backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by rbuszka.. on Apr 7 at 1:13 PM

Intel prepares to launch its Core 2 Duo E6x50-series, new E4000-series models and the Pentium E2100-series

The first upgrade of Intel's Conroe architecture is right around the corner. Roadmaps reveal the refreshed Conroe with a 1333 MHz front-side-bus arriving in Q3’07, around the same time of Intel’s Q3’07 price cuts. The new Core 2 Duo E6x50-series pricing will undercut pricing of current Core 2 Duo E6x00-series processors.

With the introduction of Core 2 Duo E6x50-series processors, the entire Intel Core 2 Duo desktop lineup will fall below the $300 price point. The Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 takes the top spot of Intel’s Core 2 Duo lineup at $266 per processor, in 1,000 unit quantities. Intel clocks the Core 2 Duo E6850 at 3.0 GHz, higher than last year’s flagship Core 2 Extreme X6800 and it costs a fraction of the X6800’s $999 launch price.

Intel Core 2 Duo
Model
Core
Frequency
L2 Cache
FSB Q3'07
Pricing
E6850 3.00 GHz 4MB 1333 MHz
$266
E6750 2.66 GHz 4MB 1333 MHz
$183
E6550 2.33 GHz 4MB 1333 MHz
$163
E6540 2.33 GHz 4MB 1333 MHz
$163

Slotted below the Core 2 Duo E6850 is the 2.66 GHz E6750 at $183. At the bottom end of the Core 2 Duo E6x50 family are the E6550 and E6540 processors clocked at 2.33 GHz, which cost $163 per processor, in 1,000 unit quantities. Intel’s Core 2 Duo E6540 differs from the rest of the 1333 MHz front-side bus Core 2 Duo lineup because it does not have support for Intel’s Trusted Execution Technology, also known as TXT.

Intel Core 2 Duo
Model
Core
Frequency
L2 Cache
FSB Q3'07
Pricing
E4500 2.20 GHz 2MB 800 MHz
$133
E4400 2.00 GHz 2MB   800 MHz
$113

Intel will also launch two more Core 2 Duo E4000-series processors. The Core 2 Duo E4400 will arrive next month clocked at 2.0 GHz for $133 per processor, in 1,000 unit quantities. In Q3’07, the Core 2 Duo E4400 will drop down to $113 with the introduction of the E4500. The Core 2 Duo E4500 clocks in at 2.2 GHz and takes over the $133 per processor, in 1,000 unit quantities, price point. Intel will slowly phase out the Core 2 Duo E4300 processor in Q3’07.

Intel Pentium E
Model
Core
Frequency
L2 Cache
FSB Q3'07
Pricing
E2160 1.80 GHz 1MB 800 MHz
$84
E2140 1.60 GHz 1MB   800 MHz
$74

Intel will introduce the first new Pentium desktop product since it switched over to the Core naming scheme in June. Two Pentium E2100 models will launch, the E2160 and E2140. These models are dual-core Conroe-based processors with 1MB of shared L2 cache. The 1.80 GHz Pentium E2160 fills the $84 price point while the 1.6 GHz Pentium E 2140 costs $10 less per processor, in 1,000 unit quantities.


Comments     Threshold


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

amd is done
By stjoker on 3/14/2007 10:26:15 PM , Rating: 3
these cpus are so cheap amd is going to have lots of trouble selling any chips




RE: amd is done
By fk49 on 3/14/2007 10:36:17 PM , Rating: 3
Well, when you get to the low-end, it's value not performance that matters to customers. That means the entire package (not just CPU) has to be cheap and powerful enough for just basic needs. AMD CPUs still have better motherboard solutions on the low-end I think as the nVidia 6-series and Intel's P/G965 still have to break the $100 barrier.

Also, the market is generally slow to respond to such dramatic shifts in the tech race. Just look at how long it took for AMD to gain traction with A64 even though it stomped P4 to the ground.


RE: amd is done
By RamarC on 3/15/2007 11:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD CPUs still have better motherboard solutions on the low-end I think as the nVidia 6-series and Intel's P/G965 still have to break the $100 barrier.


you forgot about mobos based on the i945gz chipset. $60 retail, readily available, very stable, and almost all have been updated to accept core 2 duo.


RE: amd is done
By matthewpapa on 3/14/2007 10:40:29 PM , Rating: 4
although it pains me to say it, this could be the nail in the coffin for AMD. Once the prices drop on these things, and the quad cores come out, there is almost no reason to go AMD anymore :( .

AMD had better pull something out of their ass quick..


RE: amd is done
By atticu5 on 3/14/2007 11:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
i think so too. for me the only reason to get an amd processor before core 2 was the fact that they were better than the P4 and Pentium Ds. Now the only reason to buy an amd cpu or buy a computer with an amd cpu is the price, since they cheaper core 2 last time i checked was around $180, which is also what pple that are just interested in the price would reason, they'd love the core 2 but they don't wanna pay more for it.

but with these price drops, i think i would just buy a core 2 or a pentium e since they are better than amd cpus and wouldn't cost much more


RE: amd is done
By TSS on 3/15/2007 5:48:42 AM , Rating: 3
i tend to disagree. simply cause i have a friend who, despite all logic and reason, will NOT buy a intel core 2 duo but rather a AMD64 simply cause he doesn't like intel. amd will always do buisness simply cause i know he isn't the only one :P

besides that there's still to consider that AMD's new architecture is native quad core. atleast thats what they've been saying. so if AMD introduces quad core across the board, with performance above intel's quad cores, at slightly higher prices (still a new CPU) they can stay in the running for atleast another few months.

i'll start worrying about AMD when nehalem comes out. the move to 45nm won't put them out of buisness but a new architecture at 45nm just might make a big impact. but even then AMD's plans to make a CPU in different modules is already beeing developped so they might lose some marketshare but it will be regained.

nowerdays the CPU market isn't beeing fought with sales now... it's basicly become a game of chess where the outcome is decided a few steps ahead of time :)


RE: amd is done
By JWalk on 3/15/2007 10:19:03 AM , Rating: 2
Your friend is a part of a very small part of the market. The "Fan Boy" part of the market. I would imagine AMD's fan-base is less than 1% of the market. So, that isn't going to help them stay in business. I don't think they are in trouble from a going out of business standpoint. But, I think they may be headed back to being a producer of "value" products, instead of high-end hardware. We will see soon enough.


RE: amd is done
By SmokeRngs on 3/16/2007 1:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your friend is a part of a very small part of the market. The "Fan Boy" part of the market. I would imagine AMD's fan-base is less than 1% of the market. So, that isn't going to help them stay in business.


I think you are mistaken a bit. "Fan boy" is an incorrect term for what is being described here. A "Fan boy" is a rabid lunatic that knows there is a difference between products but refuses to admit that the "opposing" product is better despite knowing the product is better. They are also usually very vocal.

This friend isn't necessarily a fan boy. There are companies I refuse to buy products from due to past issues with said companies whether they directly affected me or not. I'm not saying the friend can't be a "Fan boy" but because of what he said, it doesn't mean he is one.

You are correct in saying "Fan boys" will not keep a product or company afloat; 3DFx is proof of that. However, there is another type of consumer out there. That would be the "loyal customer". These people are generally uninformed (not stupid) and don't care to know what is best. This is the largest group out there as we all know. This is one of the main reasons why AMD's market share isn't higher than what it is. This group is what kept Intel high in the market share department for years. People knew the name Intel since it had been around for so long and when AMD finally made a big push for market share AMD was considered new and therefore unreliable in comparison to Intel. Remember, this is the uninformed group. Despite being off topic a little bit, I just wanted to say another reason AMD doesn't have higher market share is due to fab capacity. AMD just doesn't have the production capacity that Intel does.

Newer computer users may have used nothing but AMD in the last several years which could have built up a sizable "loyal customer" base.

Many average users wouldn't know the difference in performance between either AMD or Intel. Both CPUs can do what the person wants and they are unaware that one may be able to do it faster than the other even if the difference might be noticeable to the person.

There is also the issue of inertia. It hasn't even been a year since the Core2 architecture was released and until then AMD had more momentum than Intel. It normally takes I believe between 1 1/2-2 years after a performance or architecture change for the momentum to actually change places. Until that happens, AMD would get plenty of sales just from inertia.

I'm loving my Core2Duo right now and those $266 Core2Quads in the third quarter have me drooling but I have yet to see any reason to call AMD doomed.


RE: amd is done
By feelingshorter on 3/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd is done
By bpurkapi on 3/15/2007 2:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
I am no fan of fanboys, but companies attempt to create fanboys every time they put out an advertisement. A company has a goal of creating loyal customers, just ask Coke or Pepsi. I understand that CPUs and tech are not at the same level as snacks, but Intel and Sony would hope that they have a base of Loyal customers, or as we would say fanboys. Fanboys take every detail spit at them from press releases and eat it up, this enthusiasm can stick with them when they go to work and tell fellow co-workers about the new, hot tech that is on the way. Some of these fanboys work at best buy or gamecrazy and use their bias to convince people to buy AMD over Intel or Sony over Xbox. This crap happens all the time, and sadly logic has little to do with sales. Most sales are done in an environment of an individual with limited knowledge asking for the expertise of a salesman to find the suitable product for them. This relationship sucks, and that is why we shop online and read dailytech, or Anandtech to find more unbiased information not handled by fanboys who receive stipends from Tech companies to convince us to their new crap. I love the attitude of people at dailytech for the simple reason that they don't care whether its amd or intel, what they care about is what is cheaper and what will perform best for the price.


RE: amd is done
By sonoran on 3/15/2007 3:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i have a friend who, despite all logic and reason, will NOT buy a intel core 2 duo but rather a AMD64 simply cause he doesn't like intel. amd will always do buisness simply cause i know he isn't the only one

I'd guesstimate that something like 10% of the market is like that. They'll buy from the underdog just to be contrarian. That alone would keep a company in business with a market as large as the CPU market. AMD may fall on some hard times, but they're not going anywhere.


RE: amd is done
By osalcido on 3/15/2007 5:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
if that were true...... 10% of computer owners would have Macs... the number is morelike 3%


RE: amd is done
By Conroe on 3/15/2007 9:32:13 AM , Rating: 1
I don't AMD is done for, I do think Intel wants to reduce them back below 20%. Otellini cut all the fat of extra jobs and slashes prices to where Ruiz can't make a decent margin. I'd expect to see these prices before Aegna is available at newegg. Very soon we will see benchmarks and Intel will have to make a move. Once Intel has reduced AMD's market share I expect prices to level off. Intel has tried doing this before with rebates and marketing money but got sued. AMD asked for this with lawyers and now have a angry and fierce competitor.


RE: amd is done
By Janooo on 3/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd is done
By RamarC on 3/15/2007 11:57:52 AM , Rating: 2
a $266 q6600 is hard to say no to.


RE: amd is done
By dm0r on 3/14/2007 10:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
You're wrong.Intel will reduce the price because of the lauch in Q3 of the new AMD architecture that will be very competitive to the C2D's systems or better.


RE: amd is done
By Phynaz on 3/14/2007 11:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
I fully expect the new AMD offerings to out perform Intel.

But, at these prices I don't see how AMD could make up their development costs.


RE: amd is done
By JWalk on 3/15/2007 10:40:33 AM , Rating: 2
I'm curious. How exactly does anyone know how K8L/K10 will actually perform? The only thing I have seen in regards to performance was a statement by AMD that it would be much faster in a number of things. They didn't get specific about what it would be faster in.

If I were to make a guess-timate of Barcelona's performance based on what I have read, I would say that it will be competitive in benchmarks that are geared toward mulitple cores and high bandwidth. But, in your average desktop use (games, video-editing, general usage), I have my doubts about AMD suddenly becoming ultra-competitive. I think when it launches, we will see something similar to when the Quad FX launched: A fast platform for very specific tasks, but not price competitive or practical.

Anyway, this is just my opinion. The proof will be available in a few months time. Hopefully AMD will prove me wrong. We need at least two strong competitors in the CPU market, or the people who will lose, will be the consumers.


RE: amd is done
By Comdrpopnfresh on 3/15/2007 1:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
I don't even think the K8L/K10 is what AMD is going to be comping out with... I may have read article incorrectly, but the Barcelona arch/ is simply the K7/K8 opteron architecture placed with different interconnects to make more efficiency in the processor as a whole.
To my knowledge, the completely new architecture doesn't show up until STARS, when both the interconnects and the processors themselves (to achieve the same efficiency or greater of barcelona on single and dualcore models) are entirely different from the current A64 architecture.

In this sense barcelona~core, where the core duo architecture is a marriage of the netburst and the beginnings of Core2 Duo.
And core2 duo ~ stars- everything is revamped, giving something completely alien compared to before (a64 for stars, netburst for core2


RE: amd is done
By Russell on 3/15/2007 1:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
Barcelona IS part of the stars lineup...it's the K10 server chip.


RE: amd is done
By Comdrpopnfresh on 3/15/2007 1:47:24 PM , Rating: 2
thanks- I've been reading so many article I obviously got my facts mixed up. But was I right that its not a complete break form the current architecture? Whats the names of the totally new arch. chips?


RE: amd is done
By rbuszka on 4/7/2007 1:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't Barcelona the name of a CITY in Spain? I've never heard of a star named Barcelona. That would make Barcelona part of Cities, and NOT Stars.


RE: amd is done
By JumpingJack on 3/15/2007 12:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
Nope ... barcelona will take up a position on the high end and help raise ASPs, this is not the demise of AMD. Though, it will make the pricing environment a little tougher for Barcelona, the end game is that performance sells...


RE: amd is done
By Spivonious on 3/15/2007 2:10:37 PM , Rating: 1
AMD would have gotten nowhere in the beginning if their chips weren't cheaper than Intels. AMD is the whole reason Intel came out with the Celeron line.


RE: amd is done
By Targon on 3/15/2007 6:14:40 AM , Rating: 2
The "new Pentium" chips from Intel with the smaller cache MAY run MUCH MUCH slower due to the lack of cache. Everyone needs to remember that every Intel chip from the Pentium 4 going forward has relied on the large cache to keep performance numbers high, and from what I remember reading about the Core 2 design, that still holds true.

At the same time as these price cuts, AMD will have their K8L(or K10 or whatever you want to call it) based chips available, which may very well compete VERY well and allow AMD to hold on.

We will have to see how things go. Too many people have counted AMD out before, but AMD has come back stronger than before. Intel hasn't said that there are any real design improvements in their new chips either, so we may be in a strange situation where a 2.3GHz chip from AMD will be able to destroy the top of the line Core 2 duo chips. Again, we will have to see the real performance numbers from AMD before they are counted out.


RE: amd is done
By zsdersw on 3/15/2007 12:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
Depending on the application, there is little difference between equally clocked 2MB C2D's and 4MB C2D's, so no.. L2 cache is not a necessity for good performance with the C2D's.


RE: amd is done
By Comdrpopnfresh on 3/15/2007 1:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
what? If there was no performance impact from less L2, then intel would not shred prices on chips that had to have some disabled due to defects. some of their product modeling has the same speed and bus speed, but a difference of 4-2 or 4-1 megs of L2 means a big difference in price.
Every article I've read says that Intel does, in fact, gain a lot of performance with more cache in every architecture, mainly because the cache serves to hide the latency of the processor with no on-die memory controller (the main purpose of hierarchical cache- to hide slowness of whatever is equal or below it: L1 is faster than L2, faster than Ram, Faster than Harddrive; and cache on drives serves to cover up access times form spin up..). Their next round of quad cores are even supposed to have up to 12 megs of L2 I've read. If there is no performance impact as you claim, then why would intel place so much cache- a real space hog on the chip?


RE: amd is done
By zsdersw on 3/15/2007 5:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
I never said there was no impact, I said that 1MB of L2 cache isn't going to make the Pentium E series chips the dogs that Targon thinks they will be; that, in effect, L2 cache isn't the be-all-end-all to the architecture's performance.


RE: amd is done
By AstroCreep on 3/15/2007 12:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
And this is the first time anyone said this? Sheesh...
People have been speculating on how Intel will out fox AMD and vice-versa.

AMD is going nowhere.


Pentium name?
By exanimas on 3/14/2007 9:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, call me stupid but I thought Intel was intentionally steering away from the Pentium name.




RE: Pentium name?
By exanimas on 3/14/2007 9:44:11 PM , Rating: 1
Oops, no edit button (I'm fairly new here).

To elaborate on my post a bit more, it even says
quote:
dual-core Conroe-based processors with 1MB of shared L2 cache.
Wouldn't that, despite the change of cache, still fall in the category of Core 2 Duo? or are they just trying to get to those consumers who know/trust the Pentium name?

Again, sorry for the two posts.


RE: Pentium name?
By stburke on 3/14/2007 9:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, I don't know why they're bringing back the cursed Pentium name, but the general population doesn't seem to care as long as it's cheap.


RE: Pentium name?
By JackPack on 3/14/2007 10:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
So what's the alternative? Call it a Celeron? An $80, 1.80/1M product shouldn't be called Core 2, in my opinion.


RE: Pentium name?
By exanimas on 3/14/2007 11:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
As long as it's still based on the same architecture, I think it should be classified as a Core 2. Not that either of our opinions really affect this, but I still think the "average" user won't notice a difference between 1.80/1M (the Pentium) and 1.86/2M of an E6300. It's really only a value Core 2.

I do suppose it could be argued that Core 2 is based on Pentium M architecture, but that would be a long-shot in this case.


RE: Pentium name?
By JackPack on 3/15/2007 12:16:17 AM , Rating: 4
Benchmarks of this 1M chip would really help in this case. But my gut feeling says the Pentium brand would work well. It's got 1/4 the cache and a reduced FSB. That fits the MO for a Celeron. But since it's a dual-core product, it deserves the Pentium brand. The typical consumer might not feel the difference in performance, but the raw GHz and MB numbers look out of line for something to be called "Core 2" in 2007.


RE: Pentium name?
By tuteja1986 on 3/15/2007 12:57:20 AM , Rating: 1
MY X6800 CPU is now worthless ;( ... was worth $1000 and now its worth $260 and even less since its used.

but anyways i think this kind of price drop is crazy. Is intel worried about AMD having monster up their selves ? Does Intel want to stop AMD advance from capturing more market share ? Isn't intel worried about its shareholder revolting over this hung price drop or do they want AMD shareholders to slashing their own wrists as AMD can't compete in any sector. I wonder what goes on in the mind of these executives when they make a price cut like this when they are dominating the competition. Or this their grand plan to make sure AMD as a whole company gets completely overwhelmed by Intel major counter offense that they get no chance to recover. I hope intel knows what they are doing because loosing so much cash like this in business term is just plain stupid.


RE: Pentium name?
By Motley on 3/15/2007 1:04:12 AM , Rating: 2
They are thinking that the high end Quad processor that will be introduced around the same time will get the "Extreme" name, with the "Extreme" price. You always pay through the nose for the absolute best. You know, my $600 video card I just bought a few months ago is just about to be worth $200 or less. That's computers for ya.


RE: Pentium name?
By miahallen on 3/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: Pentium name?
By MrTeal on 3/15/2007 8:35:12 AM , Rating: 2
Well, your X6800 does have one thing over the E6850. I'd assume the multiplier on the new chip is locked, so having the extreme should give you a bit more flexibility overclocking.


RE: Pentium name?
By Spivonious on 3/15/2007 2:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'd guess that too, since it's E 6850, not X 6850. Similar to the unlocked Q X6700.


RE: Pentium name?
By nah on 3/15/2007 9:54:45 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, it's perfectly in fitting with Economic Theory. In theory, a CPU is a normal good--this means that people tend to consume more of it if their real disposable income goes up--if the prices fall down, this is exactly what happens. Also, the demand for high end CPUs tend to be price elastic--the revenue of the producers ( in this case Intel) will actually increase if prices fall down.


RE: Pentium name?
By cheburashka on 3/15/2007 1:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
"cursed Pentium name"
Only to the tech savy and Intel haters out there. Trust me, that name carries great notoriety in emerging markets and actually commands a price premium.


RE: Pentium name?
By mendocinosummit on 3/14/2007 9:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
I would think that that they don't want to introduce more numbers. Most importantly is the fact that they can greatly cripple the core duo core and not hurt the rep of there top mid-high processors.


RE: Pentium name?
By exanimas on 3/14/2007 10:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
That's actually a decent point. I suppose keeping Core 2 Duo as a name to "symbolize top of the line performance" is just the kind of thing marketing departments would say. Anyways, I still think it'll be a decent CPU and probably have a decent price to match despite the Pentium name.


RE: Pentium name?
By AQFP on 3/14/2007 10:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
Intel has too much invested in the Pentium TM to simply drop it. Most computer users (those not frequenting forums) are more familiar with Intel Pentium name and logo than any other. Bringing it back first with the T2060 and now the Pentium E is a smart move for market segmentation and to evaluate market response.

I would not be surprised to see "Nehalem" given the name Pentium 5 or Pentium V.


Intel wants to own the CPU world
By dandres87 on 3/15/2007 12:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
...............I'm an AMD fanboy, not becuase I'm illogical, but becuase economically they fend off Intel from complete mononopolization. When and if Intel owns the CPU world, what a sad day that will be, another Microsoft in the computer world, bending people over and raping them. AMD, for the budget they have is a far more innovative and superior company. I support AMD, not just because they make good CPU's, but becuase, in reality, they are better for the consumer. The underdog for life!!! (If Intel was the underdog then I'd support them)




RE: Intel wants to own the CPU world
By zsdersw on 3/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Intel wants to own the CPU world
By dandres87 on 3/15/2007 2:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
fools dont have rational justifications for their point of views. fools allegate without premises


RE: Intel wants to own the CPU world
By therealnickdanger on 3/15/2007 2:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
fools dont have rational justifications for their point of views

No, but fools often make rational justifications based upon bad facts. Please, O wise sage of t3h Interweb, enlighten us with the facts you have obtained that support your outrageous comments: "Microsoft rapes people" and "AMD is more innovative".


RE: Intel wants to own the CPU world
By dandres87 on 3/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Intel wants to own the CPU world
By zsdersw on 3/15/2007 5:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
You think the concept of an on-die memory controller is something AMD alone dreamed up? Wow.. there's no denying your fool status now.

And here's a pretty important piece of information for you: AMD and Intel have cross licensing agreements. There is no such thing as "stealing technology" between them.

Another important piece of information: AMD has an x86 license from Intel.. not the other way around.


By dandres87 on 3/15/2007 6:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
contesting semantics is pointless, i use the term loosely. No, an AMD "spy" did not break into Intel and steal a "secret formula", no duh, but i am rather indicating originality. And no AMD did not alone make anything all by itself, most developments are multi-corp, but for example, AMD has implemented on die mem controller, not intel, .. like i said arguing semantics is pointless


RE: Intel wants to own the CPU world
By dandres87 on 3/15/2007 6:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
contesting semantics is pointless, i use the term loosely. No, an AMD "spy" did not break into Intel and steal a "secret formula", no duh, but i am rather indicating originality. And no AMD did not alone make anything all by itself, most developments are multi-corp, but for example, AMD has implemented on die mem controller, not intel, .. like i said arguing semantics is pointless


By zsdersw on 3/15/2007 7:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
You use the term too loosely. I suppose that comes with being an AMD fanboy, though.


RE: Intel wants to own the CPU world
By SmokeRngs on 3/16/2007 2:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You think the concept of an on-die memory controller is something AMD alone dreamed up? Wow.. there's no denying your fool status now.


Invent the on die memory controller? No. Implement it on an x86 design and release it? Yes.

quote:
And here's a pretty important piece of information for you: AMD and Intel have cross licensing agreements. There is no such thing as "stealing technology" between them.


Incorrect. They have a cross licensing agreement concerning the x86 ISA. Changes such as SSE, 3DNow and x86-64 are shared freely. Chip architecture is not shared.

quote:
Another important piece of information: AMD has an x86 license from Intel.. not the other way around.


I don't see any relevance to this discussion. Sure, it's a truthful statement but I would like to know how it relates.


RE: Intel wants to own the CPU world
By zsdersw on 3/17/2007 9:00:00 AM , Rating: 2
Dandres' posts had a general tone of AMD brilliance, as in "thought up things on their own".. and that's what's wrong and why I responded.

quote:
Incorrect. They have a cross licensing agreement concerning the x86 ISA. Changes such as SSE, 3DNow and x86-64 are shared freely. Chip architecture is not shared.


What I said isn't incorrect. What you said was merely more specific, because they don't share chip architectures (obviously).


RE: Intel wants to own the CPU world
By dandres87 on 3/17/2007 12:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
apparently u didnt read my previous posts, I spoke mostly of implementations and a single project(fusion). Did i say anything about their brilliant engineers and R&D team? , no, it is well known AMD's R&D is lacking (budget), (ATi purchase helped this out some w/ extra engineers) and they work w/ IBM alot (who doesnt) but they implement Please stick to dealing w/ the statements, not the tone......


By zsdersw on 3/17/2007 3:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'll respond to whatever part of your posts I feel like responding to. In this case, it's the tone. In others, anything is up for grabs.


RE: Intel wants to own the CPU world
By cochy on 3/15/2007 10:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
EMt64 or whatever it was called was sheer brilliance in its time


How many people these days are running 64-bit operating systems? Sadly the number is quite tiny.
Maybe AMD's 64bit technology is "brilliant" but it's next to useless. That's why Intel didn't come up with it on their own. 64bit mainstream computing in the desktop space is still years away.

Intel came up with dual-core idea and AMD had to follow suit. That technology was just a wee bit more useful wouldn't you say?


By dandres87 on 3/16/2007 5:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
tis true Intel did come out w/ 2 CPU;s on one chip first, but it was double core ( 2 dies put together) VS AMD's dual core (2 core on one die)


By darkpaw on 3/20/2007 4:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
200+ for a retail copy of an OS is exorbitant.


$200 for a piece of software you'll use everyday for the next 3-5+ years is exorbiant? Seems pretty fair to me considering I'm happy if I get 40 hours out of a game I pay $50 for. That software is going to have a longer useful life then any hardware you buy.

AMD has done nothing but good things for CPUS, if they didn't exist we'd be using $500 P4's today. That in itself is no reason to support them exclusively though. The reason they have been so successful for the last few years is that they had great products, well now Intel has the better products so AMD has to pony up.


Those Pentium E chips look good for Minis
By Doormat on 3/14/2007 11:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
I can see Apple putting those cheap chips in a Mac Mini and getting the price down a little (the current chip in the Mini, a 1.66Ghz Core Duo, supposedly costs $200 or so according to Intel's own price list). Putting an $80 chip in the box could bring the price back down to $499. The biggest question is can those "Pentium E" chips fit the thermal envelope of the Mini.

Even the E4000-series would be a great improvement for the Mini and iMac, as long as the thermal envelope is OK.




RE: Those Pentium E chips look good for Minis
By JoKeRr on 3/15/2007 12:26:18 AM , Rating: 2
Where are the prices for quad core processors?


RE: Those Pentium E chips look good for Minis
By regnez on 3/15/2007 12:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Those Pentium E chips look good for Minis
By Pitbulll0669 on 3/15/2007 8:32:39 AM , Rating: 2
Im useing a QX6700 quad at 3.4 right now. i love it can multitask like a bitch..I think their plan is to push ever one in to Quad ,ESPEC. when they break the 45nm chips. So I would have to agree that this could be the nail in AMDs Coffin.. they beter hurry up with something quick .BUT. i think they are spread TO THIN buy Buying ATI I think they are SCREWED.I think that was a big mistake and Im a ATI guy.. so ...


RE: Those Pentium E chips look good for Minis
By knowom on 3/15/07, Rating: 0
By Comdrpopnfresh on 3/15/2007 1:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
so right! The main outcome of AMD buying ati is that they now don't have to pay licensing fees, and have an in-house chipset. Intel has been making their own chipsets for years, and it helps, because they are not reliant on third-party companies to support their processors. This very reason is why the socket-A failed. There was little support. Now AMD can release their own chipsets with a processor, and the third parties can be damned.

The other genius outcome will be in value desktops and laptops. They are usually bought by people who don't have the working knowledge to swap out or upgrade parts, or can't. So in the case of a desktop, the people without knowledge simply get another cheap desktop when performance sucks compared to their neighbor or friend. They don't bother with upgrades- the original thermal paste never sees light!
In laptops, people generally don't mess around with the innards because warranties are voided, and those with a loose knowledge that could work on desktops are frightened by how compact the inside of a laptop is- as if proximity has anything to do with the scale of destruction if you screw up!
So basically, when fusion comes out, AMD will minimize its fabrications, complexity of chipsets, and increase revenue in laptops and value desktops, because even when the gpu/cpu core is obsolete (given the gpu core- I give it a month or two), people won't upgrade. They won't even be hurting their bottom line, because in these two sectors of laptops and low-desktops people don't upgrade the graphics, so the fusion won't end up competing with the acquired ATI graphics! Plus fusion will allow for much more efficient operation in computers, making for less power draw, less noise, less heat, and longer battery life in the case of laptops. AMD is on the verge of breaking into the big time...


RE: Those Pentium E chips look good for Minis
By Spivonious on 3/15/2007 2:17:17 PM , Rating: 2
AMD has made their own chipsets before, and they stank up the place.


By silver on 3/19/2007 4:58:37 AM , Rating: 2
I completely disagree and as someone that has two Abit KG7 motherboards running AMD 751 chipsets, I think I have a little experience here. Frankly they were at least as good (stable) as Intels 810 series and were running DDR long before Intel had anything comparable. Almost 2 year IIRC.


By cheburashka on 3/15/2007 1:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
That "Fusion" part is meant for mobile so not sure which measure of performance you are trying to get at.

"AMD's dual quad cores will rip Intel's quad core's apart"
8 > 4 so it damn well better or they have huge problems.


Retail/OEM cost?
By FightingChance on 3/14/2007 9:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
While it's interesting to see per 1000 units pricing, is there any formula those numbers can be run through to get a hint at what we'll actually be paying?




RE: Retail/OEM cost?
By Nightmare225 on 3/14/2007 9:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
Should be pretty close to these prices...

If true, I may be upgrading to Quad-core sooner than expected. :O


RE: Retail/OEM cost?
By danz32 on 3/14/2007 9:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
Same with me...

I was wondering in the business sense, what are the exact dates for Q307. Im building a new computer and I obviously want the cheaper prices, so does anybody know a more exact date?


RE: Retail/OEM cost?
By policy11 on 3/19/2007 10:22:27 AM , Rating: 2
3rd Quarter: April 1, 2007 – June 30, 2007

quote:
I was wondering in the business sense, what are the exact dates for Q307. Im building a new computer and I obviously want the cheaper prices, so does anybody know a more exact date?


RE: Retail/OEM cost?
By Calin on 3/15/2007 3:08:25 AM , Rating: 2
Big vendors (retail vendors) will buy chips with the tens of thousands, maybe more for less expensive chips. As I have seen, once the market is filled with those chips, their cheapest price is a bit lower than the 1,000 pieces reference price


RE: Retail/OEM cost?
By stburke on 3/14/2007 9:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
Processors are always given in a per 1,000 before launch. Why? I dont know. But yes the consumer prices will be similar.


RE: Retail/OEM cost?
By mendocinosummit on 3/14/2007 9:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
Once things stable by meeting the demand and having a good supply I usually expect the price to be a under the 1000 unit price by a around 5% ($5-$10).


.45nm?
By Gatt on 3/14/2007 10:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
These aren't the .45nm parts are they? I'm confused :(




RE: .45nm?
By fk49 on 3/14/2007 10:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
The 45nm (.45um) parts are penryn quad-cores due in Q4 07 or Q1 08. These are just the second-gen Core 2 Duo parts.


RE: .45nm?
By rmaharaj on 3/14/2007 10:35:29 PM , Rating: 3
No, these are 65nm.


RE: .45nm?
By BucDan on 3/14/2007 10:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
let's see AMD bounce to this.... i believe they will do well...let's hope(at least i do)


RE: .45nm?
By Targon on 3/15/2007 7:30:35 AM , Rating: 2
As I mentioned earlier, the time frame for this stuff from Intel is probably set to happen at close to the time that AMD releases their new architecture. Since this is just newer parts from Intel without any change to the architecture, it may or may not be enough to keep Intel ahead of AMD. If K8L/K10 is as good as AMD claims it is, AMD should regain some lost ground, if not overtake Intel, even with these refresh parts.

The low-end from these new Intel parts with smaller cache size may have the low performance needed to classify the chips as complete garbage so will be written off by most. We will need to see what the performance really is.


RE: .45nm?
By zsdersw on 3/15/07, Rating: 0
Intel over reacting?
By Will E Will on 3/15/2007 9:39:32 AM , Rating: 2
I think it is very curious that Intel is acting so aggressively on price and new product launch when there is no real competition in the ring from AMD. I personaly think they are setting themselves up for a mild letdown. They may be looking at a similar situation to what happened to them when they introduced the CORE marchitecture and flooded the market with cheap P4 chips. No one bought the P4's because they where old, slow, and hot even though the had bock bottom prices. Heck, you can still find new P4's fairly cheap and plentiful supply.

I feel like the same will happen this time around when AMD releases Barcelona, Agena FX, Agena & Kuma. Just because they have the performance crown currently, doesn't mean that everyone will flock to them. I for one am admittedly bullish on AMD, and would only buy Intel as a last resort or if a complete solution (CPU, Motherboard, RAM) was significantly cheaper with greater performance. But of course, I'm biased.




RE: Intel over reacting?
By feelingshorter on 3/15/2007 10:33:43 AM , Rating: 2
If you "flooded" the market with Toyota Camry's to the point that the price for a new one dropped 3-4k would anyone still buy them? Hell yes. These aren't crappy processors, they are better than AMD. I believe Intel is trying to kick AMD where it hurts, in the market for cheap cheap systems. By releasing these CPUs, and then releasing chipsets/mobos to run them, Intel is setting themselves up for success.

If I was running a race that depends on money and I was way ahead of the competition, I would still keep running as though they were in front of me. From a consumer point of view what does it matter? Wii will win.


RE: Intel over reacting?
By Puddleglum1 on 3/15/2007 11:11:05 AM , Rating: 2
Personal feelings should not get in the way of you fragging your friends at a higher frame-rate at a lower cost.


Doesn't make sense
By webdawg77 on 3/15/2007 10:04:44 AM , Rating: 2
E6550 2.33 GHz 4MB 1333 MHz $163 w/ TXT
E6540 2.33 GHz 4MB 1333 MHz $163 w/o TXT

quote:
At the bottom end of the Core 2 Duo E6x50 family are the E6550 and E6540 processors clocked at 2.33 GHz, which cost $163 per processor, in 1,000 unit quantities. Intel’s Core 2 Duo E6540 differs from the rest of the 1333 MHz front-side bus Core 2 Duo lineup because it does not have support for Intel’s Trusted Execution Technology, also known as TXT.


quote:
Intel® Trusted Execution Technology for safer computing, formerly code named LaGrande Technology, is a versatile set of hardware extensions to Intel® processors and chipsets that enhance the digital office platform with security capabilities such as measured launch and protected execution. Intel Trusted Execution Technology provides hardware-based mechanisms that help protect against software-based attacks and protects the confidentiality and integrity of data stored or created on the client PC. It does this by enabling an environment where applications can run within their own space, protected from all other software on the system. These capabilities provide the protection mechanisms, rooted in hardware, that are necessary to provide trust in the application's execution environment. In turn, this can help to protect vital data and processes from being compromised by malicious software running on the platform.


http://www.intel.com/technology/security/

My question becomes ... why would you buy the one without TXT even if you weren't going to use it? If you EVER decided that you needed it, why not go ahead and get it for the exact same price. I know that retailers might charge a slight premium, but it shouldn't be that much more for the E6550 over the E6540.




RE: Doesn't make sense
By gramboh on 3/15/2007 10:22:56 AM , Rating: 2
Probably only see the 6540 in OEM machines would be my guess.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By Comdrpopnfresh on 3/15/2007 1:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
well in the case of XP, isn't XD, or TXT not turned on fully by default? Maybe its the same with vista, and with the case of oems, listed above, people just won't know or care. They're just squeezing a few bucks out of something thats a bit defective. Plus, I don't think the average consumer would notice unless the two boxes were right next to each other in the store, and considering they're usually kept in those glass security lockers the chances of someone who doesn't know finding out is abysmal...


fx 60 for $99.
By thomasxstewart on 3/15/2007 8:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
tyan has new 5- dual core/dual processor mainboards rkstation out for really power hungry, amd or intel, buyers choice. summer 3300 level controllers power up for quad coming on in same model, wowie. power baby.big black & bad. one thing amd has is memory & northbridge bus controllers on die, so its not over, yet large is difference.choices.to be super multi threaded ready.

Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.




RE: fx 60 for $99.
By rippleyaliens on 3/16/2007 8:56:01 AM , Rating: 2
The price point for those chips are on par. Now the market is 200+ million CPU's per year, intel is at the 65nm and soon 45nm. IE the chips are getting smaller, YET,faster, YET able to make MORE cpu's off of the same silicon wafer versus the p4's. Some thoughts are like 2-2.5x the number of CPU's off of the same wafer that normally used for p4's. SO in effect, intel isnt loosing any money, infact, they will actually make much more.

Dell fumbeled last year, with this, switch to AMD. Sure consumer saved a wopping $50. WOW..
Corporations, like a hospital, buy 1200 pc's a year. the 3 year cycle. 1/3 and such. Such aggressive pricing is normal. AMD just doesnt cut prices like this. If you look in the past. Year over year, intel does this. Nothing new. Now with AMD, they had better have a REALLY STRONG product lineup. Not some patch to help them roll over.

Im no fan boy, i am a Price per Performance realist. when intel was on top, i was with INTEL. When AMD went on top, guess what? I stayed Intel, simply because of 1 factor. IT would have cost me Much more to migrate to AMD, versus just upgrade my intels. Now when the systems, have to be identical, well, 1 vendor, it will be unless some miricale. happens.
I cant wait for these new cpu's.. Makes me wonder hard, what the extreme version will pack in. ANd yah, there is a huge difference performance wise. Is it worth $600 difference, well, if you make >90k, what is 600 over a 2 year time payment? That is how people rationalize. K8L cia, whatever amd is calling it, had better be STRONG!!!!!!!!!


Source?
By peldor on 3/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Source?
By Comdrpopnfresh on 3/15/2007 1:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
the article states- revealed, not speculated, and theres no footnote saying it is speculation- its the real deal...


Great, sucks
By Comdrpopnfresh on 3/15/2007 1:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is awesome that the price of the current chips will go down. However, I think it sucks that a premium, in comparison, will have to payed for the 1333mhz bus- which is the main feature along with the L2 that makes me want an Duo.

The move intel is making I think will only strengthen their competition from AMD however. AMD does not have the fabrication power Intel does, so by intel lowering prices and spreading conroe-based chips from entry-value to top of the line, they make it easy for AMD to concede and simply only fab barcelona to blow the top conroes out of the water. If intel has simply released better conroes for more than the current, left the prices the same, and introduced the sub-2ghz chups as bargain, then AMD would still have the niche spot of value and midrange chips- and their fabrication would be split. But now, they will be forced to go to the top with Barcelona, make more fabs for that purpose, and simply work their way down as things fail tests or cores are fabbed broken.
In the long run, unless intel has a twist up their sleeve (in architectural sense, not more cores jammed into a processor) they may be hurting themselves.

Some questions:

1. Why are core-architecture chips being named Pentium? Is intel planning on heading back to the pentium naming after the current architecture?

2. After it taking the netburst architecture years to make it from sub-2ghz to roughly 3.5ghz before an architecture switch, we are seeing the core architecture get to native (unoverclocked) speeds of 3.0ghz in roughly 10-12 months.
a. how far does this architecture run in terms of ghz?
b. will intel rely on bus and cache and other architectural changes this time instead of simple speed changes with netburst?




By rushfan2006 on 3/15/2007 2:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
....just liking a brand and not getting ridiculed for it?

Not that I'm ancient (being that I'm in my early 30's)...but I remember the days like 10-15 years ago on BBS and other forums you could just say a brand you liked and people would be "cool. I just like [the other brand] more because of [this, this and that]".

Today, somehwere along the line someone spotted off the "fanboy" terminology and now its pretty associated as you are stupid for your brand of choice.

Some people just like different brands - for whatever reason. I think its relevant to debate, based on facts, the performance differences but beyond that -- unless YOU are buying it for the person...its really not your damn business what brand someone likes to go with or not. So why hack on them about it?

Its just so childish to me...."Check out my new Nike sneakers.....oh wait you just have Reebok's...Reebok's are so retarded".

I mean c'mon.

Perhaps their are reasons beyond just the product that a person won't buy a brand name....you just don't know the situation. Maybe a high ranking officer in that particular company wronged someone morally or ethically or something, so now the customer out right refuses to support that company's profits.

Me...I use whatever brand offers the best performance for my needs that meets my budget.

Right now that is Intel - so I go Intel...for years it was AMD, so I went AMD....its as simple as that.




By jay401 on 3/15/2007 3:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
Are those for the Bearlake chipset or something else? Would be a bit silly to get a 1333MHz CPU and use it on a board that is designed for 800MHz FSB (assuming one is not oc'ing).

Also is Q3 release more likely to be July or September (i.e. the beginning or end of Q3)?




Why I'll probably stick with AMD.
By silver on 3/19/2007 5:24:38 AM , Rating: 2
Well I'm sitting here sifting through all of the opinions and such on the whole AMD vs. Intel thing and I've read a huge amount of opinions which comes down to this :

A) Conroe outperforms anything AMD has.

B) AMD might/might not have something that will outperform Conroe after the 1333FSB update.

C) Boards built with Intels' 965 chipset seem extremely fickle on both memory and hard drive selection.

D) Nobody's talking about a memory upgrade yet.

But here's my clincher and why I'll probably stick with AMD.

Intel has done almost everything conceivable to insure that they have a monopoly. They have proven that they have no business ethics at all and are simply out for profit at any and all costs. I realize that most of the world (along with the American stock market system) actually encourages such behavior however anyone that believes this is in the long-term best interest of the consumer clearly could use a course in economics. Further, there is no doubt in my mind that Intel has quite deliberately engaged in exclusionary practices which have had a huge impact on the level of innovation in the field of personal computer engineering over the last 9 years. To put it mildly I find this repulsive and as such I won't be giving them any of my hard earned coinage anytime soon.




Is this real? There is no source.
By corey1505 on 3/22/2007 12:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
This is the only site iv seen this information on. Does anybody know if it is actually going to happen and what the source is.





By bloodypete on 3/31/2007 10:05:55 AM , Rating: 2
Intels Core2 chips are damn amazing, a complete turn around for them, and as people say AMD's K8L had better be pretty damn amazing (and cheap) to pull the crown back. but AMD will loose in the end as Intel already have 8, 16 and 32 cores mapped out and have a 80core Teraflop chip in prototype. Add this to them designing a new tranisistor type that hold signal strength better they're onto a winner.

also look at the Xbox 360 Vs PS3 wars, microsoft have sony beaten hands down because they got there so much faster with a machine thats just as powerful, but alot cheaper, a price that keeps dropping, and one sony can only wish it could beat. this is the same as core2's Vs K8L's as the core2's have been out for longer and people know they are amazing chips. also given the fact that AM2 can use K8L's, but only in an limited way, so if you want to use them to the full you need a new M/B and DDR3 RAM, and god knows the prices of that. where as you can just pop a Core2Quad in a LGA775 and all you'll need to do is update the BIOs(assuming its a newer board with the correct voltage suppliers). all in all AMD may pull off a fast one with K8L but only until the pure-bred core2quad's come along, and then 8core's then 16, then 32, stuff AMD can only dream of.

but them to be honest software needs to be completely rewritten to take advantage of anything over dual-core, so personally i'm just going to stick with my core 2 duo E6600 overclocked to 6GHz (at last intel have broken 5GHz in one respect)

ps. sorry if i rambled too much




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook











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