In AMD's eyes it's not A64 VS C2D

[Pederv]

In order for AMD to say it has the price/performance crown, all it has to do is out perform Intels netburst chips and sell at or below the same price.
So OEM's and other customers purchase AMD products over Intels. The only thing Intel will be selling is the C2D line, which isn't going to be making Intel much money until production ramps up.
Intel is going to be hurting and AMD is going to have trouble keeping up with demand, for the next 6 months or so.

 

[coldpower27]

Of course AMD is going to be seeing whatever it needs to to show no disadvantage to it.

It is actually pretty much even, a Pentium D 945 for 163US will fare well against the Athlon 64x2 3800+.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Why will Intel be hurting?

OEMs will still be buying Celerons and P4's in volume plus every single Core 2 it can make, while Intel continures to dominatie in laptop processors as well.

Intel's costs for netburst chips are lower than AMD's so they make more on a $100 CPU than AMD does. Dropping netburst and X2 prices $100+ hurts AMD more than Intel.

Competition is good, and my last CPU purchase was an X2, but AMD execs are hitting the crack pipe pretty hard if they aren't admitting that they are hurting badly and that Core 2 doesn't matter yet.

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Intel's costs for netburst chips are lower than AMD's so they make more on a $100 CPU than AMD does.

The way things are going, it might be more accurate to say they lose less.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Of course AMD is going to be seeing whatever it needs to to show no disadvantage to it.

It is actually pretty much even, a Pentium D 945 for 163US will fare well against the Athlon 64x2 3800+.

After looking at Anand's benches and the platforms available, I really can't agree. It's true that the X2 3800 is close to equal with the 950 (the 945 is a 950 without the VT), except of course in gaming where the X2 reigns supreme by comparison.
But more important is the available platforms for the chips...
If you look at the Asus m2npv-vm for example, you get a platform with Raid 5, Firewire, HDTV output (in RGB even), DUAL video heads (both DVI and VGA), nVidia 6150 graphics, GbE, and a whole slew of other whistles and bells for ~$90 delivered...
I have yet to find any platform for the PDs that comes close to that kind of value...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Why will Intel be hurting?

OEMs will still be buying Celerons and P4's in volume plus every single Core 2 it can make, while Intel continures to dominatie in laptop processors as well.

Intel's costs for netburst chips are lower than AMD's so they make more on a $100 CPU than AMD does. Dropping netburst and X2 prices $100+ hurts AMD more than Intel.

Competition is good, and my last CPU purchase was an X2, but AMD execs are hitting the crack pipe pretty hard if they aren't admitting that they are hurting badly and that Core 2 doesn't matter yet.

Ummm...why do you say that? The die size is larger on the Netburst chips (even though the node is smaller), and they are a much less mature process. So the Netburst chips are probably more expensive than the equivalent AMD chips...

Edit: I think you were forgetting the size of the cache on the 9xx chips, which adds significantly to their cost of manufacture

Edit2: Of course I was forgetting the cost of SOI wafers, so it's probable that they cost about the same...oops

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Viditor
Ummm...why do you say that? The die size is larger on the Netburst chips (even though the node is smaller), and they are a much less mature process. So the Netburst chips are probably more expensive than the equivalent AMD chips...

Edit: I think you were forgetting the size of the cache on the 9xx chips, which adds significantly to their cost of manufacture

Edit2: Of course I was forgetting the cost of SOI wafers, so it's probable that they cost about the same...oops

Pressler is formed out of two separate dies. Pressler is also smaller than the AM2 X2/2x512KB L2 cache, 162mm^2 vs 183mm^2.

 

[bobdelt]

Originally posted by: Pederv
In order for AMD to say it has the price/performance crown, all it has to do is out perform Intels netburst chips and sell at or below the same price.
So OEM's and other customers purchase AMD products over Intels. The only thing Intel will be selling is the C2D line, which isn't going to be making Intel much money until production ramps up.
Intel is going to be hurting and AMD is going to have trouble keeping up with demand, for the next 6 months or so.

You know what Intel's production is like? Show me a link.

Amd however, at the last minute is releasing this 4x4 thing, and most motherboard manufactors are in the dark still. AMD is scrambling at the moment and is very worried. They still have a strong hold in the server market though.

When AMD competed on price in the past, they did not make money.
http://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&cid=327

They lost money in '01, '02, and '03. AMD simply cannot afford to compete on price alone. Remember they dont make money off chipsets either, or perform any other services to keep them afloat like Intel.

Also keep in mind that most people do not build their own PC's or care about speed. They care about how pretty their pc is and how light and cute it is. Laptops are outselling desktops right now, a market AMD is clearly losing. Intel has a lot more marketing power behind it. Imagine when Merom comes out, the only difference is FSB speed. These laptops are going to fly!

Sad times for AMD ahead. I hope they can get that K8L out soon.

 

[Pederv]

bobdelt,
Well, there's some information here
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=19
"The scary statistic is that by the end of this year, only 25% of Intel's Performance Mainstream desktop processor shipments will be based on Conroe. The remaining 75% will still be NetBurst based, meaning they will be Pentium 4, Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition."
That means by the end of the year AMD can provide a better price/performance than 75% of Intels products. Which means Joe Average gets more exposer to AMD being the best bang for the buck. Which in turn means AMD can affect how much money Intel makes over the next few months because all anybody will want is the C2D.

We're just talkin desktops here, Intel has always done well in laptops.

 

[lopri]

What's the difference between P-D 9x0s and 9x5s?

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Of course AMD is going to be seeing whatever it needs to to show no disadvantage to it.

It is actually pretty much even, a Pentium D 945 for 163US will fare well against the Athlon 64x2 3800+.

After looking at Anand's benches and the platforms available, I really can't agree. It's true that the X2 3800 is close to equal with the 950 (the 945 is a 950 without the VT), except of course in gaming where the X2 reigns supreme by comparison.
But more important is the available platforms for the chips...
If you look at the Asus m2npv-vm for example, you get a platform with Raid 5, Firewire, HDTV output (in RGB even), DUAL video heads (both DVI and VGA), nVidia 6150 graphics, GbE, and a whole slew of other whistles and bells for ~$90 delivered...
I have yet to find any platform for the PDs that comes close to that kind of value...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131006

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/pentium-xe-965/index.x?pg=4

The Athlon 64x2 3800+ is maybe 5-10% faster in gaming with the Pentium D 945. It doesn't "reign supreme" in comparison at all. And if your gaming, the CPU doesn't matter apparently when your running hi resolutions for the most part anyway. As well it's not like you can run Crossfire with the motherboards we picked anyway.

Well you can have a motherboard ASUS P5LD2-VM for 110US which isn't horrible. 116US If you want to have ViiV, like I said competitive enough.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: lopri
What's the difference between P-D 9x0s and 9x5s?

Lack of Virtualization technolgoy on the x5s.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Why will Intel be hurting?

OEMs will still be buying Celerons and P4's in volume plus every single Core 2 it can make, while Intel continures to dominatie in laptop processors as well.

Intel's costs for netburst chips are lower than AMD's so they make more on a $100 CPU than AMD does. Dropping netburst and X2 prices $100+ hurts AMD more than Intel.

Competition is good, and my last CPU purchase was an X2, but AMD execs are hitting the crack pipe pretty hard if they aren't admitting that they are hurting badly and that Core 2 doesn't matter yet.

Ummm...why do you say that? The die size is larger on the Netburst chips (even though the node is smaller), and they are a much less mature process. So the Netburst chips are probably more expensive than the equivalent AMD chips...

Edit: I think you were forgetting the size of the cache on the 9xx chips, which adds significantly to their cost of manufacture

Edit2: Of course I was forgetting the cost of SOI wafers, so it's probable that they cost about the same...oops

Comparing 2x81mm2 of the Presler core to the Windsor (2x512kb) 183mm2 is not the same, not to mention as you said SOI technology.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: lopri
What's the difference between P-D 9x0s and 9x5s?

Lack of Virtualization technolgoy on the x5s.

That naming scheme is curious to say the least. So a 935 is a 930 without VT? Don't they have 965 Extreme Edition? Also, is the VT disabled from 9x0 to 9x5, or are 9x5s manufactured without VT from the get-go?

 

[jones377]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Why will Intel be hurting?

OEMs will still be buying Celerons and P4's in volume plus every single Core 2 it can make, while Intel continures to dominatie in laptop processors as well.

Intel's costs for netburst chips are lower than AMD's so they make more on a $100 CPU than AMD does. Dropping netburst and X2 prices $100+ hurts AMD more than Intel.

Competition is good, and my last CPU purchase was an X2, but AMD execs are hitting the crack pipe pretty hard if they aren't admitting that they are hurting badly and that Core 2 doesn't matter yet.

Ummm...why do you say that? The die size is larger on the Netburst chips (even though the node is smaller), and they are a much less mature process. So the Netburst chips are probably more expensive than the equivalent AMD chips...

Edit: I think you were forgetting the size of the cache on the 9xx chips, which adds significantly to their cost of manufacture

Edit2: Of course I was forgetting the cost of SOI wafers, so it's probable that they cost about the same...oops

Comparing 2x81mm2 of the Presler core to the Windsor (2x512kb) 183mm2 is not the same, not to mention as you said SOI technology.

Not to mention a few extra metal layers as well driving up costs and reducing yeilds (a small bit).

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: lopri
What's the difference between P-D 9x0s and 9x5s?

Lack of Virtualization technolgoy on the x5s.

That naming scheme is curious to say the least. So a 935 is a 930 without VT? Don't they have 965 Extreme Edition? Also, is the VT disabled from 9x0 to 9x5, or are 9x5s manufactured without VT from the get-go?

Lack of VT on the Pentium D 9x5s. A 945 is a 950 without VT. So 935 would be a 940 without VT.

They are manufactured with VT disabled.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: jones377

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Why will Intel be hurting?

OEMs will still be buying Celerons and P4's in volume plus every single Core 2 it can make, while Intel continures to dominatie in laptop processors as well.

Intel's costs for netburst chips are lower than AMD's so they make more on a $100 CPU than AMD does. Dropping netburst and X2 prices $100+ hurts AMD more than Intel.

Competition is good, and my last CPU purchase was an X2, but AMD execs are hitting the crack pipe pretty hard if they aren't admitting that they are hurting badly and that Core 2 doesn't matter yet.

Ummm...why do you say that? The die size is larger on the Netburst chips (even though the node is smaller), and they are a much less mature process. So the Netburst chips are probably more expensive than the equivalent AMD chips...

Edit: I think you were forgetting the size of the cache on the 9xx chips, which adds significantly to their cost of manufacture

Edit2: Of course I was forgetting the cost of SOI wafers, so it's probable that they cost about the same...oops

Comparing 2x81mm2 of the Presler core to the Windsor (2x512kb) 183mm2 is not the same, not to mention as you said SOI technology.

Not to mention a few extra metal layers as well driving up costs and reducing yeilds (a small bit).

Yes that is true, the AMD 90nm process is 1 layer thicker then Intel's 65nm process, when AMD transistions to 65nm this increase back to 2.

 

[dandragonrage]

Netburst is much older than K8, so the R&D costs are less of an issue. Not that K8 is brand new or anything these days, though.

And AMD can not claim the performance crown until they actually have (reclaim) the best performance in their class. C2D is not something to be ignored. If you ask me, they need to be dumping money into R&D, improving the K8L to be more than a somewhat minor evolutionary step and getting it (or an intermediary product) out fast. Not to mention getting to 65nm as fast as possible. Intel is going to go to 45nm next year if all goes well, and AMD is just going to be lagging behind more and more.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Pederv
bobdelt,
Well, there's some information here
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=19
"The scary statistic is that by the end of this year, only 25% of Intel's Performance Mainstream desktop processor shipments will be based on Conroe. The remaining 75% will still be NetBurst based, meaning they will be Pentium 4, Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition."
That means by the end of the year AMD can provide a better price/performance than 75% of Intels products. Which means Joe Average gets more exposer to AMD being the best bang for the buck. Which in turn means AMD can affect how much money Intel makes over the next few months because all anybody will want is the C2D.

We're just talkin desktops here, Intel has always done well in laptops.

Theres something called the low-end/budget market you know? Pentium-4 5x1's for $60-90 is very attractive for some people (even overclockers... they can hit 4.5Ghz easily on stock all). Its obvious Core2Duo is mid-high to high end. Its no secret that most of the inventory moved is at the low end.

 

[bobdelt]

Originally posted by: Pederv
bobdelt,
Well, there's some information here
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=19
"The scary statistic is that by the end of this year, only 25% of Intel's Performance Mainstream desktop processor shipments will be based on Conroe. The remaining 75% will still be NetBurst based, meaning they will be Pentium 4, Pentium D and Pentium Extreme Edition."
That means by the end of the year AMD can provide a better price/performance than 75% of Intels products. Which means Joe Average gets more exposer to AMD being the best bang for the buck. Which in turn means AMD can affect how much money Intel makes over the next few months because all anybody will want is the C2D.

We're just talkin desktops here, Intel has always done well in laptops.

Yeah but Intel is going to be slashing the prices on the Pentium D series too.

Also, just because they account for the majority of the chips being sold, it doesnt mean you have to get one. There will still be a conroe at 200 dollars that will whoop.

 

[Regs]

AMD was hurting for awhile when they couldn't make enough chips to sell to retailers and vendors like Dell and HP. At least they are getting that solved. That's where that 600 dollars went for the X2.

 

[Pederv]

bobdelt,
I won't deny that Intel will sell every C2D it can make. I'm saying it won't be able to make them fast enough and the market will be forced to use other chips available. With AMD shooting for the price/performance crown, most of the other chips used will be A64 based.
With back to school shopping picking up and Christmas shopping soon after that, there's alot of product going to be moved over the next few months.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
There will still be a conroe at 200 dollars that will whoop.

Yes, but the 2MB cache version doesn't kick as hard as the 4MB cache version, which is only available at over $300.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Zap
but the 2MB cache version doesn't kick as hard as the 4MB cache version

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html

 

[TheRyuu]

No sh!t it's A64 vs. Netburst. The K8 core is showing its age, and is getting rather old. K8L is a rev. that should come next year sometime and that should compete against Core 2 whatever.

The way I see it is that it's just another K7 vs. Northwood. The northwood (especally when OCed) beat some of the Athlong XP's. Then AMD released the K8, and beat Intel. Now intel released Conroe, beating AMD. Then AMD releases K8L and well... we'll just see about that one