backtop


Print 139 comment(s) - last by Pirks.. on Feb 1 at 11:55 PM

AMD isn't ditching 90nm just yet

Remember the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ processor that was supposed to be unveiled late last year?  Yep, it's still going to happen.

Earlier this week AMD added the Athlon 64 6000+ SKU to its distributor roadmap along with several Energy Efficient low power CPUs -- the single-core EE 3800+ and 3500+.  The 6000+ chips are scheduled for a late February launch and will be based on the 90nm node, while the EE CPUs are slated for the 65nm node.

AMD's previous roadmaps indicated the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is a 2x1MB L2 cache component with a 125W TDP.  3.0GHz is the next clock frequency in AMD's portfolio, so it would also be reasonable to expect the 6000+ to debut at this core frequency. The new chip will be a Socket AM2 exclusive CPU.

The Energy Efficient 3800+ and 3500+ will be clocked at 2.4GHz and 2.2GHz respectively, and carry at TDP of 45W.

The most recent roadmap updates gave no reason for the chip delay.  Barring no problems with the Stars and Cities cores slated for the middle of this year, the 6000+ will be the last Athlon 64 X2 processor on the high end.

Pricing for the 6000+ is expected at $607 per chip in quantities of 1,000.  The Athlon 64 3800+ and 3500+ will sell at $101 and $91 in quantities of 1,000.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By ScythedBlade on 1/24/2007 7:48:53 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I just spent a lot of time reading and downmodding Pirk's comments. I'm not even going to bother to outdue him, because the way I win all these comments, without even caring about mod points, is dragging them to xtremesystems.com. Then, he gets slaughtered by the legends who do know the stuff.

Anyway, a 3.0 Ghz still performs pretty poorly, and not worth 600 dollars. Heck, an E6400 with 2MB of ram still holds up to a 2.8 Ghz, while winning most (by most, I'm not talking about 2/3 ... its more like 85%) of the benchmarks. While they did release it, it's probably more for the benchmark.

Now here's the counterpost to Pick's framerates. A) There are dual core utilized games out there now ... heck WARCRAFT III just became dual-core optimized just a few days ago, so forget single core/ B) When you compared the frame rates, your comparing it to them by ratio. That's a pretty incorrect way. You can pick ANY game you want, and they're usually GPU limited. It's only on the extremely high graphic, high resolution (2k by 1k) pixels, that you start to see a GPU like 8800 limited by CPU power ... THEN you can actually compare.




By Rabbagast on 1/25/2007 3:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
You can pick ANY game you want, and they're usually GPU limited. It's only on the extremely high graphic, high resolution (2k by 1k) pixels, that you start to see a GPU like 8800 limited by CPU power

Actually its the other way around. Thats why they normally test CPU performance in games with low res...


By Rabbagast on 1/25/2007 4:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
I wasn't supporting you, just correcting a detail. You still need a fast multi core cpu for gaming. The games which take advantages of multi core are just now starting to appear. Supreme Commander and Half Life episode 2 being two examples. I can not find any good reason at all to by a single core cpu now, either for gaming or any other use! And socket 939, you can't be serious?!


By Rabbagast on 1/25/2007 5:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
The question then is, do you want to upgrade twice per year or once every two or three years?
Going with a s939 cpu that means you have to buy new memory and mb + the new cpu. Buy a descent c2d and you don't have to upgrade for a long time.
I have been gaming on a PC for 20 years so I have done a bit of upgrading in my time...


By stromgald on 1/25/2007 11:25:44 AM , Rating: 2
Oh come on, now you're bringing the monitor into the equation? Just keep it simple.

The lowest C2D available, E4300, beats the 3700+ at stock speeds (keeping things equal here) by a wide margin in just about all games. Use tomshardware, ananadtech, or any other website's benchmarks, the lowest Core2Duo (whether E4300 or E6300) will beat the single core A64 3700+. It's the same result everywhere. This is true even after overclocking is involved (which you mentioned in your first post) since the lower end C2Ds overclock equal if not better than the A64s. Quit whining for benchmarks and put up some legitimate ones yourself instead of comparing things at different costs and performance, boxed vs. OEM, and overclocked vs. stock.

The ONLY thing you've been complaining about that has any legitimacy is that the lowest Core 2 Duo is 2x as expensive and only gets less than 1.3x the performance. While this is true, its also a simple fact for almost all new technology (and most certainly processors) that a small increase in performance will have a larger percentage increase in cost.


By Pirks on 1/25/2007 1:20:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
you're bringing the monitor into the equation?
yeah, why not? if there is no practical sense in bringing your framerates above 60 because you WON'T NOTICE that on your 60Hz LCD - why waste money on expensive CPU when there are always not less expensive GPUs which DO help with making games look and feel better? why not waste money on GPUs instead of CPU? seems like more important thing for 3D games, especially on 30" 2560x1600 LCD monitors


By PrezWeezy on 1/25/2007 5:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well LCD's are notorious terrible for gamming to begin with. I prefer my old CRT with a 125Hz refresh. The picture is far clearer, much brighter, has more depth and the refresh is better. On top of that though, the human eye really only sees 24FPS. The reason you get a better picture from higher frame rates is because the image difference between each frame is less, making a clearer movement. I like higher refreshes because I can see the lines even at 75Hz, but that doesn't mean that if you have a game running at 75 FPS and a game running at 100 FPS on a 75Hz monitor you wont see a difference.


By PrezWeezy on 1/26/2007 1:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well I've got a 22" running 1280x1024 and I love it for my games. But it does make a huge difference. I've seen two game side by side running at different frame rates (both over 100) on an LCD, and the difference is abundantly clear. And just so you know, I have always been a fan of Intel. Not because they have been faster, but because I used to have huge problems with AMD's overheating and burning out. Even at stock speeds. They were very well known for having that problem. Intel CPU's have always been much more stable since the architecture split. I did admit that AMD was faster, but I never wanted to risk it. I did recently build an AMD 4800+ X2 for a friend and it was a very nice machine that I wouldn't mind having myself. However that was before the C2D was big and AMD was still the best. I guess I'm less of an Intel fanboy, and more of an AMD hater.


By Pirks on 1/26/2007 4:28:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I've seen two game side by side running at different frame rates (both over 100) on an LCD, and the difference is abundantly clear
Did you compare 120 Hz CRT with 60Hz LCD? If yes, well, maybe you can see the difference. But would you see the difference between 60 FPS game and 120 FPS game ON THE SAME 60 Hz LCD? I bet not! 'Cause 60 Hz refresh rate of LCD screen will PHYSICALLY prevent your eyes to see anything faster than 60 FPS. You CANNOT see 120 frames per second if your LCD monitor ONLY SHOWS YOU 60 frames per second, isn't that obvious??


By PrezWeezy on 1/26/2007 7:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
I, unlike you, try to keep things even for comparisons. Yeah it was the same 60Hz screen. But if you think for a second that because you have a 60Hz screen your computer will automaticaly adjust and run a game at a perfect multiple of 60 (i.e. 60, 120, 180) you're insane. Think about the overlaps. I might have a game running at 134 FPS. Now it starts to get a little different because your refresh and your FPS aren't synced up. Thats why games run smoother at a higher FPS, even with low refreshes. It doesn't just skip every other screen, it refreshes whenever it can and the more frames you have for it to refresh on the smoother the picture.


By Pirks on 1/26/2007 9:19:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It doesn't just skip every other screen, it refreshes whenever it can and the more frames you have for it to refresh on the smoother the picture.
but it's the same whether the game frame rate is 61 FPS or 6001 FPS - any game frame rate above 60 will lead to the following fact - EVERY time the monitor is about to display a new frame - the frame is there waiting. so if you have monitor that's displaying 60 frames per second - you are GUARANTEED that your monitor shows DIFFERENT frame EVERY time it refreshes the screen. THIS fact alone guarantees you as smooth gameplay as possible.

now, there is this tiny discrepancy between frames that is caused by frames in game being not in perfect sync with monitor refresh rate. I know that it does exist, however the important moment for me here is that MY EYES were never able to figure that out when frame rate was above 60 FPS. I noticed that as long as my framerate reaches 60 FPS or so - my eyes see ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between 61 FPS, 98 FPS or 122 FPS, and this was on my 120 Hz CRT monitor! so I thought if my eyes can't see the difference between 60 FPS and higher FPS - than so is true for everyone else. can your eyes distinguish between 60 Hz, 90 Hz and 120 Hz frame rate in games?


By PrezWeezy on 1/31/2007 2:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes they can. I can see the difference. I can also tell the most minute difference between colors. I happen to be an audiophile as well, so I can tell the difference between a $200 system and a $500 system. Just because you can't see the difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


By ScythedBlade on 1/25/2007 5:04:01 AM , Rating: 3
Dude, there's a game where only c2ds can get past 32 fps nub ... XD, it was on tech report, with its 8800 GTX and GTS SLI ...


By Pirks on 1/25/2007 5:13:53 AM , Rating: 1
care to provide a link? never heard about this XD thing.


And...
By Aversio on 1/24/2007 1:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
who's going to buy it? Maybe a few hardcore AMD fans but seriously, its a little late now. And 90nm! Good luck. Had they came up with this on the 939 platform I'd probably be running one right now.




RE: And...
By mlittl3 on 1/24/2007 2:24:44 PM , Rating: 1
People bought flamethrower Prescotts when AMD had the superior architecture. Hell, Intel's marketshare never dipped below 75% even before C2D's came out. How do you explain that? (see my post below). Remember these companies sell to other people besides Dailytech readers.


RE: And...
By stromgald on 1/24/2007 3:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
The main reason Intel kept market share even with the Prescotts is because they had signed contracts with Dell and other large manufacturers to use only Intel and get a price discount. Whether that was fair business practices is up for debate. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it since stores and other manufacturers do it all the time. It was a simple contract between two companies that mutually benefitted both.

However, I do agree with your other post, this is just a stop gap measure to milk the last bit of money out of the Athlon64 90nm line of chips. I'm not so sure about K8L reversing the C2D domination of AMD chips in performance, but that remains to be seen in the future.


RE: And...
By davidcadams on 1/24/2007 4:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
I love how we are calling Prescotts flamethowers and not mentioning the 125tdp of the x2 6000..... that WAS AMD's strong point, good performance, not a lot of heat..... my 3.2 prescott has a TDP of 88 if the presshot is a flamethrower, than the 6000+ is a cool blast of napalm. personally i would rather have a venice core, but i got a deal on this intel chip.


RE: And...
By glynor on 1/24/2007 5:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
They measure them differently. Can't compare AMD TDP to Intel TDP. You have to measure power draw at the wall, and there, the A64 architecture creamed the Prescott.


RE: And...
By Ardan on 1/24/2007 5:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that both companies define TDP in different ways when you say that. After all, AMD's TDP is the maximum amount of current it can draw under basically the absolute worst conditions. Intel's definition during Prescott, on the other hand, was "Thermal Design Power (TDP) should be used for processor thermal solution design targets. The TDP is not the maximum power that the processor can dissipate.?" You can find that in a datasheet for the prescott.

On several pages that try to measure the actual maximum, they usually come up around 100-115W for the 3.2Ghz Prescott core. A silentpcreview article, for example, got 111W max, while Intel's TDP is listed as 89W. It isn't a new article, so they had been comparing it in one instance to a 3800+ Socket 939, whose 89W TDP was higher than what they were able to get, 86.7W. They had noticed similar patterns in all of the Athlon 64s of the time, up to an FX-53. In another instance, a 2.8Ghz Prescott had an 89W TDP, but the max was 100W in their findings. Yes, that 6000+ has a higher TDP of 125W, but Intel wasn't rating their Prescotts the same way as AMD was their Athlon 64s. You can't just compare those numbers, you need to get the max for a prescott core as well, which apparently is around 100-115W for 3.2Ghz, to evenly compare their ratings.

I just thought I'd point that out, in case anyone forgot that. Have a good day. :)


RE: And...
By Ardan on 1/24/2007 5:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, I walked away for a minute while I was typing that reply and someone beat me to it! :)


RE: And...
By cgrecu77 on 1/24/2007 4:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
when I first saw the review of the C4300 I thought this is the CPU I need. I play mostly oblivion and I could use a faster CPU to go along with my new-used off ebay X1900 Crossfire. I have a 3700+ with 1mb cache and 2 gb of ddram.

However, when I started doing the math I realized that it will set me back 4-500 dollars to upgrade (I would need a good mb with crossfire support if possible, another 2 gb of ddram2 and the CPU). on ebay a mb+cpu like mines sell for less than $100 and I could probably get 140-150 for the ram.

Now what do I get for this amount? out of the box the same (or lower) performance and maybe 30% more if I overclock (which I said I'd never do again because invariably the computer becomes less stable a few months after you keep it overclocked + oblivion is very finicky with overclocked machines).
If I could keep my existing setup and just upgrade to a 2.8ghz X2 for $150-200 it would make much more sense for me. Unfortunately (or fortunately), because of all these reviews I can't get the thought of a 3.5 ghz C2D of my mind, so I'm stuck in undecision land. Since I don't really need an upgrade I will probably wait a few months to see the new AMDs, but if I had to do it today, I would stick with AMD for now because it's just not worth changing everything for a few percentage points.

If I had to start from scratch I would go the 4300 way for sure, but for an existing AMD user upgrading to intel is not a clear cut decision.


ROFL
By thepinkpanther on 1/24/2007 1:47:24 PM , Rating: 1
Funny post there.

Can only join the other person and ask, seriously you should stop smoking crack.

Have you watched gaming benchmarks the last 6-12 months time???

If you wanna have fast graphiccards then you need fast cpus and fast cpus is NOT single core anymore.

The most crazy cpu at the moment is likely the quad6800 or the e6800 processor for gaming. Really the single core has gotten into the grave. Oblivion uses dual core so games will feature multicores from now on.

That 6000+ should be cancelled fast. $600 lol excuse me for laughing.





RE: ROFL
By Naviblue on 1/24/2007 3:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
I simply get it out of my mind remembering when AMD first came out with their s939 cpu's and intentionally had them priced higher to "change their image of being a budget processor". My only question now is what happened to all that extra money? Oh that's right, you bought out ATi...I used to really like AMD too, because they were priced reasonably, now what? 600 dollars for a 3.0ghz processor that can't even take on the competition, wtf?

Don't think I'm a Intel fan or anything because I own both an AMD 4000+ and an X800 Pro, but the tides have changed. I really wish AMD would get back to their roots and what made them a popular company in the first place.


RE: ROFL
By coldpower27 on 1/24/2007 6:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well, they sort of are I mean, you can get the 3600+, 3800+ and 4000+ for less then the official price of the E4300 at 163 USD MSRP. 1xx, 138 and 158USD respectively.

The high end typically will be a poor deal, The Athlon XP 3200+ was priced at 464USD when Intel had the Pentium 4 C 2.8GHZ which was the equivalent for 278USD. The lower end comparison was a bit better the Athlon XP 2800+ went for 180USD and the Pentium 4 2.4C went for 178USD.

They are priced more reasonably these days but the comparison gets bad as you head into higher end territory.

Current Price Comparisons
Core 2 Duo E4300 vs Athlon 64x2 4000+ 163USD vs 158USD
Core 2 Duo E6300 vs Athlon 64x2 4200+ 183USD vs 173USD
Core 2 Duo E6400 vs Athlon 64x2 4600+ 224USD vs 215USD
Core 2 Duo E6600 vs Athlon 64x2 5200+ 316USD vs 295USD
Core 2 Duo E6700 vs Athlon 64x2 5600+ 530USD vs 505USD

Actual Necessary Performance to Match
Core 2 Duo E4300 vs Athlon 64x2 4200+
Core 2 Duo E6300 vs Athlon 64x2 4400+
Core 2 Duo E6400 vs Athlon 64x2 5000+
Core 2 Duo E6600 vs Athlon 64x2 5800+
Core 2 Duo E6700 vs Athlon 64x2 6400+


Hey
By nerdboy on 1/24/2007 1:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes socket AM2 supports DDR2. Yes it's about time we got a 3 GHz processor from AMD. AMD the former king of performance. Yes I say the former king of performance it saddens me :(. Intel is just dominating AMD right now and I am hoping AMD will come up with something. I also am wondering why AMD isn’t moving down to 45 nm like Intel is, does any body know?




RE: Hey
By Desslok on 1/24/2007 1:56:25 PM , Rating: 1
They are working on it, but they just got 65nm to production a couple months ago. From the estimates I have seen they won't be at 45nm for another year.

Please correct me if I am wrong.


RE: Hey
By sviola on 1/24/2007 3:05:48 PM , Rating: 1
That's because AMD still hasn't got the process technology.

They are about 18-24 months later than Intel on process technology, but they have made some partnership with IBM to close the gap.


Dreaming of a 3GHz X2?
By haelduksf on 1/24/2007 5:32:29 PM , Rating: 4
I have one already.

Of course, if you're dreaming of a 3GHz X2 with a warranty, you'll have to wait a bit.




ROFL
By thepinkpanther on 1/24/2007 1:47:24 PM , Rating: 1
Funny post there.

Can only join the other person and ask, seriously you should stop smoking crack.

Have you watched gaming benchmarks the last 6-12 months time???

If you wanna have fast graphiccards then you need fast cpus and fast cpus is NOT single core anymore.

The most crazy cpu at the moment is likely the quad6800 or the e6800 processor for gaming. Really the single core has gotten into the grave. Oblivion uses dual core so games will feature multicores from now on.

That 6000+ should be cancelled fast. $600 lol excuse me for laughing.





RE: ROFL
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/24/2007 2:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yea for 500 bux u can get a Q6600 Intel quad-core on the LGA775 socket (Intel standard for 3 years now).


Makes sense from a business POV
By mlittl3 on 1/24/2007 2:22:53 PM , Rating: 1
I think this CPU is more of a placeholder than anything else. AMD needs to squeeze out performance wherever possible until the K8L architecture comes. This 3.0 GHz CPU will be 90 nm at first but will be transitioned to 65 nm and have more reasonable power consumption. Since AMD doesn't advertise nanometers but rather performance they will just quietly replace the 90 nm version with the 65 nm and say all along that they have the CPU performance to be at least on par with Intel.

As far as the price, AMD just recently reduced the prices of their low-end to mid-range X2's (I just bought the 3800+ S939 for $145 on Newegg, the AM2 version now goes for $135). This leaves a hole between the 2.6GHz CPUs and the 2.8 GHz CPUs of $200. I think AMD will reduce the price of the 2.8 GHz to $385 and $405 for the 512K and 1MB versions, respectively and price the 3.0 GHz 512K and 1MB versions at $485 and $505, respectively (half the price of their FX counterparts).

If this is the case, then the decision will come down to a 3.0 GHz X2 at 90 nm with 65 nm to come at $505 and the 2.66 GHz C2D at $530. Both of these processors are more than enough to do whatever so existing AM2 motherboard owners will probably just upgrade rather than switch to C2D and some people looking for new computers won't be as knowledgeable as Dailytech readers and buy the higher clocked AMD CPU thinking it is faster.

I'm sure this is what AMD hopes buyers will do and most certainly they will. After about 6 months, K8L processors will be out and the whole AMD/Intel situation will reverse itself for a little while.

That's my $0.02.




By coldpower27 on 1/24/2007 3:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that AMD has just in the past few days officially dropped the prices of it's processor line.

If the 6000+ is going to be introduced at 607USD, then likely the 5800+ will come along as well at 577USD, if the current trends are to be assumed.

It will also depend on when the next AMD price drop will happen, as you are aware in Q2 Intel will be making some price drops of it's own. The E6700 will fall to 316USD, with the Q6600 taking the place of the 530USD price point.

It is also not to likely we will see beyond 2.8GHZ stock form the 65nm K8's but we will have to see, 3.0GHZ will simply be a 90nm grade only with a direct transition to K8L in Q3 2007. I believe 3.0GHZ will be enough to sustain them until the advent of K8L desktop derivatives.

The other issue is, most advertised systems, in retail aren't this high level SKU's at all, have you even seen any systems based on the 5400+, 5600+ let alone the to be released 6000+?


i own a core 2 e6400
By pillagenburn on 1/24/2007 4:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
I own a core 2 e6400 at 3.2ghz... stock cooling, stock voltage.

that's over a 1GHz overclock, rock solid stable. I also got an Intel system because of the fact that I can put a quad core cpu on this board (p5w DH Deluxe) in the future if I so choose. Intel has the better cpu and platform right now, that's just how it goes. AMD will come around, maybe not in one month or two or five, but it will inside of a year or so. Which will I choose then? whichever can get me the performance of a $500+ chip for <$200 via overclocking.

that's just how I roll. Also, Intel has onboard DDL (which I am currently using) and it absolutely ROCKS. Props to Intel for making a great product. Props to AMD for bringing stiff competition throughout the years; I previously owned an opty 165 @ 2.5GHz. Noticeable difference for sure.




Ok
By ajfink on 1/24/2007 10:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
The 6000+ will be competitive with and sit around the E6600 or barely above in terms of OVERALL performance, but the E6600 sells for half that price. Stars can't come too soon.




What about the Core 2 Quad?
By Domicinator on 1/24/2007 4:24:56 PM , Rating: 1
The EQ6600 Core 2 Quad processor is out now, and in Q2 will be dropping price to about the $500 range, according to Intel. If this is true, I will never be spending a dime on a dual core processor again. I will be getting that quad core as soon as the price drops.

$600 for an AM2 X2 dual core is nuts.




amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By Desslok on 1/24/2007 1:40:31 PM , Rating: 5
Ok there fan boy.

600 dollars is the best bang for the buck?

Put the crack pipe down and come back to reality.

Lets see the 6000+ smoke anything except your wallet.



RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By lufoxe on 1/24/2007 2:15:04 PM , Rating: 4
I am no intel fanboy, I own myself a athlon x2 4200+, so noone can accuse me of this, BUT, c2d is a very good chip, and while AMD used to be the king when it comes to gaming the crown has been taken by intel. Keep in mind a64 is previous generation architecture and things may change when k8l comes out.
Proof is here:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
and here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
and here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

as I said I am no Intel fanboy, BUT I do not live in denial.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By Desslok on 1/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 3:58:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And that proves your point how?
and A64 being 20% slower for ONE THIRD of a price of Intel's C2D proves my point now? Or not? Yes, this is a good question for you - do you think it proves my point or not? Please explain why. Thank you.
quote:
939 is a dead socket, where is your upgrade path?
You didn't notice a whole line of faster single core and dual core S939 CPUs way above that A64 4000? Do we look at different worlds/parallel dimensions or something? :o)
quote:
Why are you calling people names? Usually that is reserved for people that can't prove their point. Oh wait.
Why are those people downmodding my repost of tomshardware benchmarks? Usually that is reserved for people who can't understand what is written in the post they downmod. Oh wait.


RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 4:10:30 PM , Rating: 1
scroll down to my reply to you for your answers on proving your point

and 939 is a dead socket, if you buy a slow processor in the socket, of course there will always be the faster processors to move up to...but with a core2 and lga775 you can buy the FASTEST processor now, and still be assured to move up to new processors coming out...no new processors are coming for 939...thats what he meant and you know it.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By slacker57 on 1/24/2007 6:04:20 PM , Rating: 5
Okay, I'm not going to read to the end of this thread, because I know how it's going to play out. I may regret trying to assist Pirks because he usually comes off as a guy who just wriggled his way out of a straightjacket, but I think the rest of you are missing the point he's trying to make, which is that a single core A64 4000+ (for example) has a better price/performance ratio than a new C2D in terms of current gaming. Nowhere is he talking about upgrade path or anything like that. You're making it more complicated just because he's a wacko and you want to prove him wrong. If you trust (which, obviously, is only one option) solely the numbers he presented, and you consider solely the point he's looking at without considering anything else, then his point can be well taken.

Now, do his points have 0 bearing on the article in question? Yes.

Is he unnecessarily pugilistic? Maybe.

Is he a nut-job? Quite likely.

But as far as the numbers he threw at you, you have to admit there is some sense to them. Not as much when you add in all the other logical factors one should add in when buying a processor, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt for using even as much logic as he has here.



RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 6:09:20 PM , Rating: 1
read just a couple more of my replies to him


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 6:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you trust (which, obviously, is only one option) solely the numbers he presented, and you consider solely the point he's looking at without considering anything else, then his point can be well taken
hey slacker, you're smart! seriously, i'm not making fun or something. this is what I'd like to see here - if you downmod me than state precisely the place you don't like in my post and the place you do like, so that you reply seems at least reasonably balanced. everyone makes mistakes, but nobody likes fanboys, and I don't think I look like one because I never said any bullshit like amd smokes intel or something. you're 100% correct I stated just one market segment (single core gaming), 'cause intel clearly smokes amd in many other segments


RE: amd rules single core
By stromgald on 1/24/2007 7:17:46 PM , Rating: 1
Just as a note: price/performance is not linear. Whether 10 fps or 10 second faster encoding times is equivalent to $50 or $100 in price is up to each buyer.

That's why its pointless to compare a single core A64 to a Core 2. The main problem I have with his numbers is he's basically comparing two different things. You can't expect the price/performance of a Core 2 to be the same as a single core A64, just like how the price/performance of an FX-60 is much worse than a single core A64. It's a ridiculous comparison.

The problem is that he's not willing to make a fair comparison (i.e. keeping cost or performance equal), because that will blow his fanboy mentality out of the water.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 7:34:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
its pointless to compare a single core A64 to a Core 2
sure it is, especially when tests show that actually single core AMD in single core games beats dual core Intels that are MORE expensive (read my comparison of $75 boxed AMD with $100 boxed Intel below, I just posted it). close your eyes Intel fanboys, you haven't seen these bad bad benchmarks, Intel is god and stuff...
quote:
The problem is that he's not willing to make a fair comparison (i.e. keeping cost or performance equal)
I think this is YOU who is afraid to compare $75 BOXED AMD A64 3700 San Diego with ANY BOXED dual core Intel CPU for the SAME PRICE of $75, I don't care which intel dual core you pick. I even know why you're afraid - because AMD will smoke it again if you run single core game benchmarks on it.

Just confess this is the reason you are afraid to compare them and let's close our discussion here :) Or is there any other reason you're afraid to compare them? I'm listening.


RE: amd rules single core
By Thorburn on 1/24/2007 8:40:46 PM , Rating: 1
Errrrm, the whole reason the FX series of Athlon's moved from dual core to single core was that even though the clock speed dropped (2.8GHz single core for the FX-57, 2.6GHz dual core for the FX-60) was because the majority of applications and games ran faster on dual core.

Whats more right now a single core Athlon 64 is not available at higher speeds than the dual cores, so performance is hardly going to increase.

Unless you are looking at the really budget end of the market Intel is ahead, and once since core Core 2 based chips hit the market that'll probably be covered as well.

Stop digging yourself a hole and just admit you are wrong.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/25/2007 12:13:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the whole reason the FX series of Athlon's moved from dual core to single core was that even though the clock speed dropped (2.8GHz single core for the FX-57, 2.6GHz dual core for the FX-60) was because the majority of applications and games ran faster on dual core
nope, it was because heat dissipation in dual core is much more than in a single core (more trasistors -> more heat), so this has to be compensated by lowering clock frequency, otherwise your CPU will melt down.
quote:
right now a single core Athlon 64 is not available at higher speeds than the dual cores, so performance is hardly going to increase
single core usually overclocks better than dual core because it dissipates less heat, hence I expect my single core A64 san diego reaching higher clock frequency than any dual core A64 with 1MB cache per core given equal cooling. and higher clock frequency results in higher performance in single threaded apps and games.


RE: amd rules single core
By stromgald on 1/24/2007 8:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, weren't you the one who made the bad comparison? I made two comparisons that showed that Intel beat AMD. In that same post, I mentioned that when you get down under $225, AMD could probably match Intel.

I never said Intel had a chip for ~$75 that could beat the 3700+ San Diego. I've qualified that in each of my posts that I was talking about chips >$200. When you get down to $100, I'm sure AMD can beat Intel because you can't find a Core 2 chip that cheap. It's one generation better than the A64 series and you won't find it for that cheap.

Just face the facts that you've gone from talking about AMD single cores beating price/performance than Intel's new chips to saying that for under $100 chips, AMD still rules.

I'm not a fanboy. My two computers have A64 3200+ and A64 3000+ single core chips. I buy what's good. Two years ago, those chips were at my price/performance sweet spot. Right now, Intel beats AMD for just about anything more than $200 and that price point will get lower when the E4300 comes out. AMD and Intel are probably evenly matched from $100-200 and I'd say AMD wins at sub-$100.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/25/2007 1:30:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I made two comparisons that showed that Intel beat AMD
your comparison was for multithreaded games, while my original post was about single threaded games and applications
quote:
I've qualified that in each of my posts that I was talking about chips >$200
in this case you probably should have skipped my posts and don't comment on them because I was not talking about CPUs above $200, it was VERY clear from my original topic with magic words "SINGLE CORE", I hope you noticed these words now.
quote:
Just face the facts that you've gone from talking about AMD single cores beating price/performance than Intel's new chips to saying that for under $100 chips, AMD still rules
I have never said AMD single cores beat intel C2D chips in general, I only said that single cores from AMD are better for single core gaming. when speaking about AMD Athlon FX single cores - I forgot to clarify that these are not always beating Intel price/performance wise, they'd rather beat them in future when ebay prices on them plummet down. if you introduce overclocking into the picture you change it again since overclocked $75 san diego 3700 is very competitive with much more expensive C2D in single threaded applications and games.

right now if you look for middle end CPU you better stick with C2D dualcores, but middle end CPU is not a necessity for gaming, that was my point as well. if you think from the point of view of gaming you'll see my picture very clear - for such kind of gaming a cheap $75 A64 3700 will be lightning fast and when overclocked to 2.8 GHz it will compete with $300+ C2D chips easily :) it's all only about SINGLE THREADED stuff, of course. heck, you can even avoid any upgrades besides 3D cards if you're still on S939 - DDR memory is more than enough for games, and if you plug in a 8800GTX and nice 30" monitor - you'll get extra hot _BALANCED_ rig which would smoke any single threaded game for HUNDREDS of dollars less than those fashionable C2Ds. actually, I even doubt that I'll need to move to dual core for crysis - what if I overclock my $75 A64 san diego to 2.8GHz? maybe that'd be more than enough to get decent framerates from crysis, who knows... we'll see in six months or so, when crysis is out


RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 10:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
man stop living in the past...i'm sure i can go back and find you a scenario that counters yours, but whats the point...yea the pIII beat what amd had at the time...ok SO? do we still use them, NO...should i go and buy one, NO

your changing your information as you go alone in order to fit a scenario when people have already told you that in some specs of the ultra budget market AMD wins, noone fights you there but you act as if you know more then us...

fact is that you use your computer for more then just single threaded gaming...and while you chose to overlook the system mark scores when comparing that doesn't make your statements are true...single core is not ruled by AMD as for some tasks other then gaming, even the P4 would beat up on AMD when speaking of processors at the same price point

this isn't all linear, you have to pay a premium for something better, its how the things that are worse get sold...want a better car, pay more....does the more expensive car perform at the same percentage as its cost difference, no...but do you want that care anyway, yes

so take the advice that everyone is telling you and understand that overall the best bang for your buck is in a core2duo...period


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/25/2007 1:41:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
so take the advice that everyone is telling you and understand that overall the best bang for your buck is in a core2duo
why you still fail to understand that I was not talking about OVERALL cpu performance, I was talking about ONE PARTICULAR AREA - single core gaming? what can I do if in this area A64 3700 which costs $75 is very competitive with much more expensive C2D? stop flaming me for something I have never said, ok? I never said AMD single cores are best CPUs ever made for every man and women on this planet!


RE: amd rules single core
By Tsuwamono on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 3:53:44 PM , Rating: 1
Tsuwamono, be my guest and show me some decent gaming benchmarks on anandtech, I mean benchmarks that compare some modern 3D games on A64 single core and C2D dualcores. So far I've only seen fanboys downmodding my posts and not a single number. Be first, if you can of course. I showed the numbers, now it's your turn. Show me your hard anandtech numbers or shut up. Thank you :)


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 4:31:45 PM , Rating: 1
Tsuwamono, please ignore my previous post to you, I've been actually replying to another guy and put your nick there by mistake. I'm really sorry. In fact, I can't add anythig to what you said, my experience with Intel and AMD is exactly the same as yours.


RE: amd rules single core
By vbNetGuy on 1/24/2007 5:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tsuwamono, be my guest and show me some decent gaming benchmarks on anandtech, I mean benchmarks that compare some modern 3D games on A64 single core and C2D dualcores. So far I've only seen fanboys downmodding my posts and not a single number. Be first, if you can of course. I showed the numbers, now it's your turn. Show me your hard anandtech numbers or shut up. Thank you :)


So you were only bashing Tsuwamono because you thought he was someone else, Nice!


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/24/2007 8:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
If someone downmods you and then comments in the article, their votes get canceled out.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 10:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
ok, that soothes me somewhat, thanks for clarification Kristopher :)


RE: amd rules single core
By Tsuwamono on 1/24/2007 8:51:07 PM , Rating: 1
its cool Pirks dont worry about it. i know what its like to be on the defensive constantly when you say something other then "OMGZORS Core 2 Duos ROX MY SOX! They totally PWN in my Fatal1ty motherboard with my Fatal1ty cooler. OMG i got to 4 ghz... zors..."

You should try other tech sites that are more understanding like www.xtremesystems.org or www.bioxion-tech.com


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By therealnickdanger on 1/24/2007 3:51:20 PM , Rating: 3
I "downmodded" you just for being an arse about it. Your benchies I take no issue with. Althon is a great value, it's just not the best choice for everyone. I happen to use a lot of multi-threaded apps where my E6300 stomps all over the single-core Athlons. It's apples to oranges. Add to that the INSANE overclock I can easily achieve with my E6300, all talk of "bang for buck" shifts with certainty into Intel's camp. Move into the X2 Athlons, my CPU still dominates when OC'd.

We have to be honest, for general PC use and gaming, any current single-core or dual-core CPU can get the job done. If you're on a tight budget, get a cheap A64. If your budget ain't that tight and you want to OC, buy a C2D.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By stromgald on 1/24/2007 4:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's not so much whether AMD has the best CPU for everyone or is better for most 3D games. Your comparison just isn't a fair comparison. It's apples to oranges. You have to keep either performance or cost the same to get an even comparison. Read my post below.

Basically if you're spending less than $200 for a CPU, AMD has the best bang for the buck. If you're willing to spend $225 or higher, Intel trumps AMD in gaming, and hardcore multithreaded processing.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By SexyK on 1/24/2007 4:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
E6300 and E4300 are both under $200 and offer much better value per dollar than anything AMD can offer at that price point, sorry to burst your bubble. You'd rather have a chip based on a 4 year old micro-architecture than a C2D?


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By gramboh on 1/24/2007 7:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
sometime later when my work load is mostly heavily multithreaded with a lot of dual core friendly games - then I just go to newegg and grab whatever has best bang for buck there from dualcores


No you don't, because you bought a dead socket (939) and won't be able to find best-bang-for-your-buck dual core in that platform! You will have to sell your outdated DDR, 939 board and CPU to upgrade to C2D 775 like every rational thinking person.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By swtethan on 1/24/2007 8:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
So how much can you get a dual core FX chip for? Last time I saw benchmarks.... a stock e6400 is tied to the FX-62, encoding and other benchmarks are also similar. http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=28...


Was your username in cpu/overclocking OCHungry by any chance? lol


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By swtethan on 1/24/2007 8:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
boxed NEW fx55 is $239 on the egg, boxed NEW fx-60 is $589, boxed NEW e6400 is $220 IIRC


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 9:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
boxed NEW fx55 is $239 on the egg, boxed NEW fx-60 is $589, boxed NEW e6400 is $220 IIRC
I know all this, it's still an issue of what workload do you have. suppose your single threaded app or game runs faster on single core AMD than on dual core Intel. some people prefer to go with AMD single cores because of that and upgrade to AMD or Intel dualcores later when they start running multitheraded apps/games. I still don't get it why this causes so much flame and downmodding. especially when these people already know that in general high-end Intel C2D CPUs are much more powerful than anything AMD got. looks like some Intel fanatics are way too twitchy here. cool it dudes, nobody is attacking Intel here.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 4:06:35 PM , Rating: 4
wow man your so full of yourself...you use one example and think that explains it?

using the same two chips, the e6400 and your amd4000 sandiego

in quake 4
intel-159.0
amd-94.0

COD2
intel-166
amd-110

3dmark06 cpu score
intel-1892
amd-951

PCmark2005 CPU
intel-5489
amd-3502

also your prices are comparing a retail boxed version to a no heatsink oem version...wtf? since when are those prices similar? and it speaks to the how good this chip is if newegg no longer cares to carry the retail version.

so be correct, and report accurate not misleading facts
for this i'll move the prices to a retailer that holds both processors...zipzoomfly.com
amd 4000+ = $136 back order
intel e6400 = $221.50

now you also take in that on air cooling, all core 2 duo processors out today easily go to above 3.0ghz on almost every motherboard, you can adjust the benchmarks to the figures you see with the x6800...hows that for bang for your buck...and no the 4000+ doesn't scale as well so don't try.

lastly, look at the benches once more...the e6600 beats the fx62 every time...fx62 = $694 e6600 = $315.50
so wheres amd's bang for buck for gamer comparison?

and if your a gamer or not, its better to have more cores at the same speed then not...you can overclock a processor but you can't reengineer it.

noone wants to shoot the messenger, but when he's misleading and dead wrong, he might as well be shot, he's good as dead anyway.


RE: amd rules single core
By stromgald on 1/24/2007 4:08:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:

Core 2 Duo - 58 frames per second
A64 4000 - 48 frames per second

Now let'd look at the price at newegg:

Core 2 Duo - $222
A64 4000 - $80


This does absolutely nothing to prove your point. It just shows that price increases exponentially with performance, which is common sense in any high tech market.

If you want to do a fair comparison find two equally priced chips from AMD and Intel and compare their benchmarks. And please, don't go picking the Prescotts and such, we already know the result of that. Here's what your comparison should be:

Core 2 E6600 - 67 fps
AMD FX-57 - 55 fps
At Newegg:
FX-57 = $319
E6600 = $316

Unfortunately, that AMD chip is single core.

If we move up to dual core and try to match performance instead of cost, the comparison gets even worse for AMD.
Core 2 E6400 - 58 fps
AMD FX-60 - 58 fps
At Newegg:
FX-60 = $525
E6400 = $222

Right now AMD has the better single core chips so they have the bottom end/less expensive part of the market covered. But mid to high range (i.e. $250+) chips, Intel dominates by a wide margin. Even in gaming.



RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 4:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
WRONG AGAIN

amd is scrambling but has nothing in any segment to keep up with Intel

point:
PC Mark2005 CPU
Pentium D 805 = 4449
4000+ Sandiego = 3502

quake 4
805 = 109
4000+ = 94

COD 2
805 = 105
4000+ = 110

price on ebay $79 bucks for both in OEM
805 is lga775 so its upgrade path is good...and it is a very well overclockable processor as you probably stumbled over a report of this when it was the value overclocking leader.


RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 4:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
and again i point out, that at the same price and same performance level, its better to have dual cores, because then you have almost double performance when doing two task simultaneously with less slowdown.


RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 4:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
ahh i miss spoke, PRICE IS ON NEWEGG NOT EBAY


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 5:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
actually i posted a score, i think it was call of duty that, that the 805 lost to the 4000+

but processors don't have a big impact on framerates, graphic cards do, thats why i posted the system benchmark scores because that shows the real power of a processor, and you also choose to overlook the fact that both intel processors i pointed out overclock better, so in real world results you can easily surpass the amd for the price.

also i kept fear out of my results because many review sites note fear as being favorable to AMD and so i felt it wasn't an accurate result...

but if we're talking 7 frames, wouldn't you rather have a second core and future proof yourself for other games...and comon you only own a computer to game on it, obviously not if your on this site...a console is for gaming only, computers are great for other things, so again dual core is a better option if price and performance is the same...its a no brainier

and if your running say another program like teamspeak or fraps while gaming, dual core will help alot since you can set the game to affinity on cpu0 and the others on cpu1


RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 5:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
also don't forget your the guy who only posted one benchmark result, and priced a retail boxed processor with an OEM one...

fact is at any price intel has something that keeps up or beats amd, but ontop of that they give you extra cores, and a socket you can actually upgrade with.

while your obviously right that games for the most part are single threaded so don't take advantage of a dual or quad core...i don't think anyone can say that for the same price and performance 1 core is better then 2


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By gramboh on 1/24/2007 7:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
Idiot... The problem with comparing retail to OEM is the heatsink/fan unit is included in retail and not in OEM, which adds at least $20 to the price of the OEM unit.

Die hard AMD fans are quite amusing in this era of total Intel domination. (For the record I've owned both AMD and Intel platforms, my loyalty is to price/performance leader, aka C2D at this time).


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By gramboh on 1/24/2007 9:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, E6600 @ 3.5GHz. AMD has nothing for the same price ($360CDN) that will touch it, even at stock. This is for ALL applications single or multithreaded. If you can only afford a $75 CPU well that sucks, you should get an education and a better job.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 9:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong, E6600 @ 3.5GHz. AMD has nothing for the same price ($360CDN) that will touch it, even at stock
True, but this is one side of the picture, while I was talking about the other side which is this: the Intel has nothing for the same price ($75 new boxed at newegg) that will touch AMD A64 San Diego 3700 in SINGLE THREADED benches or games.
quote:
If you can only afford a $75 CPU well that sucks, you should get an education and a better job
Yeah, if Crytek developers manage to release their dual core friendly Crysis sometime late this year - that sucks and they should get an education and a better job :o)


RE: amd rules single core
By stromgald on 1/24/2007 9:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
Quit asking for benchmarks. Nobody is arguing your point that at under $100, the AMD A64 3700+ can't be beat. Seriously, quit your whining and start reading people's responses.

You're the one who said:
quote:
that's why gamers stay with amd - get leet FX (or 1mb cahe a64 if you're cheap), oc it and get real fast single core which would smoke intel dualcores for the same price.


Now, that everyone's posted benchmarks, you're back down to just the sub $100 chip market. You can stay on that little A64 3700+ San Diego core island, fanboy. And please don't comeback until the K8L is released.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 10:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
get leet FX (or 1mb cahe a64 if you're cheap), oc it and get real fast single core which would smoke intel dualcores for the same price.
I stand corrected - I forgot to add "get cheap san diego 3700 now or leet FX _in future_ when its price plummets on ebay" - that's what I meant really. looks like I did deserve my gallon or two of the flamethrower fuel :) sorry everybody!


RE: amd rules single core
By robber98 on 1/24/2007 2:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hello? When was the last time you read the benchmark result? 2 years ago?


RE: amd rules single core
By ss284 on 1/24/2007 1:42:18 PM , Rating: 3
Last I checked am2 used ddr2.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By Desslok on 1/24/2007 1:51:17 PM , Rating: 3
Take a C2D 4300 overclock it and it smokes everything AMD has.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=29...

Obviously the Core 2 upgrade path is a bit more desirable these days than AMD's Socket-AM2 platform, so the E4300 gets the nod there, but you can't really go wrong with either chip at default settings. When overclocked things get a little more complicated, but the E4300 gets the recommendation as a 2.8 - 3.0GHz Athlon 64 still ends up being slower than a 3.38GHz Core 2.

If you want to argue against Anand be my guest.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By ss284 on 1/24/2007 2:12:43 PM , Rating: 3
But your first post indicated you wanted to include overclocking. On the otherhand, yes, a cheap 3800+ will give you the most bang for your buck, but in the end, the c2d architecture is faster, and overclocks better. There is a price premium, but many people are willing to pay it, especially if the difference in performance is so great.


RE: amd rules single core
By Desslok on 1/24/2007 2:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with him. Your first post did say you wanted to include overclocking.

Just admit it, you are living in the past when AMD did hold the performance lead over Intel.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 5:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
umm first off the amd doesn't overclock as good as the C2D, so you can't take it as high and no matter what when you introduce overclocking, the c2d wins in any game even games tailor made for AMD hardware as some sites suggest

but really refer to my post where i shoed you that your 80 to 220 Newegg comparison was flawed in that its an open OEM version to a Retail Box version...so don't compare those prices...but with zipzoomfly.com prices, a retailer i found carring both, the c2d is around the same price, just 50 cents less and the amd is at a retail box price

now you take those two prices and divide the 3dmark CPU score from them (which we can say is a gaming processor benchmark tool) and your left with the price per benchmark score

you'll end up with $0.117 for Intel and $0.143 for AMD which shows that the price argument goes to intel as you get more performance at a cheaper rate per benchmark point,

and this is using the processor you first posted with only one benchmark about... other processors achieve a even better price per point rate...

so i ask you, if you get more vaule out of the intel processor, whether you pay a little or alot, why choose amd? cause you only get one core instead of two?

lastly...some of your arguments say that AMD is right because they stay in line with current gaming trends, i beg to differ, i'm happy Intel is the one who is innovating and pushing the envelope so that game developers will make change, otherwise we wouldn't progress as fast as we are, which would be a bad thing



RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 7:24:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
i shoed you that your 80 to 220 Newegg comparison was flawed in that its an open OEM version to a Retail Box version
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82... - it is BOXED. compare it with Pentium D 805 BOXED there - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...

Pentium D costs $100, while AMD costs $75. So Intel is 33% more expensive than A64 3700 San Diego. Now look at tomshardware benchmarks - single core stuff like Unreal Tournament, FEAR and Serious Sam 2 - AMD smokes Intel easily. Dual core friendly games like COD 2 and Quake 4 - Intel is faster than AMD although not by 33% so by bang per buck AMD still wins even here, although by a very slight margin (COD 2 is barely faster on Intel, by a couple of frames per second literally). So my point that AMD singlecores are better performance/price wise for majority of 3D games (that are still single core friendly these days) is proven.

Got any counter-evidence?


RE: amd rules single core
By Scrogneugneu on 1/24/2007 8:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
When did the argument slid from C2D to Pentium D?

Pentium D is a failure, everyone knows about it. C2D is worlds better. And it also happen to beat the crap out of AMD's best offerings.


Compare either 2 boxed CPU or 2 OEM CPU, and please keep in mind that we're arguing that C2D is better than A64, not Pentium D.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 9:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
C2D is worlds better. And it also happen to beat the crap out of AMD's best offerings
OK, let's get back to boxed C2D vs boxed A64 issue. What is the price of Intel C2D that shows SAME OR BETTER results in any SINGLE THREADED game or benchmark as A64 3700 San Diego? (which is $75 boxed at newegg)


RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 9:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
man pirks your funny...you go off comparing two boxed cpu's at different price points after i show you two OEM cpu's at the SAME price point, and actually i kept the cpu you started talking about the same, i didn't go pull some crappy amd to fight you with, i looked at what you were talking about

i mentioned that for 79 bucks you get a AMD 4000+ San Diego OEM or Intel Pentium D 805 OEM

what i also said is the 805 beats the 4000+ and even its dual core counterparts when overclocked.... http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz...

now don't go around changing your processors around to fit your message, and leave out the part that the processor was only introduced to tell you it can spank your processor at the same price, with just overclocking...

and AGAIN i say, that for the same price and relative performance, its better to have more cores then more speed.

i would tell you to take your 136 bucks (which is how much a boxed 4000+ processor costs, remember thats the processor you chose to start this discussion with so don't go change it) and add $46, put it with a motherboard, ram, video card like you would your 4000+ and get this. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?Pr...

now try and argue 46 bucks isn't worth not only the future proof of dual cores and upgrade path but the raw performance of spanking pretty much everything else on just AIR COOLING

if your going to fight over 25 bucks, i'm sure 46 isn't to bad of a number right...oh and why just say intel was 33% more expensive, why don't you say amd is 25% cheaper?, cause 33% sounds worse?


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/25/2007 12:03:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the 805 beats the 4000+ and even its dual core counterparts when overclocked
and if you overclock my A64 4000 it will beat your overclocked Pentium D 805 :) so what?
quote:
and AGAIN i say, that for the same price and relative performance, its better to have more cores then more speed
that's true only if you have multithreaded workload. however, if you have single threaded application or game - then fast single core CPU easily beats slower dual core CPU. do you agree?
quote:
why just say intel was 33% more expensive, why don't you say amd is 25% cheaper? cause 33% sounds worse?
yeah, you're right, I could use "25% cheaper" as well. the main point is that for SINGLE THREADED apps and games single core AMD 4000 is FASTER than dual core Pentium D 805 for the SAME PRICE. how much faster, 25% or 33% - doesn't matter that much


RE: amd rules single core
By Adonlude on 1/24/2007 5:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
I cannot believe people are still arguing the AMD vs Intel thing! The verdict was in last year, Intel smoked AMD, it wasn't even close, it was a landslide victory!!!

The only way AMD can compete with Intel for the time being is in the price/performance area and they are doing so at great detriment to themselves by constantly lowering prices. They have had to lower their prices so much that today AMD announced a Q4 2006 loss ! Their stock went down 8.45% today and is down over 50% in the last year. This is all C2D's doing.

Make no mistake, whether the numbers you pay attention to are benchmarks or company financials, C2D has really put the hurt on AMD. There is very little room for discussion or opinion here, we are overwhelmed with evidence.

No, I am not an Intel fanboy, I am a stock holder.


RE: amd rules single core
By darkpaw on 1/24/2007 2:01:18 PM , Rating: 3
There is still almost no advantage of using DDR2 with an X2 processor. Killing the socket 939 off was the stupiest thing AMD has done and pretty much garunteed my next processor will be an Intel.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 2:09:18 PM , Rating: 1
nice to hear that when intel kills off lga 775 your next cpu will be amd because of that


RE: amd rules single core
By Oregonian2 on 1/24/2007 2:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
True, but the Intel quad-cores go into the same socket so one should be able to do at least decently with that socket for a short while.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 4:08:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
one should be able to do at least decently with that socket for a short while
it's the same about AM2, it's no different from Intel's LGA 775 in that sense


RE: amd rules single core
By Desslok on 1/24/2007 2:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
The Intel roadmap does not show any changes to the 775 socket.

You are just grasping at straws there.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 4:05:37 PM , Rating: 1
AMD roadmap also doesn't show jump to new socket when they issue their K8L and quads, they explicitly said AM2 will be forward compatible with K8L and quads. Soo... we must be grasping at the same straw here, it seems ;-) I see no difference between Intel and AMD with regard to that.


RE: amd rules single core
By 63tymes on 1/24/2007 9:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
before you say some one is "grasping at straws" maybe you should read more. Intel will change sockets and has to inorder to incorparate there own mem controller.

old news dude READ.

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4182


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/25/2007 2:05:26 AM , Rating: 1
hey, you just broke the Desslok's straw! gee, poor Desslok :)


RE: amd rules single core
By Ard on 1/24/2007 2:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
You have no idea what you're talking about. A E6600 would still smoke a 3GHz single-core A64. And it's only going to get worse if you compare it to a E6700 or the X6800.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 4:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
Ard, enjoy this pic from the same anand review

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/core2duolaunch_...

single core friendly game (and majority of games are still single core friendly) here gives you almost same result on 2.4 GHz AMD core and C2D E6300, 'cause in these cases (single core friendly game that is) only the clock matters, not number of cores. now compare prices for A64 2.4GHz San Diego and that C2D E6300 - price/performance wise Intel is where exactly? Don't use that A word! :) thanks


RE: amd rules single core
By MrTeal on 1/24/2007 5:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
The problems with that are:
1) On the same game the E6300 overclocked on stock cooling way past the level of AMD's FX-62.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
How much past the 2.8GHz level of the FX-62 can you push the 4600+ you're talking about with stock cooling?

2) E6300 - $187 on newegg X2 4600+ (the 2.4Ghz AMD you spoke of) $199 on newegg

Just so you know, the CPU in the image you posted is not the one you're so hot on. That chip would be a hell of a bargain if you have a 939 board, an investment in alot of fast DDR RAM, maybe a few PATA HDD you don't feel like having to replace. Drop in that and an 8800 GTX and you're good to go for a couple years.

On the other hand, if you're building a new rig, going with socket 939 is an honestly stupid move. Once you look at buying a new mobo, the cheap CPU, a bunch of DDR-400 and a GPU to buying a C2D, a new mobo, a bunch of DDR2-800 and a GPU, the price difference might only by 20% or 30%, or less if you spend alot on the GPU. That's like the baseline difference in game speed. The performance difference will still be huge between the O/Ced C2D and O/Ced 4000+. You have no upgrade path on your CPU, but that's not really that big a deal, I know I usually end up buying a new mobo for every CPU upgrade. But spending $250+ on 2GB of good DDR-400 (which you'll need if you want a chance to O/C the 4000+ anywhere near C2D levels) that you're guarenteed to not be able to use again?

Dumb.


RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 6:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
to add to your post

a top of the line graphics card like the 8800gtx actually relies on a fast processor as well

my 8800gtx performs better in my x6800 machine then in my old Pentium 955+...and there both extreme editions, both have the same FSB, same ram and same motherboard...as the only thing i changed was the proc.

so if that says anything it tells you that in the future killer graphics will be limited by the cpu, so people hanging around old 939 systems that drop 600 bucks on their graphics cards will be slightly disappointed.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By kamel5547 on 1/24/2007 2:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
Uh... a dual-core still runs single threaded apps the same way as a single core. A single core on an e6600 will top any AMD processor (as has been mentioned). Really even if you ahve a single threaded app, you still benefit from the background threads being pushed ot the second core.

The statement "single core is best" is wrong. Single core is all that is needed, but you lsoe performance due to inherent background processes.


RE: amd rules single core
By clairvoyant129 on 1/24/2007 3:46:44 PM , Rating: 1
Ok AMD fanboy. I'll take a cheap E4300 that smokes all your garbage single core AMD CPUs.

Stop living in the past, look at the benchmarks moron.


RE: amd rules single core
By Etern205 on 1/24/2007 3:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
Single core still rules because games
don't take advantage of dual cores?

I hope your ignorance and stupidity
will be shoved up your ass, as technology one
day stops manufacturing single cores. While dual
core will be the lowest one available.


You need be smacked with my Athlon 64 X2!


RE: amd rules single core
By PrezWeezy on 1/25/2007 4:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
You know what's interesting, I remember this exact same flame war happening when AMD took the market space. All the old Intel guys were sitting around saying how Intel was better, and grasping at straws trying to find something that Intel was still better at. Eventualy, those who really wanted to look at the facts were stuck wondering why they had been so stubborn. The real question is this, why would you want to go spend money on a box that will be comletely obsolete soon? True enough, todays apps are mostly single thread, however the day of multi thread is dawning. We are at a transition point. At all transition points you can find something from the past that is better than what we have. However if you go spend any ammount of money on a system (and I don't care how much, and by the way the 4300 will be $135 very soon after it is released next quarter) you should make sure it's going to be at least dual core. A64 X2 or C2D. It's kinda like buying an analog TV now. In not long analog signal wont exist and you'll have to buy a digital TV. Why buy something twice? I personaly would rather spend a little more cash and not have to upgrade again for a while. I have a P4 3.0GHz and a 4200Ti PC that I bought (because I got a very good deal on it) when it very first came out. And I'm not the type of person to buy bleading edge technology. I'm just getting ready to upgrade that now. Does it make sense for me to go buy an A64 when I'm just going to have to get a new computer soon so I can play Alan Wake or any new Steam game? No. Sure you got your facts straight, maybe it is good, but why buy old crap? When you're talking about gamming, it doesn't make sense to go with last gen.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/25/2007 4:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
Prez, do you see any problem with buying A64 right now when there are mostly singlecore games and simply upgrading it to X2 later when dualcore games are everywhere? You know, just swap your S939 CPU chip and that's it - is that really bad thing to do? Why?


RE: amd rules single core
By PrezWeezy on 1/25/2007 5:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
Cause I just paid $100 for a single core, then I have to pay another $200 for an X2. That's $300. Why not spend $200? That's $100 cheaper. That's another 512 RAM. Or 2 games. Or better yet, I have an extra $100 bucks to go spend on something other than my computer.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/25/2007 6:13:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I just paid $100 for a single core, then I have to pay another $200 for an X2. That's $300. Why not spend $200? That's $100 cheaper.
Can't you sell your old single core for $100 and then buy $200 X2? This way you avoid losing extra $100, right?


RE: amd rules single core
By PrezWeezy on 1/26/2007 1:06:45 AM , Rating: 2
Considering if you look on ebay for AMD procs, you wont find many single cores that are selling for $100. I didn't find any although I didn't search long. The point is, when you buy something old, and then try to sell it once it's obsolete, you usualy don't get what you paid for back out of it. So most likely I'd be able to fence it for maybe $15, Would you buy a second hand proc that cost $100 brand new for $100? No way. So you're right, I would only loose $85...wow big savings. And considering my time is worth $100 an hour, and my guess is it would take me maybe an hour to get to the store the second time, take the old one out, clean it up, put in the new one, take pics, post it online and then box and ship it, now I'm down something like $185. Sounds easier to me to buy a dual core that has the same power for just a little bit more up front and a whole lot less in the long run.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/26/2007 4:46:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And considering my time is worth $100 an hour
holy shit!! you already lost about $50 or so by just posting replies to my posts, man you really waste your uberprecious time here :)))
quote:
Considering if you look on ebay for AMD procs, you wont find many single cores that are selling for $100
doh, this one is easy, you probably have no idea how to use ebay :)) here you go:

http://cgi.ebay.com/AMD-ATHLON-FX-55-939-fx-55-San...

this one is single core AMD for $162, enjoy ;)
quote:
The point is, when you buy something old, and then try to sell it once it's obsolete, you usualy don't get what you paid for back out of it
well, how about buying a replacement cpu on ebay as well? check out this one for example:

http://cgi.ebay.com/AMD-Athlon-64-X2-4200-Dual-Cor...

a dual core x2 4200 for LESS than your $162 single core Athlon from my first link above. got it now? YOU CAN EVEN MAKE SOME MONEY by moving from single core to dual core CPU. you DON'T pay - THEY PAY _YOU_ for _YOUR_ _UPGRADE_ - how do you like this, huh? ;)


RE: amd rules single core
By PrezWeezy on 1/26/2007 7:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
What's interesting is that you're taking your original argument and then completely changing the facts. You started with a 3700+, and now you want to talk about an FX-55. I don't know if you're aware of this, but those are actually two different processors. The FX-55 starts at $239 http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?DEPA... That's a bit more than the original price point we were talking about. And I still loose about $80. And you only save about $30 when you buy that second proc there. Hmm, doesn't sound worth it to me. I can screw with enough facts to support any argument. You have kept nothing the same here. Admit it, you don't know what you're talking about. And as far as my time, do me a favor and never use that work again. Only children and idiots do. I know where I can waste my time and where I don't want to. And it doesn't make sense to waste my time WHILE loosing money. At the moment I'm waiting for a disk to reformat so I'm making money while commenting.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By PrezWeezy on 1/31/2007 2:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
And my point was that a 3700+ on ebay sells for a lot less than an FX-55. And that you have skewd your facts to make you look correct. When in reality, you know what we are saying, and you know you're wrong. And whoever buys those damn Alienwares should be shot. They are waaaay overpriced. I prefer, by far, to build my own. I tend not to overclock because I don't want to burn out any of my components because I don't like spending money when I don't have to. And it makes a lot more sense to build a computer, use the crap out of it until it's junk, while saving up and build a new one. Sorry, but stepupgrading is a waste of money and time. You can sit here and talk about it any way you want, but in the real world it's just wasteful.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 2/1/07, Rating: 0
"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Related Articles
AMD Beyond "Brisbane"
November 14, 2006, 6:31 PM
AMD Q4'06 Dual-Core Roadmap
October 3, 2006, 8:23 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki