Well played AMD

[gramboh]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: gramboh
How is there a premium for Core 2 Duo speed advantage?

You'll have to drop ~$200 extra to pick up a Conroe over the base X2. Gamers would probably be better off putting this toward their graphics card(s).

The base Conroe has a retail price of around $180, and even with some price gouging I can't imagine it costing more than $100 more than a 3800+. But the performance of even the base 1.83 GHz Conroe is almost at the level of the Athlon X2 5000+.

I was counting mobo also. You can pick up a cheapo NF4 for alot less than a Conroe compatible board (now at least).

Ugh, you don't need to buy the $250 Intel 975X BadAxe board to run Core 2 Duo. There are MB's for under $100 (e.g. ASRock as said in this thread) which will run the CPU fine.

C2D wins for price/performance at ALL levels except the extreme budget (e.g. no stand alone video card aka not a gamer PC). There is no reason to consider the X2 chips unless you are trying to use S939 to keep DDR ram or something.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: gramboh

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: gramboh
How is there a premium for Core 2 Duo speed advantage?

You'll have to drop ~$200 extra to pick up a Conroe over the base X2. Gamers would probably be better off putting this toward their graphics card(s).

The base Conroe has a retail price of around $180, and even with some price gouging I can't imagine it costing more than $100 more than a 3800+. But the performance of even the base 1.83 GHz Conroe is almost at the level of the Athlon X2 5000+.

I was counting mobo also. You can pick up a cheapo NF4 for alot less than a Conroe compatible board (now at least).

Ugh, you don't need to buy the $250 Intel 975X BadAxe board to run Core 2 Duo. There are MB's for under $100 (e.g. ASRock as said in this thread) which will run the CPU fine.

C2D wins for price/performance at ALL levels except the extreme budget (e.g. no stand alone video card aka not a gamer PC). There is no reason to consider the X2 chips unless you are trying to use S939 to keep DDR ram or something.

In the first place, that board is not good for OC'ing, and they say that in the reviews.

Second, until we see the actual prices and availability of these chips, you can't say they win price/perf. If you take a $153 X2 3800 and get 2.8 out of it, and then get a conroe for more money than that, that won't OC for crap on that $95 mobo, then the AMD may win. Talk to me then, when you can buy one and it has a real price.

 

[harpoon84]

One thing to keep in mind if you are going AM2 are DDR2 RAM speeds:
http://anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800&p=1

It doesn't make sense to go AM2 and pair it with cheap low speed/high latency DDR2 RAM, because performance suffers terribly.

C2D doesn't suffer nearly as much performance wise by going with cheaper DDR2 RAM.

Whereas C2D suffers perhaps a ~5% performance hit with cheap and slow DDR2, with AM2 you're looking at a ~15% hit if you pair it with low speed DDR2.

So while the mobos may be cheapr on the AMD platform, the need to get higher end DDR2 RAM to get the most out of an AM2 chip negates that cost advantage. S939 is probably the best option for budget buyers, but then you are left with no upgrade path as S939 EOL is Q4 06.

If you are supporting the underdog and willing to sacrifice performance to show that support, then fair enough. It's your money after all.

 

[FelixDeCat]

AMD is NOT immune to overall market forces and they havent seen a bottom yet. Mark my words.

 

[John]

IMHO s939 still has a lot of life left in it. Most of us have at least 2GB of quality DDR and a nice mainboard, so jumping to AM2 right now is futile. One thing you guys need to keep in mind is that this is an enthusiast forum. We have a lot of folks that enjoy overclocking. Since AMD has slashed cpu prices you can pick up a $160 s939 X2 cpu that will run at or better than FX-60 (2.6GHz) speeds.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: John
IMHO s939 still has a lot of life left in it. Most of us have at least 2GB of quality DDR and a nice mainboard, so jumping to AM2 right now is futile. One thing you guys need to keep in mind is that this is an enthusiast forum. We have a lot of folks that enjoy overclocking. Since AMD has slashed cpu prices you can pick up a $160 s939 X2 cpu that will run at or better than FX-60 (2.6GHz) speeds.

I wouldn't say S939 has a *lot* of life left because AMD will stop making S939 chips as soon as they move to 65nm, meaning the current batch of X2 chips will be the end of the line for S939.

So basically, this will most likely be the final upgrade for current S939 users.

 

[John]

Feel free to replace a lot with 6 months or more. Look how long it took to phase out socket A.

 

[Henny]

Originally posted by: strummer

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra
Well played in one area, though investors are not happy with the ATI acquisition right now and it's showing in stock prices.

Intuitively, I can see investor concerns with the ATI move. They are already battling Intel for the technological edge in the desktop chip market, now they will also have to battle nVidia in another market. There is just so much energy that can be expended by a company.

Does the ATI move provide any synergy? I don't see it - it is a move away from their core business - the server market, where their presence is strongest. Is the move an act of desperation by AMD to diversify and perhaps change focus from competing with Intel in the desktop market to competing with nVidia et al, an arena where roles will be reversed and they will be the 500-pound gorilla in the room for a change. I don't know.

Contrary to what someone said upthread, now is not the time to buy AMD stock. The price cuts in for their desktop processors may be somewhat discounted already, but a price war is never good for a company. There will be even greater downward pressure on prices, while the cost of goods sold will, of course, face upward pressure. It is rather obvious - the same processor that was selling for $390 last week is now selling for $155. The only way to offset that is to capture more marketshare. The price cuts have to be part of a long term strategy to mute the impact of Intel's technological lead (at least in desktops). AMD really should have gotten more out of the really significant edge they held over Intel with K8. The Intel/Dell partnership really paid huge dividends to Intel with regards to that. Intel has all the tools that AMD was lacking to really exploit their latest competitive advantage. The thing Intel needs to really exploit the situation is for software to become more demanding, so that consumers will see a point of paying the premium for an Intel chip.

I said "well done" by AMD because they did what they had to do. It is medicine that they had to take to keep themselves being a viable long term player. BTW - in my opinion, now is not the time to buy Intel stock, either. Their competitive advantage with Conroe is of great importance to gaming enthusiasts, yet little importance to the general computer buying population (at least right now). There is rarely only one side injured in a war, and this price war between AMD/Intel is not going to be an exception to that rule.

I generally agree with you however it's not just about Conroe. For Intel it's about Tulsa, Woodcrest, Conroe, Merom and in a few months Kentsfield. With a clean sweep of the high end using proven cost effective 300mm/65nm technology Intel will have plenty of room to battle it out at the low end. In addition the worst is over for Intel. They have architectural leadership across all fronts, the worst quarter is over with, and they are on the offensive. Otellini's efficiency projects are in full swing. However AMD is behind in manufacturing technology and the ATI merger can become a major distraction to their focus.

I'm not the only one that thinks AMD might be bitting off more then they can chew:

AMD's Blunder

AMD's top priorities needs to be:

1. Balance sheet
2. Cost effective manufacturing technology
3. Regaining architectural leadership
4. Chip set technology.

It looks as though they've put #4 above all else.

I'm affraid AMD's stock will drop to the single digits before it rises again.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: John
Feel free to replace a lot with 6 months or more. Look how long it took to phase out socket A.

Well Socket 939 can live on with budget options like Venices and Palermos, just not the Dual Core processors.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

In the first place, that board is not good for OC'ing, and they say that in the reviews.

Second, until we see the actual prices and availability of these chips, you can't say they win price/perf. If you take a $153 X2 3800 and get 2.8 out of it, and then get a conroe for more money than that, that won't OC for crap on that $95 mobo, then the AMD may win. Talk to me then, when you can buy one and it has a real price.

QFT

We need to see some good mainstream boards for Conroe that overclock really well before I switch me thinks. The AsRock motherboard is limited to 300Mhz (and that's after volt-modding your motherboard) which will give you a max of 2.1GHz with an E6300 or 2.4Ghz with an E6400. The board probably does much worse without the voltmods. Not all that impressive.

 

[bob661]

How is there a premium for Core 2 Duo speed advantage? What chip does AMD have in the $300-350US range that is faster than an E6600?

Doesn't matter. You'll have to pay more money, hence a premium, to get the speed advantage over AMD.

 

[bob661]

As well as has been said yes the ASRock mobo is based on the 945P chipset, which just needs to be updated with the VRM11 voltage regulator to support Core 2 Duo, this is likely the lowest chipset for Core 2 Duo with 1066FSB support.

I thought that board already supported Conroe? If it doesn't support Conroe, then it doesn't count.

 

[bob661]

Ugh, you don't need to buy the $250 Intel 975X BadAxe board to run Core 2 Duo. There are MB's for under $100 (e.g. ASRock as said in this thread) which will run the CPU fine.

Like what? You know, which boards and where can I buy them from?

 

[bob661]

So while the mobos may be cheapr on the AMD platform, the need to get higher end DDR2 RAM to get the most out of an AM2 chip negates that cost advantage.

I think any DDR2-800 or even DDR2-667 will do the job.

 

[bob661]

I'm affraid AMD's stock will drop to the single digits before it rises again.

ROFLMAO!!!! AMD loses the performance title in the desktop space and now they're going to crash in the stock market? WTF kind of thinking is that. Let me show you the way, the truth, and the life. I will post two links that will convince you that you are a fanboi of the highest order. The links are:

Dell
HP

If you don't buy your computers from these two places OR from manufacturers similiar to these two places, YOU are NOT the person that lines these manufacturers pockets. YOU do NOT determine the direction of the company. And, lastly, YOU are a dumbass.

Those two companies as well as some others are THE driving force of the PC market. Anything else is irrelevant.

 

[akshayt]

X2 5000 for 300$ is not bad at all whatever you say.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: bob661

So while the mobos may be cheapr on the AMD platform, the need to get higher end DDR2 RAM to get the most out of an AM2 chip negates that cost advantage.

I think any DDR2-800 or even DDR2-667 will do the job.

Will it?

For each DDR2 speed grade increase, (ie. 400, 533, 667, 800) AM2 gains ~5% performance.

http://anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800&p=7

Note that an AM2 chip w/DDR2-800 is still significantly slower than a C2D w/DDR2-533, or heck, even DDR2-400.

I guess my point is that you absolutely *need* high speed DDR2 in order to get the most out of an AM2 system. And that limitation cuts into the costs savings that cheaper AM2 mobos provide.

Sorry if this bursts some bubbles, but it's the truth.

 

[bob661]

BTW, I'm not looking for the 5 or even 10 fps advantage. Most people, including myself, can't tell the difference between 92 fps and 102 fps. It's ALL smooth gameplay. So I look for cost, maybe some future proofing, and whether or not the CPU runs cooler or hotter. I have to admit that the OC ability of the Conroe's is pretty sweet but I don't want an Intel board AND my next machne must have SLI. That pretty much rules out Conroe for me but I am considering for my wife's computer because I want to be familiar with the platform.

 

[ChiPCGuy]

The AMD price cuts are NOT enough, at least from the enthusiast point of view. The E6600 benchmarks similarly to the FX-62, and well, let's see:

E6600 -- $320
FX-62 -- $750 (after price cuts, or around this price)

And, FTW, the E6700 which outperforms the FX-62 by very nice margin is about $520.

The "Intel based mobos cost more" argument won't last either. A very nicely setup P965 board will come in around $130 in the next 90 days or so.

I am a AMD fanboy, BTW, but even I can see that buying AM2 or worse S939 for X2 would be a very stupid move right now. Now, if you want to go single core, then you would be remiss not to give heavy consideration to the A64 3800+, as for the price of $120 or less it will be a steal.

On the flip side, I would question your sanity if you bought the X6800, as it is only giving you an incremental improvement over the E6700 (10%?) for an unreasonable jump in price.

 

[Pederv]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: bob661

So while the mobos may be cheapr on the AMD platform, the need to get higher end DDR2 RAM to get the most out of an AM2 chip negates that cost advantage.

I think any DDR2-800 or even DDR2-667 will do the job.

Will it?

For each DDR2 speed grade increase, (ie. 400, 533, 667, 800) AM2 gains ~5% performance.

http://anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800&p=7

Note that an AM2 chip w/DDR2-800 is still significantly slower than a C2D w/DDR2-533, or heck, even DDR2-400.

I guess my point is that you absolutely *need* high speed DDR2 in order to get the most out of an AM2 system. And that limitation cuts into the costs savings that cheaper AM2 mobos provide.

Sorry if this bursts some bubbles, but it's the truth.

Harpoon84,
So what your saying is, on an AM2 system: if you choose to put more money into your memory your performance will increase. With a C2D you get better performance than an AM2 system but putting more money into your memory doesn't pay off, because there is a bottleneck somewhere in the C2D that doesn't allow it to take advantage of faster memory.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: John
IMHO s939 still has a lot of life left in it. Most of us have at least 2GB of quality DDR and a nice mainboard, so jumping to AM2 right now is futile. One thing you guys need to keep in mind is that this is an enthusiast forum. We have a lot of folks that enjoy overclocking. Since AMD has slashed cpu prices you can pick up a $160 s939 X2 cpu that will run at or better than FX-60 (2.6GHz) speeds.

Well said John....


I'll take 939 any day over AM2 - especially so if I have the parts already. Why?

939 at 300Mhz "bus" and mem is faster than AM2 , hell it was almost the same at 200 in anands AM2 test and he used DDR2-800 on the Am2, an overclocked review basically.

It's way way easier to OC a 939 3800+ with it's 10X multi giving much more flexibility with memory and a lower upper end needed on chipset to max out processor completly.

Cheaper and more known boards to chose from.

A board that can do both PCIe and AGP for those users who don't want to throw away thier AGP cards. (the asrock sata2)

 

[Zebo]

I don't know about AMD playing - I told you guys a year ago this is what would happen $50 single cores and $100 dual cores ...it's nessesary to survive....history is our example as well. Were not there yet. a A64 3000 is $65 and X2 is $145.. Never underestimate to power of 20%.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Pederv

Harpoon84,
So what your saying is, on an AM2 system: if you choose to put more money into your memory your performance will increase. With a C2D you get better performance than an AM2 system but putting more money into your memory doesn't pay off, because there is a bottleneck somewhere in the C2D that doesn't allow it to take advantage of faster memory.

What I'm saying is that AM2 *only* provides decent performance when matched with high performance DDR2 RAM, at least 667MHz rated, or better yet 800MHz. C2D doesn't have the same reliance on high speed RAM because DDR2-533 is enough to saturate the FSB and getting faster RAM only provides small performance gains, unlike AM2.

Therefore you don't lose out on much by going DDR2-533 instead of DDR2-800, so for the price/performance conscious customer that is an important point because high performance DDR2 is almost *DOUBLE* the price of cheaper or generic DDR2.

When people are comparing price/performance between say the AM2 and C2D platforms you have to take *everything* into account, which means CPU cost, mobo cost and RAM cost.

CPU cost is quite similar, mobo cost favors AM2 but RAM cost favors C2D because cheaper RAM is almost as fast as the high end stuff, unlike AM2.

Sure, you can get AM2 with DDR2-533 but performance suffers terribly, taking it below DDR1 S939 levels, so that seems a pretty stupid thing to do IMO.

 

[soydios]

AMd did play their price cuts VERY well. Price cuts and merger with ATi are very good ways to steal the limelight back from Conroe, which already had its turn in the limelight when the NDA lifted ~1.5 weeks ago. Anyone with an AMD Socket939 or SocketAM2 system that doesn't have a dual-core, now is the time to upgrade! However, I'm building a totally-new rig, so Conroe it is for me.