosd]

Maybe the prices will nor be competitive, but the prices will come down eventually. An also you have to take in account that the Athlon X2 will be compatible with actual 939 plataform. So if I wnat to go dual cores it will be cheaper for me to get a A64 X2 without changing anything, spending the same or even less that buying a Pentium D CPU, with DDR2 and new mobo. An will have a faster dual core CPU without sacrificing so much the single thread performance. You don't get that with Pentium D.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Also I guess if we have to buy their terrible and terribly incorrect PR rating (for anyhting other then games) then we have to uy their terrible notion of what a dual core is worth eventhough the benches in real world dot show it.....Mayeb they base their PR rating and prices off of sisoft sandra score now.

I don't even pay attention to the "PR rating" anymore. To me it's just a model number.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Let me submit this for everyone's edification; The simulated 4400+ 2.2ghz 1mb cache does damned good against the P-D 840 3.2ghz, the real one will likely perform slightly better due to ram. Now, the 3.2ghz 840 is listed in that chart for $530 and the X2 2.2ghz 1mb cache 4400+ $581

Where is the fvckin' problem with the pricing there?????? The difference is Intel will bring in even lowered clocked, lowered priced offerings, that's great! But most will need a new board and ram for the P-D eh?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Let me submit this for everyone's edification; The simulated 4400+ 2.2ghz 1mb cache does damned good against the P-D 840 3.2ghz, the real one will likely perform slightly better due to ram. Now, the 3.2ghz 840 is listed in that chart for $530 and the X2 2.2ghz 1mb cache 4400+ $581

Where is the fvckin' problem with the pricing there?????? The difference is Intel will bring in even lowered clocked, lowered priced offerings, that's great! But most will need a new board and ram for the P-D eh?

Nforce 4 SLI :thumbsup:

 

[LithographWoker]

Dipping your toe in the river, rather then jumping in not knowing what waits. Its very touch and go.

 

[clarkey01]

Everyone?s very quick to jump on the wagon of ?Their pricing too high, there nuts, where?s the low end part?.

Do you really think its that hard to get a low end say 1.6/1.8 Ghz model out there? No. Production has been pushed forward considerably, reshuffling and schedules have been tossed on their head I presume. Yields ?I? believe are good, its not a case of speeds and fully working units not coming to fruition, it?s a low volume product at the moment, this will change considerably over the near future.

The quicker FAB36 gets online the better.

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: carlosd
Maybe the prices will nor be competitive, but the prices will come down eventually. An also you have to take in account that the Athlon X2 will be compatible with actual 939 plataform. So if I wnat to go dual cores it will be cheaper for me to get a A64 X2 without changing anything, spending the same or even less that buying a Pentium D CPU, with DDR2 and new mobo. An will have a faster dual core CPU without sacrificing so much the single thread performance. You don't get that with Pentium D.

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I don't even pay attention to the "PR rating" anymore. To me it's just a model number.

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Let me submit this for everyone's edification; The simulated 4400+ 2.2ghz 1mb cache does damned good against the P-D 840 3.2ghz, the real one will likely perform slightly better due to ram. Now, the 3.2ghz 840 is listed in that chart for $530 and the X2 2.2ghz 1mb cache 4400+ $581

Where is the fvckin' problem with the pricing there?????? The difference is Intel will bring in even lowered clocked, lowered priced offerings, that's great! But most will need a new board and ram for the P-D eh?

EXACTLYYYYYYYYYYYYY

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: PetNorth

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Let me submit this for everyone's edification; The simulated 4400+ 2.2ghz 1mb cache does damned good against the P-D 840 3.2ghz, the real one will likely perform slightly better due to ram. Now, the 3.2ghz 840 is listed in that chart for $530 and the X2 2.2ghz 1mb cache 4400+ $581

Where is the fvckin' problem with the pricing there?????? The difference is Intel will bring in even lowered clocked, lowered priced offerings, that's great! But most will need a new board and ram for the P-D eh?

EXACTLYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Beat that , Hector i wanna hug you , my fellow AMD GEEKS RISE...

p.s LithographWoker works for AMD !, but he wont confirm it when i P.M him and he's changed his address from dresden to "other" also

 

[Hanpan]

The factor that really brings intel around is DELL.

Those may be list prices but anyone who has ever read Hot Deals will assure you dell will often undercut the price on intel processors in thier systems by a wide margin. I personally am hoping the sucessor to the SC4XX server series will have dual core processors. This will bring this battle into a whole new light.

 

[goshdarnindie]

This is all fine and dandy, but what I am more interested in, is how did they step up the 120V to 208V without a transformer?

Oh, and Petnorth is totally on point about not having to upgrade the mobo. I don't need a dual core now, but if I did, it wouldn't be that expensive compared to the weaker intel solution.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Let me submit this for everyone's edification; The simulated 4400+ 2.2ghz 1mb cache does damned good against the P-D 840 3.2ghz, the real one will likely perform slightly better due to ram. Now, the 3.2ghz 840 is listed in that chart for $530 and the X2 2.2ghz 1mb cache 4400+ $581

Where is the fvckin' problem with the pricing there?????? The difference is Intel will bring in even lowered clocked, lowered priced offerings, that's great! But most will need a new board and ram for the P-D eh?

Very true Dapunisher...Once the inital shock of not having it be 1.5-1.6x premium where I think logic still should put it sinceit does not deliver in most apps more then that if it delivers in 1/2 of normal apps of a desktop systems anyways....

I am more pissed at the fact they are going with 2x cost for something that even it is best increase in a very small handful of apps (non synthetic) it doesn't even deliver that. This is not a move to push adoption but to merely to show a presence, and I cant argue with that.....

I say just logically put these things relative to their single core counterpart.....

I will not go Intel at the moemnt regardles scause I am not ready to change out my whole system. If I was buying new I amy have gone for a lower end 820 or something....I hope AMD offers something lower thenwhat they have listed. dual 1.8 or 2.0ghz would still be great for me in my CAD stuff at not a big hit to the pocketbook....

So this aside...not looking at INtel's prices or even performance verus INtel per say. Just what is the premium over single core...then justify to me that price is worth it....That is all I will ask and will shut up about the rest....

I would agree with INtels stance to offer some lower speed chips as well to drive the faster adoption of the chip....Like INtel 820 lets have AMD offer a 1.8-2.0ghz model....much like the 175 opteron...

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Lithan

Originally posted by: sbuckler
Not sure about AMD strategy here, basically if you don't play games or compile code then there's really not that much difference between AMD and Intel other then price. So Intel will win every time because price difference is huge.

However no games use two cores yet so why spend so much money on a cpu that's no faster then a single core cpu costing half the price, particularly as the motherboard will accept a dual core one in the future when it's needed.

In summary:
1) If you don't play games seriously and just want a machine thats nice and fast for general desktop useage at a reasonable price (98% of people) a dual core intel wins. AMD loose out here as you can no longer really recomend a single core A64 over pentium D's.
2) If you are a serious gamer then you'd be best holding off for now or buying a single core A64 with an eye to buying a dual core in later after the rip off pricing ends and games start to use multiple threads (1.99% of people).
3) If you are a hardcore AMD fan boy, rich, and need dual core bragging rights then buy a dual A64 (0.01% of people)

So what it comes down too is AMD loose market share to intel because most people are best off with cheap pentium D's, and will have trouble finding homes for their dual A64's after the initial rich fan boy base buys one.

Are you kidding? Dual core P4 got its ass kicked by an EE that benches have shown is only slightly faster than a standard p4. A dual core P4 is probably the worst purchase you could make.

I'll probably go for the 3.0GHz Pentium D with NForce4 Intel mobo. The price, she is right.

 

[dmcowen674]

Hehehehehe

All I have to say is Go AMD :thumbsup:

4-21-2005 History Made: AMD Releases Multicore Chips