Who will have the better performance to price ratio after the Conroe release?!

[Iron Addict]

Without a doubt Conroe will kick the current line of A64 Processors... however, how will the performance to price ratio be tilted or A64's price cut will be its saviour?

 

[Furen]

Depends on prices at launch. Conroe will be slightly more expensive than Intel's list prices (at least initially) but AMD's price cuts are still not confirmed. Then there's the motherboard prices. i965 motherboards are barely starting to appear and none of the ones I've seen are priced low enough for my taste. Personally I'd take a $170 X2 3800+ on a 70-80 buck motherboard over a $190 Allendale on a $120+ motherboard because, even with overclocking, the X2 will give you the best band for the buck (if my "estimated prices" are accurate). Then there's the big unknown on the Intel side, just how well cheaper motherboards will overclock...

 

[Lonyo]

Yup, wait until we have prices and performance before people can tell you price/performance ratios. We don't have either yet (relative to each other that is, there are obviously X2 performance numbers)

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: Iron Addict
Without a doubt Conroe will kick the current line of A64 Processors... however, how will the performance to price ratio be tilted or A64's price cut will be its saviour?

Lets wait and see the real world tests when the NDA is lifted before assuming that Conroe is as good as they say.

I still think with the price cuts AMD will offer exceptional value for money.
Its not like they're suddenly becoming a bad cpu just because Conroe ships, and I'd have no hesitation advising people on a budget to go with an AMD rig.

 

[akshayt]

Real world tests are already out, many/some(i think) common people have done tests, core 2 duo is most probably what intel said.
Price wise: Intel will give more performance per $

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Furen
Depends on prices at launch. Conroe will be slightly more expensive than Intel's list prices (at least initially) but AMD's price cuts are still not confirmed. Then there's the motherboard prices. i965 motherboards are barely starting to appear and none of the ones I've seen are priced low enough for my taste. Personally I'd take a $170 X2 3800+ on a 70-80 buck motherboard over a $190 Allendale on a $120+ motherboard because, even with overclocking, the X2 will give you the best band for the buck (if my "estimated prices" are accurate). Then there's the big unknown on the Intel side, just how well cheaper motherboards will overclock...

One thing to consider here is the E6300, a 1.86GHz Core2Duo Conroe, depending on the benchmark, ties or SEVERELY beats an X24400 and often approaches FX-60 performance. here
Suggested price of the E6300 is 186.00. So in actuality, a X2 3800 at 170.00 isn't the barnstorming deal everyone thinks it is. IMHO, an X2 4600 would have to match or beat the price of a E6300 to closer match price to performance across platforms.

I don't know if I'm overestimated Core 2 Duo power, or your underestimating it. Just going by this review as it is the most thorough and extensive one I have seen so far.
As for motherboards using the 965 chipset, you know there will be a broad pricing range for these boards. Gigabyte has one available now for 142.00 at the egg. As more OEMs flood with their 965 boards, prices will come down quickly. I don't have a problem with paying around 125.00 for a decent board. All those seriously considering and AM2 upgrade should measure twice and cut once for this round. Especially since AM2 adopter will have to buy DDR2 anyway. Just some food for thought. And MHO.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: Iron Addict
Without a doubt Conroe will kick the current line of A64 Processors... however, how will the performance to price ratio be tilted or A64's price cut will be its saviour?

Lets wait and see the real world tests when the NDA is lifted before assuming that Conroe is as good as they say.

I still think with the price cuts AMD will offer exceptional value for money.
Its not like they're suddenly becoming a bad cpu just because Conroe ships,
You mean sort of like Northwood P4's became suddenly bad when A64 came out? They weren't bad, just beaten. Nobody is saying AMD CPU's are bad. Not by a longshot, just beaten.

and I'd have no hesitation advising people on a budget to go with an AMD rig.
Even without waiting for the real world tests, as you yourself have just said, you have no hesitation advising people on a budget to go AMD? Your statements are kind of contradictory to one another. Can you clear this up?

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

One thing to consider here is the E6300, a 1.86GHz Core2Duo Conroe, depending on the benchmark, ties or SEVERELY beats an X24400 and often approaches FX-60 performance. here
Suggested price of the E6300 is 186.00. So in actuality, a X2 3800 at 170.00 isn't the barnstorming deal everyone thinks it is. IMHO, an X2 4600 would have to match or beat the price of a E6300 to closer match price to performance across platforms.

I don't know if I'm overestimated Core 2 Duo power, or your underestimating it. Just going by this review as it is the most thorough and extensive one I have seen so far.
As for motherboards using the 965 chipset, you know there will be a broad pricing range for these boards. Gigabyte has one available now for 142.00 at the egg. As more OEMs flood with their 965 boards, prices will come down quickly. I don't have a problem with paying around 125.00 for a decent board. All those seriously considering and AM2 upgrade should measure twice and cut once for this round. Especially since AM2 adopter will have to buy DDR2 anyway. Just some food for thought. And MHO.

I'm sorry but I just looked at those benchmarks (I had looked at them before but decided to look at them closely) and I'm not sure I agree with you. It seems to me that the E6300 pretty much matches the X2 4400+, even in some gaming benchmarks. Sure there are a few apps in which Core 2 is vastly superior to AMD's offering but the entry-level Allendale is a better match to the X2 4400+ than it is to the FXs.

Yeah, suggested price is $186 but since these will probably be selling like pancakes I doubt it'll hold there for long, if at all. The motherboard thing is huge, in my opinion, since a decent-brand overclocking mobo for AMD can be had for 80 bucks (a DFI Infinity NF4u s939 mobo can be had for 83 bucks, and this can be considered way more than a mediocre overclocker board) while anything decent on the i965 WILL be expensive for a few months, at least. So, looking at my numbers, AMD's setup would be at least $60 cheaper, around $240 compared to ~$300 (about 25% more expensive), which can be thrown into a better video card or something.

 

[Keysplayr]

Matches, and well exceeds it in several cases

 

[nyker96]

Too early to tell, will know about end of this month.

 

[Zim]

AMD have committed to adjusting their prices to give the best bang for the buck.

 

[imported_UncivilizedAMD]

Originally posted by: Furen

I'm sorry but I just looked at those benchmarks (I had looked at them before but decided to look at them closely) and I'm not sure I agree with you. It seems to me that the E6300 pretty much matches the X2 4400+, even in some gaming benchmarks. Sure there are a few apps in which Core 2 is vastly superior to AMD's offering but the entry-level Allendale is a better match to the X2 4400+ than it is to the FXs.

Yeah, suggested price is $186 but since these will probably be selling like pancakes I doubt it'll hold there for long, if at all. The motherboard thing is huge, in my opinion, since a decent-brand overclocking mobo for AMD can be had for 80 bucks (a DFI Infinity NF4u s939 mobo can be had for 83 bucks, and this can be considered way more than a mediocre overclocker board) while anything decent on the i965 WILL be expensive for a few months, at least. So, looking at my numbers, AMD's setup would be at least $60 cheaper, around $240 compared to ~$300 (about 25% more expensive), which can be thrown into a better video card or something.

If the Conroe E6300 matches the 4400+ then why are you still comparing the price of an x2 3800+ to an e6300. Price for a 4400+ is 470 by 7/24. So figure in 470 for the 4400+ and a cheap 70 dollar mobo puts you at 540 for the amd setup which is much more expensive than the price for the conroe setup that you proposed.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: Iron Addict
Without a doubt Conroe will kick the current line of A64 Processors... however, how will the performance to price ratio be tilted or A64's price cut will be its saviour?

Lets wait and see the real world tests when the NDA is lifted before assuming that Conroe is as good as they say.

I still think with the price cuts AMD will offer exceptional value for money.
Its not like they're suddenly becoming a bad cpu just because Conroe ships,
You mean sort of like Northwood P4's became suddenly bad when A64 came out? They weren't bad, just beaten. Nobody is saying AMD CPU's are bad. Not by a longshot, just beaten.

and I'd have no hesitation advising people on a budget to go with an AMD rig.
Even without waiting for the real world tests, as you yourself have just said, you have no hesitation advising people on a budget to go AMD? Your statements are kind of contradictory to one another. Can you clear this up?

All the real world tests for AMD64 are already out there.
We all know what they can do, so thats why I'd have no hesitation on recommending them to someone on a budget.
That clear enough for ya?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: Iron Addict
Without a doubt Conroe will kick the current line of A64 Processors... however, how will the performance to price ratio be tilted or A64's price cut will be its saviour?

Lets wait and see the real world tests when the NDA is lifted before assuming that Conroe is as good as they say.

I still think with the price cuts AMD will offer exceptional value for money.
Its not like they're suddenly becoming a bad cpu just because Conroe ships,
You mean sort of like Northwood P4's became suddenly bad when A64 came out? They weren't bad, just beaten. Nobody is saying AMD CPU's are bad. Not by a longshot, just beaten.

and I'd have no hesitation advising people on a budget to go with an AMD rig.
Even without waiting for the real world tests, as you yourself have just said, you have no hesitation advising people on a budget to go AMD? Your statements are kind of contradictory to one another. Can you clear this up?

All the real world tests for AMD64 are already out there.
We all know what they can do, so thats why I'd have no hesitation on recommending them to someone on a budget.
That clear enough for ya?

No not really.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: Iron Addict
Without a doubt Conroe will kick the current line of A64 Processors... however, how will the performance to price ratio be tilted or A64's price cut will be its saviour?

Lets wait and see the real world tests when the NDA is lifted before assuming that Conroe is as good as they say.

I still think with the price cuts AMD will offer exceptional value for money.
Its not like they're suddenly becoming a bad cpu just because Conroe ships,
You mean sort of like Northwood P4's became suddenly bad when A64 came out? They weren't bad, just beaten. Nobody is saying AMD CPU's are bad. Not by a longshot, just beaten.

and I'd have no hesitation advising people on a budget to go with an AMD rig.
Even without waiting for the real world tests, as you yourself have just said, you have no hesitation advising people on a budget to go AMD? Your statements are kind of contradictory to one another. Can you clear this up?

All the real world tests for AMD64 are already out there.
We all know what they can do, so thats why I'd have no hesitation on recommending them to someone on a budget.
That clear enough for ya?

No not really.

Then tough titties.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: UncivilizedAMD

Originally posted by: Furen

I'm sorry but I just looked at those benchmarks (I had looked at them before but decided to look at them closely) and I'm not sure I agree with you. It seems to me that the E6300 pretty much matches the X2 4400+, even in some gaming benchmarks. Sure there are a few apps in which Core 2 is vastly superior to AMD's offering but the entry-level Allendale is a better match to the X2 4400+ than it is to the FXs.

Yeah, suggested price is $186 but since these will probably be selling like pancakes I doubt it'll hold there for long, if at all. The motherboard thing is huge, in my opinion, since a decent-brand overclocking mobo for AMD can be had for 80 bucks (a DFI Infinity NF4u s939 mobo can be had for 83 bucks, and this can be considered way more than a mediocre overclocker board) while anything decent on the i965 WILL be expensive for a few months, at least. So, looking at my numbers, AMD's setup would be at least $60 cheaper, around $240 compared to ~$300 (about 25% more expensive), which can be thrown into a better video card or something.

If the Conroe E6300 matches the 4400+ then why are you still comparing the price of an x2 3800+ to an e6300. Price for a 4400+ is 470 by 7/24. So figure in 470 for the 4400+ and a cheap 70 dollar mobo puts you at 540 for the amd setup which is much more expensive than the price for the conroe setup that you proposed.

Kind of what I was trying to convey. Maybe this will help. I filtered just the X2 4400, E6300 and threw in FX-60 numbers here.

 

[Malikhan]

I think it's safe to wait for the Big site to do some benchmarking before coming to any conclusions. But I've seen a ton of benchies and OCing benchies for conroes and allendale's (XS forums for one) and it's quite impressive.
As for a decent 965 mobo. The Gigabyte DQ3 is incredible. Linky
Current Bios and it's most impressive for a simple old 965 chipset.

I'm waiting to upgrade right now. Moving from the oldie but moldie Socket A and I'm personally loving this battle between intel and AMD. Regardless of which side you're a fanboi of this is good for all of us.
I've been an AMD user for a very long time. I moved from intel only because they fell behind in the speed/price war. Looks like they are coming back and I'm hapy about it.

I'm looking forward to Hardocp's review and Anand's. I've trusted Anand's reviews for a long time as reference for my purchases and this will be no different.
If conroe shows not much performance gain for the price. I go AM2. If it's otherwise? Hello Conroe!

 

[classy]

I think Conroe is going to be a mixed bag. Blazing in a encoding and desktop enviroment, solid but slim lead in 3D. But the platform looks very shaky at best. That raid 5 issue is bit scary, we know Woodcrest failed to qualify for server validation, and now Intel has said beware and make sure you get a b-stepping of the processor. And the few who have retail products already have posted so-so results. So I'll wait, but just because it may be faster doesn't mean it will be better. I want a solid platform for my new upgrade, just like my 2.4 Northwood I am still on, which has performed flawlessly for 3+ years now.

 

[freethrowtommy]

Wait one more day for the reviews of Conroe and then we can all fight tooth and nail to see what is better. AMD should have price drops by then and Conroe should be benched to hell...

When you are buying a system tho, you don't just look at a processor price. You have to look at processor and mb. Then if you want to overclock, look at a more expensive motherboard. AMD has some cheap motherboards and although Intel has some cheap processors, there good motherboards have always carried quite a premium. With AMD price drops, things will get very interesting indeed in the value segment. Performance will go to the new processor (which it usually does) since Intel has had a few years to stop ****** it up... they better get it right this time.

The king is dead, long live the king!

 

[Furen]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: UncivilizedAMD
If the Conroe E6300 matches the 4400+ then why are you still comparing the price of an x2 3800+ to an e6300. Price for a 4400+ is 470 by 7/24. So figure in 470 for the 4400+ and a cheap 70 dollar mobo puts you at 540 for the amd setup which is much more expensive than the price for the conroe setup that you proposed.

Kind of what I was trying to convey. Maybe this will help. I filtered just the X2 4400, E6300 and threw in FX-60 numbers here.

Ok, I'll respond to both of you at once:

I am comparing the X2 3800+ to the E6300 because they are the entry-level X2 and Allendale parts. The 4200+ will be available for $240, the 4400+ will remain expensive because it is being phased out and, as such, is not going to be priced competitively or demand will spike up. Then there's also the fact that I have yet to see an AM2 X2 3800+ that cannot reach 2.8GHz, which most motherboards (those that have OC features) can get you to. With the E6300, on the other hand, you need to hit 340MHz FSB in order to get to 2.4GHz (because of the low multiplier and the relatively high stock FSB clock) which may not be attainable with the cheaper i965 parts. Personally I'd buy the E6300 over the X2 3800+ if i was just buying the CPU, once you add the price for the motherboard, though, the X2 looks like it will be a bit better.

keysplayr2003:
First off, thanks for throwing everything into a table, it makes it much easier to compare them different products. The 4400+ and the E6300 are within 3-5% of each other excepting video encoding (which is Intel's no question about it), gaming (Intel's lead is anywhere from -2% to 11%, with most games probably being around 7% faster), aquamark and sciencemark. Overall I'd say that the E6300 is slightly faster but not enough to say it matches the next speed grade. Personally I think this test relies too much on similar applications (gaming, video encoding, audio encoding, 3d renderers are the 4 main "types" of apps used) and am hoping to see Anantech throw these chips under its much more broad-scoped testing.

 

[imported_UncivilizedAMD]

Originally posted by: Furen

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: UncivilizedAMD
If the Conroe E6300 matches the 4400+ then why are you still comparing the price of an x2 3800+ to an e6300. Price for a 4400+ is 470 by 7/24. So figure in 470 for the 4400+ and a cheap 70 dollar mobo puts you at 540 for the amd setup which is much more expensive than the price for the conroe setup that you proposed.

Kind of what I was trying to convey. Maybe this will help. I filtered just the X2 4400, E6300 and threw in FX-60 numbers here.

Ok, I'll respond to both of you at once:

I am comparing the X2 3800+ to the E6300 because they are the entry-level X2 and Allendale parts. The 4200+ will be available for $240, the 4400+ will remain expensive because it is being phased out and, as such, is not going to be priced competitively or demand will spike up. Then there's also the fact that I have yet to see an AM2 X2 3800+ that cannot reach 2.8GHz, which most motherboards (those that have OC features) can get you to. With the E6300, on the other hand, you need to hit 340MHz FSB in order to get to 2.4GHz (because of the low multiplier and the relatively high stock FSB clock) which may not be attainable with the cheaper i965 parts. Personally I'd buy the E6300 over the X2 3800+ if i was just buying the CPU, once you add the price for the motherboard, though, the X2 looks like it will be a bit better.

keysplayr2003:
First off, thanks for throwing everything into a table, it makes it much easier to compare them different products. The 4400+ and the E6300 are within 3-5% of each other excepting video encoding (which is Intel's no question about it), gaming (Intel's lead is anywhere from -2% to 11%, with most games probably being around 7% faster), aquamark and sciencemark. Overall I'd say that the E6300 is slightly faster but not enough to say it matches the next speed grade. Personally I think this test relies too much on similar applications (gaming, video encoding, audio encoding, 3d renderers are the 4 main "types" of apps used) and am hoping to see Anantech throw these chips under its much more broad-scoped testing.

Most people don't OC, so for those people the E6300 Conroe setup will still be a better deal than the am2 x2 3800+. For people that OCs, Conroe E6300 looks to be a better overclocker as well.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=106685

483 fsb Air cooling on a 142 dollar i965 mobo.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813128012

The 3800+ x2 would have to be oc'd to at least 3.5ghz, which is impossible on air and water, to match that Air OC'd Conroe's performance.

Better deal @ stock or overclock goes to the E6300 over the 3800+ x2 imo.

 

[coldpower27]

Yeah I would pick the E6300 over X2 3800+ myself as well.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Furen

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: UncivilizedAMD
If the Conroe E6300 matches the 4400+ then why are you still comparing the price of an x2 3800+ to an e6300. Price for a 4400+ is 470 by 7/24. So figure in 470 for the 4400+ and a cheap 70 dollar mobo puts you at 540 for the amd setup which is much more expensive than the price for the conroe setup that you proposed.

Kind of what I was trying to convey. Maybe this will help. I filtered just the X2 4400, E6300 and threw in FX-60 numbers here.

Ok, I'll respond to both of you at once:

I am comparing the X2 3800+ to the E6300 because they are the entry-level X2 and Allendale parts. The 4200+ will be available for $240, the 4400+ will remain expensive because it is being phased out and, as such, is not going to be priced competitively or demand will spike up. Then there's also the fact that I have yet to see an AM2 X2 3800+ that cannot reach 2.8GHz, which most motherboards (those that have OC features) can get you to. With the E6300, on the other hand, you need to hit 340MHz FSB in order to get to 2.4GHz (because of the low multiplier and the relatively high stock FSB clock) which may not be attainable with the cheaper i965 parts. Personally I'd buy the E6300 over the X2 3800+ if i was just buying the CPU, once you add the price for the motherboard, though, the X2 looks like it will be a bit better.

keysplayr2003:
First off, thanks for throwing everything into a table, it makes it much easier to compare them different products. The 4400+ and the E6300 are within 3-5% of each other excepting video encoding (which is Intel's no question about it), gaming (Intel's lead is anywhere from -2% to 11%, with most games probably being around 7% faster), aquamark and sciencemark. Overall I'd say that the E6300 is slightly faster but not enough to say it matches the next speed grade. Personally I think this test relies too much on similar applications (gaming, video encoding, audio encoding, 3d renderers are the 4 main "types" of apps used) and am hoping to see Anantech throw these chips under its much more broad-scoped testing.

No prob. The 4 main types of apps are the ones that I feel are most widely used. Gaming, video encoding (making movies, dvd's) audio encoding (ripping CD's into MP3's) 3d renderers (CAD applications?). What other tests would you feel that have more of an impact on general computer usage these days?

I myself use my computer for quite a few different things, but nothing I cannot do with my P-M laptop, besides gaming of course. I burn DVD's, Rip Audio CD's and convert to MP3's. Sure, I sold my gaming rig a few months back in anticipation of Conroe. Now that it is at our door, and the multitude of benchmarks out here on the web has very easily made my decision for me. I am opting for the E6600 as is most everyone else on this forum. I already ordered that DS3 board from Gigabyte and the same 2 Gigs of DDR2 that Duvie found, G-skill 4 4 4 12. All totalled, my new rig will cost just about 1000.00 dollars if you include a new PSU and a 7900GT. Found a good deal I cant pass up on the GT. So the GX2 is out for now. Now for that 1000 bucks, I could buy an FX-62 CPU. That's it. When AMD price cuts come around, do you think the FX-62 price will be reduced by more than 60%? I don't know how AMD would be able to do this. Well see.

Anyways, the whole purpose for the filter chart was to show that it is not the X2 3800 that has to drop to about 170 bucks, but an X2 4400/4600 or it's equivilent AMD counterpart. And that is just not going to happen if the 3800 is only dropping to 170.

Your thoughts?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003


Anyways, the whole purpose for the filter chart was to show that it is not the X2 3800 that has to drop to about 170 bucks, but an X2 4400/4600 or it's equivilent AMD counterpart. And that is just not going to happen if the 3800 is only dropping to 170.

Your thoughts?

That's about right. There will be no reason at all for someone to buy a $170 X2 on the AM2 platform vs an E6300, even if overclocking is not in the picture. Intel was able to move P4s and PDs in the retail sector to a certain extent by sheer marketting force alone (even before the multiple price cuts), but AMD doesn't really have that option.

 

[Markfw]

Until AMD cuts prices, and Intel has then available on newegg, I will reserve judgement. There is already one person who didn;t get as much as he thought he would out of Conroe.