Phenom II is faster or same as Yorkfield Core 2 Quad

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Don't discount the fact that initial volume of Phenom II will be low as AMD will still be in the early stages of ramping 45nm production.

So while the initial Phenom II prices may place it at a non-competitive price/performance ratio relative to Yorkfield or Bloomfield, the fact that the Phenom II supply will be less than infinite could very well mean that AMD will still sell all the Phenom II's they can push out the door at those prices until their volume ramps thru Q1 and into Q2.

Supply curve shifts

Maybe, but those who know hardware and read sites like these will say "hey that Phenom costs $xx more than that Q9550 over there. It's not even faster in my games and current apps. I can save some cash and then buy the new WoW expansion or a better video card...sweet!"

or something to that effect.

That is the part of supply vs demand wherein the demand is reduced such that it is no longer outstripping the supply.

Which I'm saying will lose potential buyers.

What were those potential buyers going to buy?

If there are only 3 chips then it doesn't matter whether the price is so low that there are 20 potential buyers or if the price is high and there are only 10 potential buyers...because in a supply limited situation there will only be 3 buyers of those 3 CPU's.

Lowering price only helps increase actual buyers if supply exists for potential buyers to become actual buyers.

In the absence of supply there really is no point in attracting potential buyers who can't get anything (at any price) once the initial stock is depleted.

If nobody will buy it when it's expensive because it performs the same as cheaper options and people go for cheaper options, they won't sell CPUs. That's too hard to figure out?

I think you just confirmed for me that you don't understand some of the basic tenants of supply/demand economics.

Demand is not a step-function based on price, it is a continuously varying function. AMD isn't going to find themselves in a situation where they price their chip $1 too high and suddenly have zero customers.

At any rate I refuse to beat my head against this wall, I've learned what I needed to here.

 

[Timorous]

What about people with AM2+ motherboards who are running X2's?

For those people this chip is a drop in upgrade so it might cost more vs the intel chip, but when you factor in the cost of the Intel CPU and the motherboard it becomes cheaper for current customers. Then once they increase production they can make their CPU+Motherboard combinations compete on price with the Intel parts in the same performance brackets.

I believe that once the supply is there the prices will be competitive which is what I am hoping for since I need to upgrade my AGP system and I want to do so as cheaply as possible.

 

[faxon]

early phenom 2 chips are going to be AM2+ socket anyway, the real meat is going to come when AM3 launches, which is where a lot of the enthusiasts will probably aim to buy. most of the AM2+ chips will end up as drop in upgrades for current people who are only buying a CPU, not a whole system. before they ramp production up, there are probably enough people out there who would love to upgrade their AM2+ systems running phenoms that they cant oc worth a crap, so charging the current listed prices doesnt seem so out there

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Timorous
I believe that once the supply is there the prices will be competitive which is what I am hoping for since I need to upgrade my AGP system and I want to do so as cheaply as possible.

Yep, exactly what happened with Phenom when it was initially released.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Don't discount the fact that initial volume of Phenom II will be low as AMD will still be in the early stages of ramping 45nm production.

So while the initial Phenom II prices may place it at a non-competitive price/performance ratio relative to Yorkfield or Bloomfield, the fact that the Phenom II supply will be less than infinite could very well mean that AMD will still sell all the Phenom II's they can push out the door at those prices until their volume ramps thru Q1 and into Q2.

Supply curve shifts

Maybe, but those who know hardware and read sites like these will say "hey that Phenom costs $xx more than that Q9550 over there. It's not even faster in my games and current apps. I can save some cash and then buy the new WoW expansion or a better video card...sweet!"

or something to that effect.

That is the part of supply vs demand wherein the demand is reduced such that it is no longer outstripping the supply.

Which I'm saying will lose potential buyers.

What were those potential buyers going to buy?

If there are only 3 chips then it doesn't matter whether the price is so low that there are 20 potential buyers or if the price is high and there are only 10 potential buyers...because in a supply limited situation there will only be 3 buyers of those 3 CPU's.

Lowering price only helps increase actual buyers if supply exists for potential buyers to become actual buyers.

In the absence of supply there really is no point in attracting potential buyers who can't get anything (at any price) once the initial stock is depleted.

If nobody will buy it when it's expensive because it performs the same as cheaper options and people go for cheaper options, they won't sell CPUs. That's too hard to figure out?

I think you just confirmed for me that you don't understand some of the basic tenants of supply/demand economics.

Demand is not a step-function based on price, it is a continuously varying function. AMD isn't going to find themselves in a situation where they price their chip $1 too high and suddenly have zero customers.

At any rate I refuse to beat my head against this wall, I've learned what I needed to here.

Even so, people upgrading won't look at it like that. They need to be cheap, or faster. If not only fanboys will buy into it.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Don't discount the fact that initial volume of Phenom II will be low as AMD will still be in the early stages of ramping 45nm production.

So while the initial Phenom II prices may place it at a non-competitive price/performance ratio relative to Yorkfield or Bloomfield, the fact that the Phenom II supply will be less than infinite could very well mean that AMD will still sell all the Phenom II's they can push out the door at those prices until their volume ramps thru Q1 and into Q2.

Supply curve shifts

Maybe, but those who know hardware and read sites like these will say "hey that Phenom costs $xx more than that Q9550 over there. It's not even faster in my games and current apps. I can save some cash and then buy the new WoW expansion or a better video card...sweet!"

or something to that effect.

That is the part of supply vs demand wherein the demand is reduced such that it is no longer outstripping the supply.

Which I'm saying will lose potential buyers.

What were those potential buyers going to buy?

If there are only 3 chips then it doesn't matter whether the price is so low that there are 20 potential buyers or if the price is high and there are only 10 potential buyers...because in a supply limited situation there will only be 3 buyers of those 3 CPU's.

Lowering price only helps increase actual buyers if supply exists for potential buyers to become actual buyers.

In the absence of supply there really is no point in attracting potential buyers who can't get anything (at any price) once the initial stock is depleted.

If nobody will buy it when it's expensive because it performs the same as cheaper options and people go for cheaper options, they won't sell CPUs. That's too hard to figure out?

I think you just confirmed for me that you don't understand some of the basic tenants of supply/demand economics.

Demand is not a step-function based on price, it is a continuously varying function. AMD isn't going to find themselves in a situation where they price their chip $1 too high and suddenly have zero customers.

At any rate I refuse to beat my head against this wall, I've learned what I needed to here.

Even so, people upgrading won't look at it like that. They need to be cheap, or faster. If not only fanboys will buy into it.

Dude, seriously, sit back and read what he has written in this thread. He is not argueing with you over certain people deciding not to buy at XXX amount of price. He is simply stating that there are enough (call them fan boys if you want) people to buy, that the supply they have can be sold at an inflated price. It doesn't matter if you, a potential buyer, decides not to buy one because they are priced to high! There are plenty of other people willing to pay a premium that your prospective purchase doesn't even matter to them until supply is great enough to where they need you as a potential buyer and drop the price.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777



Dude, seriously, sit back and read what he has written in this thread. He is not argueing with you over certain people deciding not to buy at XXX amount of price. He is simply stating that there are enough (call them fan boys if you want) people to buy, that the supply they have can be sold at an inflated price. It doesn't matter if you, a potential buyer, decides not to buy one because they are priced to high! There are plenty of other people willing to pay a premium that your prospective purchase doesn't even matter to them until supply is great enough to where they need you as a potential buyer and drop the price.

The whole point is. You have to compete with what's out there. If you can't beat them in performance then you must be cheaper or you'll get a situation where nobody in their right mind will build systems around your product.

There aren't enough fanboys to bail AMD out of the hole they dug. They HAVE to do something this round. GPU business is good for them, but they can't rely on that. Becides, if AMD's CPUs don't compete in performance then Intel will have higher prices too. They'll just say "well, to have the best you have to pay for it". Would be horrible.

 

[BLaber]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777



Dude, seriously, sit back and read what he has written in this thread. He is not argueing with you over certain people deciding not to buy at XXX amount of price. He is simply stating that there are enough (call them fan boys if you want) people to buy, that the supply they have can be sold at an inflated price. It doesn't matter if you, a potential buyer, decides not to buy one because they are priced to high! There are plenty of other people willing to pay a premium that your prospective purchase doesn't even matter to them until supply is great enough to where they need you as a potential buyer and drop the price.

The whole point is. You have to compete with what's out there. If you can't beat them in performance then you must be cheaper or you'll get a situation where nobody in their right mind will build systems around your product.

There aren't enough fanboys to bail AMD out of the hole they dug. They HAVE to do something this round. GPU business is good for them, but they can't rely on that. Becides, if AMD's CPUs don't compete in performance then Intel will have higher prices too. They'll just say "well, to have the best you have to pay for it". Would be horrible.

A sound logic in theory doesn't always work out the same in real world . i.e PRACTICALLY. P4 vs ATHLON64 .PPl bought P4 even though it was not very competitive with Athlon's.

 

[Kuzi]

AMD is really being tight lipped about performance this time, which I think is good in some ways. Especially if P II turns out to be a good performer, and as it seems right now, Phenom II will be competitive with C2Q, but may be a bit slower (by a few %) than Yorkfield clock-for-clock.

I don't believe the FUD, but we have enough info right now to at least know that PII is shaping up to be a much better CPU than last years Phenom.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

What would be better for AMD. To price these chips equal to that of Intel's Yorkfield quads or at a competitive price?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
What would be better for AMD. To price these chips equal to that of Intel's Yorkfield quads or at a competitive price?

If performance is similar then similar pricing is what I'd expect. If it's faster then a small premium would be expected. I guess what I'm saying is I won't pay more for less.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

There has to be some edge to price them the same or i'd guess they are trying get out of the hole with equally priced for equally compared chips. If I was AMD I would do this. But it makes me think about what good it would do to price them competitively.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

If performance is similar then similar pricing is what I'd expect. If it's faster then a small premium would be expected. I guess what I'm saying is I won't pay more for less.

If the fudzilla article is correct and Phenom 2 is ~ Yorkie

Intel Q9650 @ 3.0 GHz = $549.99
Phenom II 940 @ 3.0GHz = $347.00

Inte Q9550 @ 2.83GHz = $319.99
Phenom II 920 @2.8GHz = $309.00

Sounds pretty good for AMD, in fact $347 for a 45nm 3GHz quad is low compared to intel.

So if you were buying a new system and were told this system has a 3.0GHz quad and is $1000, and this one has a 3GHz quad and is ~$800-850 what would you choose? What would you recommend?? (Assuming the other specs were the same or as close as they can be.)

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: BLaber
A sound logic in theory doesn't always work out the same in real world . i.e PRACTICALLY. P4 vs ATHLON64 .PPl bought P4 even though it was not very competitive with Athlon's.

Well, for starters, P4's were pretty competitive with A64. A64's greatest advantage was in gaming, but for many other applications performance between the two was similar enough to not matter much. And, in some cases like media encoding, I believe P4 actually outperformed A64.

Also, at that point in time, consumers were still very much focused on clock speed. Many people went with Nntel simply because of higher advertised clock speeds.

Finally, name recognition. AMD was not as well known as Intel, and some people refused AMD based simply on that. I once had a self-professed "computer guy" tell me he had to go with Intel because of it's "greater compatibility" than AMD.

So, things are different now. Consumer knowledge often lags a couple of years behind the newest conventional wisdom, and I still have people ask me if AMD is still better than Intel.

 

[Insomniator]

I read this at first as "Pentium II" instead of Phenom. Funny stuff...

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
If the fudzilla article is correct and Phenom 2 is ~ Yorkie

Intel Q9650 @ 3.0 GHz = $549.99
Phenom II 940 @ 3.0GHz = $347.00

Inte Q9550 @ 2.83GHz = $319.99
Phenom II 920 @2.8GHz = $309.00

Sounds pretty good for AMD, in fact $347 for a 45nm 3GHz quad is low compared to intel.

So if you were buying a new system and were told this system has a 3.0GHz quad and is $1000, and this one has a 3GHz quad and is ~$800-850 what would you choose? What would you recommend?? (Assuming the other specs were the same or as close as they can be.)

I can only hope for AMD's sake that the market sees things like that. The way you put it, it does make Phenom II sound like a great deal (for people that don't overclock).

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
If the fudzilla article is correct and Phenom 2 is ~ Yorkie

Intel Q9650 @ 3.0 GHz = $549.99
Phenom II 940 @ 3.0GHz = $347.00

Inte Q9550 @ 2.83GHz = $319.99
Phenom II 920 @2.8GHz = $309.00

Sounds pretty good for AMD, in fact $347 for a 45nm 3GHz quad is low compared to intel.

So if you were buying a new system and were told this system has a 3.0GHz quad and is $1000, and this one has a 3GHz quad and is ~$800-850 what would you choose? What would you recommend?? (Assuming the other specs were the same or as close as they can be.)

I can only hope for AMD's sake that the market sees things like that. The way you put it, it does make Phenom II sound like a great deal (for people that don't overclock).

Except then it is stepping into the i7 price category. DDR3 is getting cheaper, and the X58 will get cheaper. Why would you build a Phenom II when you could get an i7 entry level chip for less?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
If the fudzilla article is correct and Phenom 2 is ~ Yorkie

Intel Q9650 @ 3.0 GHz = $549.99
Phenom II 940 @ 3.0GHz = $347.00

Inte Q9550 @ 2.83GHz = $319.99
Phenom II 920 @2.8GHz = $309.00

Sounds pretty good for AMD, in fact $347 for a 45nm 3GHz quad is low compared to intel.

So if you were buying a new system and were told this system has a 3.0GHz quad and is $1000, and this one has a 3GHz quad and is ~$800-850 what would you choose? What would you recommend?? (Assuming the other specs were the same or as close as they can be.)

I can only hope for AMD's sake that the market sees things like that. The way you put it, it does make Phenom II sound like a great deal (for people that don't overclock).

Except then it is stepping into the i7 price category. DDR3 is getting cheaper, and the X58 will get cheaper. Why would you build a Phenom II when you could get an i7 entry level chip for less?

Because some people are fanbois.

Because some people, just on principle, go against the 800lb gorillla.

Because we don't know how cheap X58 and DDR3 will be when Phenom II becomes available. Total platform cost may yet be lower with Phenom II.

Because we don't know how quickly Phenom II prices will drop after release.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

If performance is similar then similar pricing is what I'd expect. If it's faster then a small premium would be expected. I guess what I'm saying is I won't pay more for less.

If the fudzilla article is correct and Phenom 2 is ~ Yorkie

Intel Q9650 @ 3.0 GHz = $549.99
Phenom II 940 @ 3.0GHz = $347.00

Inte Q9550 @ 2.83GHz = $319.99
Phenom II 920 @2.8GHz = $309.00

Sounds pretty good for AMD, in fact $347 for a 45nm 3GHz quad is low compared to intel.

So if you were buying a new system and were told this system has a 3.0GHz quad and is $1000, and this one has a 3GHz quad and is ~$800-850 what would you choose? What would you recommend?? (Assuming the other specs were the same or as close as they can be.)

It would depend on whether they need SLI or something like that as well.

I know for me, overclocking means a lot. If you can get a lot of room out of a Phenom 2 then I would likely recommend it highly.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
If the fudzilla article is correct and Phenom 2 is ~ Yorkie

Intel Q9650 @ 3.0 GHz = $549.99
Phenom II 940 @ 3.0GHz = $347.00

Inte Q9550 @ 2.83GHz = $319.99
Phenom II 920 @2.8GHz = $309.00

Sounds pretty good for AMD, in fact $347 for a 45nm 3GHz quad is low compared to intel.

So if you were buying a new system and were told this system has a 3.0GHz quad and is $1000, and this one has a 3GHz quad and is ~$800-850 what would you choose? What would you recommend?? (Assuming the other specs were the same or as close as they can be.)

I can only hope for AMD's sake that the market sees things like that. The way you put it, it does make Phenom II sound like a great deal (for people that don't overclock).

Except then it is stepping into the i7 price category. DDR3 is getting cheaper, and the X58 will get cheaper. Why would you build a Phenom II when you could get an i7 entry level chip for less?

Because some people are fanbois.

Because some people, just on principle, go against the 800lb gorillla.

Because we don't know how cheap X58 and DDR3 will be when Phenom II becomes available. Total platform cost may yet be lower with Phenom II.

Because we don't know how quickly Phenom II prices will drop after release.

That's the kicker. If the Phenom 2 can compete well (same or better) than a C2Q then they have a winner for when Intel drops the C2Q line (years in the future?) because the Phenom will be lesser priced than Intel's offering. Not to mention, the i7 only gains significantly in certain areas and benchmarks. Overall system performance is comparable even for a gamer.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
That's the kicker. If the Phenom 2 can compete well (same or better) than a C2Q then they have a winner for when Intel drops the C2Q line (years in the future?) because the Phenom will be lesser priced than Intel's offering. Not to mention, the i7 only gains significantly in certain areas and benchmarks. Overall system performance is comparable even for a gamer.

I absolutely agree with this line of thinking.

For gaming and other applications where i7 ~= C2Q performance and price-wise then if Phenom II is comparable to C2Q (in those apps) then it too will be performance comparable to the i7 (in those apps) so the pricing argument is already handled.

The challenge here, as I see it, is really one for Intel. They are the one's tasked with the challenge of convincing 80% of the mainstream desktop segment that they need/benefit from an 8-thread machine versus a 4-thread machine. Good luck to them.

In the meantime if AMD can field a quad-core with comparable IPC and GHz to the near-top-of-the-line C2Q then they are right on track for selling a boatload of chips into that 80% mainstream desktop segment.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
That's the kicker. If the Phenom 2 can compete well (same or better) than a C2Q then they have a winner for when Intel drops the C2Q line (years in the future?) because the Phenom will be lesser priced than Intel's offering. Not to mention, the i7 only gains significantly in certain areas and benchmarks. Overall system performance is comparable even for a gamer.

I absolutely agree with this line of thinking.

For gaming and other applications where i7 ~= C2Q performance and price-wise then if Phenom II is comparable to C2Q (in those apps) then it too will be performance comparable to the i7 (in those apps) so the pricing argument is already handled.

The challenge here, as I see it, is really one for Intel. They are the one's tasked with the challenge of convincing 80% of the mainstream desktop segment that they need/benefit from an 8-thread machine versus a 4-thread machine. Good luck to them.

In the meantime if AMD can field a quad-core with comparable IPC and GHz to the near-top-of-the-line C2Q then they are right on track for selling a boatload of chips into that 80% mainstream desktop segment.

Many people don't even realize there are dual core systems. People who buy from BestBuy or through Dell will have a choice and generally go with a name they know (intel) because they have no idea. Explaining that one CPU has 2 cores so it can do 2 things at once is something that is hard to do for people who really have no clue.

So I do think it'll be hard to sell on the hyperthreading idea. The real benefit for Intel will be if they can ramp up clock speed or get the i7 to overclock well when the move to a new stepping.

 

[Raqia]

Some gaming results for the Shanghai Opteron:

Good performance on UT3:

http://www.gamestar.de/hardwar...d_phenom_ii_x4_p3.html

but disappointing results for COD4, even losing to the original Phenom:

http://www.gamestar.de/hardwar...d_phenom_ii_x4_p4.html

The better cache structure seems like a huge boon to games. There's some definite platform issues as we can see from the latter test.

Edit: Links now work, sorry.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Raqia
Some gaming results for the Shanghai Opteron:

Good performance on UT3:

http://www.gamestar.de/hardware/test..._ii_x4_p3.html

but disappointing results for COD4, even losing to the original Phenom:

http://www.gamestar.de/hardware/test..._ii_x4_p4.html

The better cache structure seems like a huge boon to games. There's some definite platform issues as we can see from the latter test.

Your links appear to be borked. Here is the link to the main article:

AMD Phenom II X4