If you were an AMD Marketing Manager ...

[wwswimming]

from looking at benchmarks, it seems like the fastest
Phenom is, at best, about 10% slower than the Q9300
or Q6600.

sharky just put up their CPU prices ... $215 for a Phenom ?

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/g...PG/article.php/3739871

with Q6600's going for $200 - $250 ?

$150 for the 9600 - that would have me going, hmmm.

just curious what people think is a fair price for the Phenom.

 

[v8envy]

It's not as easy as doing simple algebra on $/performance when coming up with a value proposition for a product. You have:

1. Brand image. Is your product stylish enough for people to pay a premium for the brand?
2. Performance also includes power usage. I've seen tests where a 9850 draws 25% more total system load than a Q6600, and others where it matches the Q6600.
3. Is the absolute performance enough for the application? The cheapest CPUs typically offer the best performance/dollar (but not necessarily performance/watt) but are sometimes not enough oomph to solve a problem. (e.g., higher end gaming)
4. Total platform features and stability.

Moreover, you can't just compare costs of just the CPU when coming up with a pricing strategy. So while the comments re: 9850 being 11% slower and 13% cheaper than the Q6600 hold comparing MSRP on just the cpus, when you consider most people have to buy a platform to go with the CPU the value proposition is more on the order of 11% slower and 1-2% cheaper whole system cost. Also I think you're comparing loss leader pricing on the Q6600 to MSRP on the Phenoms -- on sharky's page it's $215 Phenom vs $231 Q6600.

With all that in mind, the 9600 is not an attractive product to me even at $150 while a Q6600 at $200 is -- if I needed a CPU today it'd be a hard decision between an E8400/X3110 and X3210/Q6600 @ $190ish. I'd consider the B2 stepping Phenoms at around $120 or so, which would be a ridiculous price to sell them at.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: wwswimming

from looking at benchmarks, it seems like the fastest
Phenom is, at best, about 10% slower than the Q9300
or Q6600.

sharky just put up their CPU prices ... $215 for a Phenom ?

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/g...PG/article.php/3739871

with Q6600's going for $200 - $250 ?

$150 for the 9600 - that would have me going, hmmm.

just curious what people think is a fair price for the Phenom.

At stock speeds in apps that run parallel threads across 4 cores there is little difference between a q6600 and a Phenom.

And it pretty much bites that The Egg has raised the price of a 9500 from $169 to $195.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: wwswimming

from looking at benchmarks, it seems like the fastest
Phenom is, at best, about 10% slower than the Q9300
or Q6600.

sharky just put up their CPU prices ... $215 for a Phenom ?

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/g...PG/article.php/3739871

with Q6600's going for $200 - $250 ?

$150 for the 9600 - that would have me going, hmmm.

just curious what people think is a fair price for the Phenom.

At stock speeds in apps that run parallel threads across 4 cores there is little difference between a q6600 and a Phenom.

And it pretty much bites that The Egg has raised the price of a 9500 from $169 to $195.

I dont like newegg on hot items or new items. You guys spam the link on this forum, people click it, there counter goes up, newegg's web program automatically raises the price to meet up with the interest. No one looks at it for the next couple days, the item drops back down or goes on sale.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
[
At stock speeds in apps that run parallel threads across 4 cores there is little difference between a q6600 and a Phenom.

Wow, that's really narrowing it down.

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...ck_edition/page13.html

An average 13.5% performance deficit, as much as 33.6% in powerpoint to pdf, and 27% less in photoshop CS3. Since both CPUs are quads comparing a multitude of applications this comparison is reasonable -- it's not like we're comparing a low clock speed quad to a high speed dual.

Oh, and I think this test was done with TLB bug workaround disabled. Tack on another 10-76% performance hit if you aren't willing to go into the BIOS or run the AMD overclocking utility to turn the fix off.

And it pretty much bites that The Egg has raised the price of a 9500 from $169 to $195.

AMD fans will buy at any price. Might as well get as much as you can if not competing on value.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: v8envy

And it pretty much bites that The Egg has raised the price of a 9500 from $169 to $195.

AMD fans will buy at any price. Might as well get as much as you can if not competing on value.

This is sad, because unless your going low sector, the intel would spank it in about every last performance possible.

Not to mention the Q6600 can be found for under 200. Last week frys was having it on sale for 189.

 

[nyker96]

as long as there are people buying it at this price or higher, they can charge whatever they wanted. Esp. for upgrade people, this is probably okay, since no need to buy need boards etc.

However given choice I would personally go for Q9300 as a decent bang for buck solution and couple it with a low grade HSF like ACF7 pro OCed to 3.5 or so will do nicely. But if you got better cooler maybe 9400 is better to max out to 4ghz.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: v8envy

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
[
At stock speeds in apps that run parallel threads across 4 cores there is little difference between a q6600 and a Phenom.

Wow, that's really narrowing it down.

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...ck_edition/page13.html

An average 13.5% performance deficit, as much as 33.6% in powerpoint to pdf, and 27% less in photoshop CS3. Since both CPUs are quads comparing a multitude of applications this comparison is reasonable -- it's not like we're comparing a low clock speed quad to a high speed dual.

Oh, and I think this test was done with TLB bug workaround disabled. Tack on another 10-76% performance hit if you aren't willing to go into the BIOS or run the AMD overclocking utility to turn the fix off.

How interesting that Tech Report would seem to differ with your cherry-picked conclusions (and demonstrated a 20% overclock with a Phenom).

How interesting that Tom's CPU Chart would disagree with Patrick Schmid's article from the first week of February.

No one is implying that your beloved Intel q6600 is inferior to K10. In applications which can actually run 4 multiple threads in parallel across four cores the Phenom performs on par with the q6600.

No one is implying that 45nm Wolfdales with SSE4 will not perform better. Don't get your OC panties in a wadd.

I'm sorry that the Intel Fanbois can't accept that at stock speeds in apps that run parallel threads across 4 cores there is little difference between a q6600 and a Phenom.

AMD fans will buy at any price. Might as well get as much as you can if not competing on value.

That's insulting. It's a flame. It's not true. And it's BS.

And it's from a Mod.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo


How interesting that Tech Report would seem to differ with your cherry-picked conclusions (and demonstrated a 20% overclock with a Phenom).

Ok, it has good synthetic memory benchmarks? Yay? Go to the next page where the very first benchmark shows a 9600 phenom posting *51%* the performance of a Q6600 in team fortress 2. I didn't cherry pick, but if you'd like I can find some benchmarks that make the Phenom look utterly craptastic.

If all the user wants to do is synthetic benchmarks of winrar and sandra, ok, the Phenom 9600 is very comprable to the Q6600 and I'd say it's exactly the right chip. I'll readily admit that.

If the user wants to run common apps like Photoshop, most games, Firefox, virus scanning et cetera... They should do their own research.

How interesting that Tom's CPU Chart would disagree with Patrick Schmid's article from the first week of February.

If you look at that graph you'll notice that while the 9600 loses to the Q6600 by only 1 second. But the difference between a Phenom 9600 and 2x QX9775 on the same graph is... 10 seconds. Are you inferring a single Phenom 9600 will perform on par with 2x Q9775s in the general case as well?

I'm inferring your cherry picked benchmarks are not useful.

No one is implying that your beloved Intel q6600 is inferior to K10. In applications which can actually run 4 multiple threads in parallel across four cores the Phenom performs on par with the q6600.

It performs on par in some applications and performs drastically monstrously horribly UNDER par with others. And that's with the TLB fix disabled.

I'm sorry that the Intel Fanbois can't accept that at stock speeds in apps that run parallel threads across 4 cores there is little difference between a q6600 and a Phenom.

I can accept that in some applications the Phenoms match slightly cheaper Core2 Quads, in rare cases they post 5% higher performance. In many other extremely common cases there is a much larger performance deficit.

And that's without bringing power consumption into the mix.

AMD fans will buy at any price. Might as well get as much as you can if not competing on value.

That's insulting. It's a flame. It's not true. And it's BS.

And it's from a Mod.

[/quote]

It's not from a mod, it's from me. Take it as a flame if you will -- AMD fans are not buying rationally, and if they're willing to pay more for less then why are you implying me stating they'll pay MUCH more is a flame?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I'm sorry that the Intel Fanbois can't accept that at stock speeds in apps that run parallel threads across 4 cores there is little difference between a q6600 and a Phenom.

So, in getting back to the purpose of this thread, you would seem to be in favor of pricing "Phenom" the same as Q6600? Is this correct?

Or perhaps you think it should be priced even higher than a Q6600 since the rest of the AMD platform can be cheaper than an Intel platform at times?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
How interesting that Tech Report would seem to differ with your cherry-picked conclusions (and demonstrated a 20% overclock with a Phenom).

lol... criticizing another person for cherry picking huh?

How about just starting from here and comparing the fastest Phenom 9850 v Q6600.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=3272&p=8

Just go through all the benchmarks and you can probably count that in 3 or so benchmarks they're close and the remaining 12 or so it's ~10% slower.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: v8envy

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
[
At stock speeds in apps that run parallel threads across 4 cores there is little difference between a q6600 and a Phenom.

Wow, that's really narrowing it down.

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...ck_edition/page13.html

An average 13.5% performance deficit, as much as 33.6% in powerpoint to pdf, and 27% less in photoshop CS3. Since both CPUs are quads comparing a multitude of applications this comparison is reasonable -- it's not like we're comparing a low clock speed quad to a high speed dual.

Oh, and I think this test was done with TLB bug workaround disabled. Tack on another 10-76% performance hit if you aren't willing to go into the BIOS or run the AMD overclocking utility to turn the fix off.

How interesting that Tech Report would seem to differ with your cherry-picked conclusions (and demonstrated a 20% overclock with a Phenom).

How interesting that Tom's CPU Chart would disagree with Patrick Schmid's article from the first week of February.

No one is implying that your beloved Intel q6600 is inferior to K10. In applications which can actually run 4 multiple threads in parallel across four cores the Phenom performs on par with the q6600.

No one is implying that 45nm Wolfdales with SSE4 will not perform better. Don't get your OC panties in a wadd.

I'm sorry that the Intel Fanbois can't accept that at stock speeds in apps that run parallel threads across 4 cores there is little difference between a q6600 and a Phenom.

AMD fans will buy at any price. Might as well get as much as you can if not competing on value.

That's insulting. It's a flame. It's not true. And it's BS.

And it's from a Mod.

I think you are having problems reading the techreport review, Cause I am seeing there how the Q6600 is whooping the same ghz phenoms. (and the similarly priced ones).

Also, The claim about buying at any price wasn't by aigrimora, it was a quoting system glitch, he quoted v8envy who said it but the quote boxes came out all wrong on his post.

It is actually not a flame cause it specifically refers to fanboys. If you buy AMD because it provides better value for what you do then you aren't a fanboy, if you buy AMD just because then the statement is true, and if the truth insults you, well tough luck.
I am really shocked that people are buying it though, ironically, when I bought the E8400 I noticed how its performance is phenomenal.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

That's insulting. It's a flame. It's not true. And it's BS.

And it's from a Mod.

Maybe you should look at the person above me. I ment to quote him but the quotes came out wierd.


I fixed it. And its not a flame. Its a personal voice, flaming a person vs product is two different things.

I can say i hate abit its the worst possible board on high end overclocking, would you say im flaming abit?


Also if you factor overclocking in the Q6600, im sorry but its dirt simple on a decient board. Havent seen a Q6600 that couldnt do 3.2ghz would you still pick the phenom?

I am a very objective person. I'll talk trash about ANY PRODUCT that doesnt promise or live up to its competition. I probably already have a few cooling manufactors who hate me, you think i care if a manufactor hates me? I know TT and Innotek probably hate me. I even told a eVGA Rep that they did the stupidest thing in H2o World by pairing up with innotek. But eVGA rep said they had copper blocks in design and they understood our anger. (thumbs up to evga for this tho)

We need to force them to get into shape. You keep supporting a lazy bum, he learns to live comfortably as a lazy bum is what im trying to say.

If they go out of business, then someone better or worse will come and buy them, and hopefully make them better. This is how business works. Fanism does not exsist in the capital market.

:]

 

[Phynaz]

At stock speeds in apps that run parallel threads across 4 cores there is little difference between a q6600 and a Phenom.

Is that you, Viditor?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
I am a very objective person. I'll talk trash about ANY PRODUCT that doesnt promise or live up to its competition. I probably already have a few cooling manufactors who hate me, you think i care if a manufactor hates me? I know TT and Innotek probably hate me. I even told a eVGA Rep that they did the stupidest thing in H2o World by pairing up with innotek. But eVGA rep said they had copper blocks in design and they understood our anger. (thumbs up to evga for this tho)

We need to force them to get into shape. You keep supporting a lazy bum, he learns to live comfortably as a lazy bum is what im trying to say.

If they go out of business, then someone better or worse will come and buy them, and hopefully make them better. This is how business works. Fanism does not exsist in the capital market.

:]

+1

Even if AMD goes away there will be someone brave enough (or stupid enough?) to rise to the occasion.

Some private equity group somewhere will see Intel's juicy PFO numbers and think they can score some of it where others have failed.

For the folks I know at AMD though I do wish AMD rises from these ashes.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

At stock speeds in apps that run parallel threads across 4 cores there is little difference between a q6600 and a Phenom.

Is that you, Viditor?

No Satan, it's not...

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: aigomorla
I am a very objective person. I'll talk trash about ANY PRODUCT that doesnt promise or live up to its competition. I probably already have a few cooling manufactors who hate me, you think i care if a manufactor hates me? I know TT and Innotek probably hate me. I even told a eVGA Rep that they did the stupidest thing in H2o World by pairing up with innotek. But eVGA rep said they had copper blocks in design and they understood our anger. (thumbs up to evga for this tho)

We need to force them to get into shape. You keep supporting a lazy bum, he learns to live comfortably as a lazy bum is what im trying to say.

If they go out of business, then someone better or worse will come and buy them, and hopefully make them better. This is how business works. Fanism does not exsist in the capital market.

:]

+1

Even if AMD goes away there will be someone brave enough (or stupid enough?) to rise to the occasion.

Some private equity group somewhere will see Intel's juicy PFO numbers and think they can score some of it where others have failed.

For the folks I know at AMD though I do wish AMD rises from these ashes.

Or if not, they will be declared a monopoly and split up, just like the various bells... Wouldn't THAT be nice... I am surprised it hasn't happened already. If I was the dictator of some technologically advanced country (there are several that come to mind) I would have had those things seized, stolen, or reverse engineered and started manufacturing locally in the interest of national security. Even democracies like the european union and the US should have done it years ago. I find this whole situation downright bizarre.

EDIT: oh, and +1 on what aigrimora said

 

[TekDemon]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: v8envy

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
[
At stock speeds in apps that run parallel threads across 4 cores there is little difference between a q6600 and a Phenom.

Wow, that's really narrowing it down.

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...ck_edition/page13.html

An average 13.5% performance deficit, as much as 33.6% in powerpoint to pdf, and 27% less in photoshop CS3. Since both CPUs are quads comparing a multitude of applications this comparison is reasonable -- it's not like we're comparing a low clock speed quad to a high speed dual.

Oh, and I think this test was done with TLB bug workaround disabled. Tack on another 10-76% performance hit if you aren't willing to go into the BIOS or run the AMD overclocking utility to turn the fix off.

How interesting that Tech Report would seem to differ with your cherry-picked conclusions (and demonstrated a 20% overclock with a Phenom).

How interesting that Tom's CPU Chart would disagree with Patrick Schmid's article from the first week of February.

No one is implying that your beloved Intel q6600 is inferior to K10. In applications which can actually run 4 multiple threads in parallel across four cores the Phenom performs on par with the q6600.

No one is implying that 45nm Wolfdales with SSE4 will not perform better. Don't get your OC panties in a wadd.

I'm sorry that the Intel Fanbois can't accept that at stock speeds in apps that run parallel threads across 4 cores there is little difference between a q6600 and a Phenom.

AMD fans will buy at any price. Might as well get as much as you can if not competing on value.

That's insulting. It's a flame. It's not true. And it's BS.

And it's from a Mod.

Forget the specifics though. AMD is not price competitive right now with Intel. When your brand new top of the line CPU is losing to last generation Intel parts, and you're happy to get a massive 20% overclock...you're not competitive and you don't have the headroom to be competitive anytime soon.

If you want to talk about headroom, most Q6600's that you can now buy for $190-$200 at multiple places should are guaranteed a 25% overclock (that's 3Ghz) and most chips will happily do a 35% overclock.

Honestly if AMD was competitive in the video sector right now I'd think they'd be OK, but their purchase of ATi just looks like it's a liability more than anything else.

 

[Acanthus]

They really need to put the price of phailnom in line with the performance for the sake of market share.

They are bleeding money like a seive though so who knows what they can do.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
They really need to put the price of phailnom in line with the performance for the sake of market share.

They are bleeding money like a seive though so who knows what they can do.

Exactly, just because AMD should price Phenom well below the Intel alternative doesn't mean they can.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Acanthus
They really need to put the price of phailnom in line with the performance for the sake of market share.

They are bleeding money like a seive though so who knows what they can do.

Exactly, just because AMD should price Phenom well below the Intel alternative doesn't mean they can.

It's also a matter of their specific supply versus demand curve for the varying Phenom SKU's.

Supply at the GHz and TDP's for the various SKU's may be so low that it doesn't hurt AMD to price them a tad higher as they may still be selling all they can ship.

Presumably something like this is the most reasonable explaination...I very much doubt AMD is accumulating an inventory of B3 Phenom's right now.

Sure they had a bubble of B2's exit the fab as a result of their failed ramp last fall once the TLB bug became headline news, but those are actively being converted to tri-cores and so on.

(crazy side note - watching an Intel commercial on MSNBC squawk box right now)