backtop


Print 87 comment(s) - last by intelcpu.. on Jul 6 at 11:03 AM

Intel processor revenue share drops less than 1% as AMD's share grows by more than 2%

AMD and Intel by far the two largest processor firms around and Intel is many times larger than AMD. Intel holds a huge percentage of the global processor market, while AMD is a distant second in both revenue and marketshare.

Research firm iSuppli released its global statistics for the processor market. According to iSuppli, Intel holds a massive 79.7% of the world’s processor revenues leaving AMD with 10.9% of the global processor revenue.

When the revenue numbers are compared to Q1 2007, Intel’s revenue share in the processor market has dropped by 0.7%. At the same time AMD has been able to grow its share of the processor market revenue by 2.2%. According to iSuppli, AMD’s gain is a sign that consumers are responding better to AMD products.

ISuppli estimates that about half of AMD’s growth in revenue market share came at the expense of Intel and that the remainder came at the expense of the smaller processor makers. ISuppli also says that average selling prices from both Intel and AMD didn’t decrease in the first quarter of 2008 signaling that price wars between Intel and AMD have stopped.

Between Intel and AMD the two firms hold 92.7% of the total microprocessor market worldwide estimated to be worth about $286.5 billion in 2008. Despite the weakened U.S. economy, computer sales are still going strong.

ISuppli reported recently that PC shipments in Q1 2008 increased by 12.1% globally.



Comments     Threshold


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

Price/Performance
By sgtdisturbed47 on 7/2/2008 3:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
That's where it's at. Price/performance ratio. Intel CPU's, since the release of the Core 2 Duo, have been amazing performers at a great price. From the budget-end to the gaming-end, the Intel CPU's have been the first pick for many home users, gamers, and hard workers.

Having my E8400 running at 4.3 GHz at only 1.33v, and paying only $190 for it, it offers amazing performance for an affordable price. That's where the gold is.

AMD needs to kick things up quite a bit if they want to catch up. Lately it's been all about their 48xx ATI cards, but they need to start focusing on making some better CPU's. Long gone are the glory days of the AMD Athlon 64 days, and people have been keeping their eyes on Intel ever since the Core 2 Duo line came about.




RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 3:44:49 PM , Rating: 5
Cheapo Athlon X2 is enough to make about 30-60 FPS in about any modern game with proper GPU. Why pay extra $$$ for Intel if you can pay less for AMD and invest extra few bucks in a better GPU to get better graphics and framerate? This explains why AMD is gaining users back.

One simple example - I own a cheapo Intel C2D Allendale 2.0 GHz, and 9800GTX. This combo gives me waaay better FPS in Crysis compared to another guy's PC with uber duber Quad XXX Intel Extreme SooperCooled Edition blahblah for $1000 bucks plus some cheapo $100 GPU.

My next purchase will likely be Athlon X2 again, and the money I save on AMD CPUs I'll invest in a better nVidia GPU (they are still better pick for hi-end stuff like Crysis although AMD is slowly catching up there too)

Hehe, looks like it'll be time to say Intel buy-bye again, just like in good ol' Netburst days. It's all about GPU these days, who cares about CPU besides some benchmarkers and vapochillo worshipping freakos and such... $100 Athlon X2 plus any hi-end GPU like 9800GTX or AMD 4870 - and you're all set for grrreat hi-end gamaing, even Crysis will run fine (well, 95% of the game for now, to be honest, until dieshrunk/cheap 280GTX arrives)


RE: Price/Performance
By Warren21 on 7/2/2008 3:58:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
, and the money I save on AMD CPUs I'll invest in a better nVidia GPU (they are still better pick for hi-end stuff like Crysis although AMD is slowly catching up there too)


Depending on how long you wait, it doesn't look like nVIDIA is releasing anything terribly new or improved for a while still (the next 3 months or so). The 9800 GT is coming out soon, but that's really a 55nm 112SP G92 with 2 x 6-pin PEG connectors.

The die-shrunk GT200 won't be out until winter (Dec?) at best, possibly even Q1 09. Meanwhile the HD 4870 X2 will be out before the end of the summer and from preliminary info, it should beat the GTX 280 by double-digit %'s yet still come in cheaper (unless NV does a price cut to counter-act it).

Also, the HD 4850 (MSRP 199) is within 1.x FPS of the 9800 GTX (MSRP 199) (2.x of the GTX+ - MSRP 229) in Crysis, yet still new enough to have room for improved drivers (meaning more performance to come). Not only that, but in most other titles it wins outright. But hey, it's your money, not mine...


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 4:18:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
die-shrunk GT200 won't be out until winter
Right by the time Crysis Warhead arrives. Very handy coincidence I'd say.
quote:
HD 4870 X2 will be out before the end of the summer
I don't trust multi-GPU solutions, single chip GPU is always better. No SLI related scaling problems, no CF related problems, everything just works without any lags or something.


RE: Price/Performance
By Warren21 on 7/2/2008 4:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
Almost forgot about that game! I hope it doesn't stop at the same point as Nomad's side of the story did.

Many people are hoping the new CF Sideport on the RV770's new memory hub will somehow improve this issue. However, I agree it is impossible to deny that getting the same perf. from a single GPU is just plain more reliable than using two.


RE: Price/Performance
By TMV192 on 7/2/2008 6:39:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't trust multi-GPU solutions, single chip GPU is always better

While true lets not forgot what happened to the CPU industry as it went from increasing clocks to increasing cores. Even today, double cores translates far less than 200% performance but price makes it worth it. Same will happen from these GPU solutions. ATi has done well recently in keeping up with technology even when behind in performance, referring to moving to GDDR4 and then 5, shrinking to 55nm, DirectX 10.1, and working to lead CrossfireX ahead of SLI


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Price/Performance
By Warren21 on 7/2/2008 8:24:22 PM , Rating: 4
Anandtech's HD 38404870 Review:

Crysis, 1920 x 1200, no AA/AF

HD 4850 CF (199 x 2): 36.4
GTX 280 (649): 34.3

Aannnd, just for jokes:

Single HD 4870 (299): 29.7
Single GTX 260 (399): 28.6

Seems like someone enjoys spending more for less...


RE: Price/Performance
By Warren21 on 7/2/2008 8:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
Should read:

Anandtech's HD 4850/4870 Review:


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 8:43:35 PM , Rating: 1
OK, then it's time for me to wake up. But I followed Anand's recommendations to always avoid SLI/CF setups 'cause it's a waste of money. What should I do now? Wait for 4870 X2 then, I guess


RE: Price/Performance
By Dasickninja on 7/3/2008 6:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
Which is CF on a board.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/3/2008 2:57:23 PM , Rating: 1
Which again pushes me back to dieshrunk GTX280. I'll make final decision after I see benches of Crysis Warhead on 4870 X2 and GTX280.


RE: Price/Performance
By BSMonitor on 7/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 4:25:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Show me those benchmarks
Show me the benchmarks where you can't reach 30-60 FPS in SupCom at 1900x1440 on Atlon X2 2.8GHz that costs about $90 these days. Plus a proper GPU of course (cheap stuff like 9800GTX or AMD 4850 will do ;-)

Learn to post facts that support your point, my naive fearmongering friend :P


RE: Price/Performance
By Nyamekye on 7/2/2008 7:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to care more about pointless things and less about important things.

Remember, the point of playing the game is to play the game.

If you can turn on the eye candy, and play it on your screen at a reasonable resolution, with a playable frame rate - you should be happy. And then focus on playing the game.

The Athlon X2 may not allow you to turn up everything to the max, but it will low you to play the game, and get the satisfaction of winning.


RE: Price/Performance
By FaceMaster on 7/2/2008 4:15:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I own a cheapo Intel C2D Allendale 2.0 GHz


And that's just the problem. Intel DO have faster processors at high prices... but their budget ones can still beat the AMD ones at the same price.

*Facemaster died soon afterwards from rabid fans of AMD and... uh... IBM*


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 4:37:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Intel do have faster processors at high prices... but their budget ones can still beat the AMD ones at the same price
Really? So are you telling me that C2D E4600 for $120 actually BEATS Athlon X2 6000+ for $114? Are you sure it's NOT THE OTHER WAY? :)))

Heh, another naive DT reader. You too should learn to check the facts before posting here, Mr. "Budget CPU Expert" ;-)

Like I said this is reason why people prefer AMD these days - 'coz AMD trumps Intel in budget/mainstream segment if you look at price/performance and exclude OC 'coz most buyers don't OC. And very few people buy high end Intel chips, hence the AMD gains on the market.


RE: Price/Performance
By TomZ on 7/2/2008 4:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, it's a little hypocritical to criticize others and then to blurt out made-up facts like:
quote:
Like I said this is reason why people prefer AMD these days - 'coz AMD trumps Intel in budget/mainstream segment if you look at price/performance and exclude OC 'coz most buyers don't OC. And very few people buy high end Intel chips, hence the AMD gains on the market.

Clearly, just by looking at the data in this article, you can obviously tell that most people actually prefer Intel, not AMD. Otherwise if you were right, then AMD would have 10X the sales of Intel, and not the other way around.

For myself personally, the only thing AMD has going for it now is that they are cheap. But when I'm in the market for a machine I'll use every day for 2-3 years, I'll gladly pay a $25-50 premium to get higher performance and lower power consumption. But that's just me...


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 5:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
There must be a reason why Intel market share is shrinking and AMD market share is growing. I just identified it. Call it hypocrytical or whatever, I don't care. Market share facts speak for themselves. You can call market analysts hypocrites for all you want, Tom. Be my guest :-P


RE: Price/Performance
By Nfarce on 7/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 5:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Price/Performance
By TomZ on 7/2/2008 6:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
You must be a die-hard AMD fanboy. You cherry-pick the one bechmark out of dozens that favor Phenom and ignore literally every other benchmark which shows Phenom getting tromped by various Intel processors? Way to miss the big picture.

That article also questions the "problem with the missing performance" of Phenom, discusses lots of stability issues, and questions whether Phenom is the next NetBurst.

I'll leave you with this final quote from that article:

The Phenom X4 9950 BE and 9850 BE are reasonably competitive with the Q9300 and Q6600, although we would still opt for the Intel solutions thanks to lower power consumption and significantly better overclocking potential. Gaming performance continues to be a strength of Intel's as well.

In the end, overclocking and CnQ issues aside, AMD's latest price cuts do ensure that the Phenom is a viable second choice alternative to Intel's Core 2 Duo and Quad lines. Unfortunately unlike AMD's successes on the graphics side, it's not enough to dethrone the king. ... It's good, but not good enough.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 6:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you ask big boy above about his cherry-picking of the benchmark that favors Intel? He started cherry-picking, hence ask him first, not me.

Better overclocking potential? Most people don't OC, so it's a moot point for a majority of buyers. Otherwise AMD would be losing on Intel, not gaining like now.

Gaming performance? I told you already that it's all about GPU, not about CPU these days. Any cheapo Athlon X2 with decent GPU like 9800GTX will trump any Intel QuadExtremeDuperOCXXXOMG "wonder" paired up with a lousy Intel GPU or some other low-end $100 GPU in any decent game, even in Crysis.

Why would anyone invest their money in CPU instead of GPU if he/she is not an Intel fanboy and just wants to get a decent gaming rig?

See, just one simple question and puff, there goes the "Intel ownz the gaming" legend :P

Anyway, most people are not interested in quads yet (give it another year or two), and in dualcores AMD trumps Intel anywhere mainstream buyer would look (meaning non-OC rig with some mainstream $100 dualcore CPU inside), hence we got what we got - all this hypocritical stuff about AMD gaining on Intel and such ;-)


RE: Price/Performance
By Nfarce on 7/2/2008 6:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, as another adult stated, AMD's offering just isn't there to really compete with Intel neck and neck. I didn't feel like posting all of Intel's wins against the very few of AMD's, one of which you pointed out.

Bottom line, it's your money homie. I know what I like.


RE: Price/Performance
By gumbi18 on 7/2/2008 7:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gaming performance? I told you already that it's all about GPU, not about CPU these days. Any cheapo Athlon X2 with decent GPU like 9800GTX will trump any Intel QuadExtremeDuperOCXXXOMG "wonder" paired up with a lousy Intel GPU or some other low-end $100 GPU in any decent game, even in Crysis. Why would anyone invest their money in CPU instead of GPU if he/she is not an Intel fanboy and just wants to get a decent gaming rig?


Why would anyone who spends $1000 on a CPU spend only $100 on some low end GPU or use an IGP. It just doesn't make sense. Anyone who has that kind of cash to spend usually has more cash to spend on a decent GPU.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 7:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
The more interesting question is why would anyone spend $$$ on an expensive Intel CPU while he/she can invest in expensive nVidia GPU instead and get much more bang for a back gaming wise. Even Supreme Commander works pretty well on an inexpensive $114 Athlon X2, and this is the most CPU dependent game ever.


RE: Price/Performance
By gescom on 7/3/2008 12:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
intel Q9300 = 190+ EUR http://geizhals.at/eu/a299998.html
AMD Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition = 180+ EUR http://geizhals.at/eu/a346956.html

according to anandtech, they are performance comparable
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

It means AMD has better price/performance chip? How is that possible?


RE: Price/Performance
By Nfarce on 7/2/2008 6:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
Otay, and this fanboi?

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amdphenomx3_042...

Nehalem is waiting for the next AMD beatdown. Painless is waiting. :p

Disclaimer: I'm glad AMD is making CPUs against Intel. Period.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 8:01:44 PM , Rating: 1
Or maybe Nehalem is waiting for a few nasty surprises from 45nm Phenoms? You just wait, big boy.


RE: Price/Performance
By MamiyaOtaru on 7/3/2008 2:08:59 AM , Rating: 2
What the heck is your investment in AMD?


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/3/2008 2:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
What the heck is your investment in Intel?


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/3/2008 2:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What the heck is your investment in Intel?


You didn't answer his question.


RE: Price/Performance
By TomZ on 7/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 6:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you flame Shane McGlaun for making up "facts" about

"Intel’s revenue share in the processor market has dropped by 0.7%. At the same time AMD has been able to grow its share of the processor market revenue by 2.2%"

huh?

See, I only repeat his words, so flame him instead of me please. Thanks for understanding.

quote:
Higher quality products are more valuable to customers, and can therefore command higher ASPs and margins
Careful, Tom, you're just one step away from admitting Macs being high quality products that are more valuable to customers, hence commanding higher ASPs and margins over Windows PCs. That's a dangerous road to -1 rating here, Tom, so WATCH IT! :)))


RE: Price/Performance
By BSMonitor on 7/2/2008 7:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
Haha noob. Must be from the bible belt. You are the one who posted that an X2 can get 30-60 fps.... Where is the proof?

http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/04/23/supreme....

42.93 fps for the fastest Athlon X2. And that's only 1024x768 resolution.

Barely 31 fps for the $90 X2's you are whining about.

OWNED!


RE: Price/Performance
By BSMonitor on 7/2/2008 7:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 7:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ath...
Why stupid? Because Athlon X2 6000+ posts 37 FPS in SupCom no matter what Intel fearmongers babble? Yeah, THG is stupid to debunk ya Intel lovers, sure :) I told ya SupCom will post somewhere between 30 and 60 FPS on a fast Athlon X2 so I was right, see?


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 8:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Barely 31 fps for the $90 X2. OWNED!
Yeah, THG just owned you, fanboy. I said above that SupCom will post above 30 FPS on that $90 AMD chip, and THG just proved my words. Eat this, Intel lover. Go cry a river about THG posting wrong graphs or something :o)


RE: Price/Performance
By Calin on 7/3/2008 9:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
AMD is capacity constrained - it sells all the processors it can produce (at these prices). As such, even if you could buy Phenoms for $5, while Intel would sell Celerons at $500, AMD won't take more than a fifth of the market or so.


RE: Price/Performance
By FaceMaster on 7/2/2008 7:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
C2D E4600 for $120 actually BEATS Athlon X2 6000+


Yeah it does... try overclocking them both to see what I mean :)


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 7:48:51 PM , Rating: 1
Moot point. Most people don't care about OC.


RE: Price/Performance
By FaceMaster on 7/2/2008 7:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
Okay then... power consumption.

COME ON, Pirks... you're a die-hard fan of AMD if you claim that points such as overclocking don't matter. Of course they do. The amd 6000 isn't likely to be overclocked much more (I'm expecting you to find a stupidly large water/liquid hydrogen solution to prove me wrong), while the Intel ones have masses of head room.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 8:06:58 PM , Rating: 1
Even in power consumption AMD trumps Intel. Where are my 45W 2.5 GHz dualcore CPUs from Intel, huh? Why Intel draws 20 Watts more than 45W AMD X2, huh? You tell me, fanboy :-)


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/2/2008 8:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you've never heard of Wolfdale.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel...


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 9:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you never heard of Wolfdale's power rating. Read up on it, noob :) Maybe you'll understand what the 45W TDP of Athlon X2 is about.


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/2/2008 9:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I have. Maybe you didn't click the link in my post.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 9:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
You have what? Comparison between __125W TDP__ Athlon X2 and 65W TDP Core 2 Duo?

Are you AFRAID to show me comparison between __45W TDP__ Athlon X2 and LGA775 Wolfdale, huh? :)))

Intel lovers never can show proper comparison graphs, 'cause their beloved Intel suddenly looks not so tough when they try comparing apples to apples :P


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/2/2008 9:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, no.. I wasn't intending to compare to any AMD chip with that link.. merely to point out how much (or little) power the Wolfdale chips were drawing.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 9:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
to point out how much (or little) power the Wolfdale chips were drawing
What's the point of that if Athlon X2 draws even less power than Wolfdale? :)


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/2/2008 9:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
You first wanted to see 45W Intel dual-core CPUs.. so I showed you proof of Intel dual-core CPUs drawing less than 45W. In later posts you added "TDP", which is entirely different from *actual* power consumption.

I can show you a truly remarkable CPU that draws 0W.. it's the CPU in my computer when the computer is unplugged. Irrelevant, you say? Of course, but that's not the point.

The point is that power consumption, as a measurement taken alone, is useless. What truly matters is how much performance you get out of each watt the CPU consumes. In that measurement, it's hard to beat the Wolfdale across *all* applications, not just games.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 10:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's hard to beat the Wolfdale
Now this is a statement that I expect to be supported by something more solid than just your words. I can say a lot of things too, but gimme hard numbers.

Where's the compariosn of performance per watt between Wolfdale and 45W X2? Where are these live numbers, huh? Can't see them!

If you can't provide numbers as a proof - then why post here? I know you like Wolfdale more than Athlon X2, so your posts add nothing concrete.

You like this more, I like that more, you have no numbers to prove your point, so what? End of discussion, right?


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/2/2008 10:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now this is a statement that I expect to be supported by something more solid than just your words. I can say a lot of things too, but gimme hard numbers. Where's the compariosn of performance per watt between Wolfdale and 45W X2? Where are these live numbers, huh? Can't see them!


Such comparisons haven't been made yet, but let's consider the following:

- The X2 4850e is Brisbane.. so its performance (at any power draw) is going to be the same.

- Brisbane.. at 2.5GHz.. is no match performance-wise for the Conroe E6600 (2.4GHz), as documented here: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_athlon_64_...

- The power consumption for Wolfdale (E8500) is 33.4W at full load, as outlined in the xbitlabs link earlier.

- Let's say the 4850e, with it's 45W TDP, actually uses somewhere around 22W at full load.

- The E8500 performs considerably faster than the E6600, let's average it at about 15%. Add the advantage of the E6600 over Brisbane at 2.5GHz of, on average, 15%, and you have a total of 30% faster than the 4850e.

- Performance-per-watt of Wolfdale vs 4850e is roughly as follows: approximately 30% faster performance for approximately 30% more power, which is hardly the clearcut win you were hoping for.


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/2/2008 9:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
Since the ratings Intel and AMD assign are calculated differently, you have to go beyond the specified ratings and acquire actual numbers on how much power is being consumed and how much heat dissipated in order to draw any useful conclusions.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 9:35:47 PM , Rating: 1
So why don't you provide me with those actual numbers, huh? ;-) I just know from the marketing numbers that Athlon X2 has 45W and Wolfdale has 65W ratings. If you can't provide numbers that prove me wrong - why did you start posting here in the first place?


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/2/2008 9:46:08 PM , Rating: 2
I already posted numbers of Wolfdale power consumption.. the xbitlabs link a couple posts up.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 9:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I already posted numbers of Wolfdale power consumption
What's the point in that if Athlon X2 consumes even less power than Wolfdale?


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/2/2008 10:04:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's the point in that if Athlon X2 consumes even less power than Wolfdale?


You first wanted to see 45W Intel dual-core CPUs.. so I showed you proof of Intel dual-core CPUs drawing less than 45W. In later posts you added "TDP", which is entirely different from *actual* power consumption.

I can show you a truly remarkable CPU that draws 0W.. it's the CPU in my computer when the computer is unplugged. Irrelevant, you say? Of course, but that's not the point.

The point is that power consumption, as a measurement taken alone, is useless. What truly matters is how much performance you get out of each watt the CPU consumes. In that measurement, it's hard to beat the Wolfdale across *all* applications, not just games.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 10:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What truly matters is how much performance you get out of each watt the CPU consumes. In that measurement, it's hard to beat the Wolfdale across *all* applications, not just games.
Like I already answered above, I expect this statement to be supported by numbers. Sorry, I don't trust words and statements without numbers to prove them.


RE: Price/Performance
By bruce24 on 7/3/2008 12:42:24 AM , Rating: 2
Pirks,

Check out this link for some power consumption numbers.

http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/AMD_Phenom_X4_...


RE: Price/Performance
By FaceMaster on 7/2/2008 9:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
I can't help it! I just HAVE to argue when I know that somebody's WRONG. (You, not me)

Shame I can't find any reviews of the Intel Pentium E2200, which costs just $80 at newegg and can easily be overclocked to 3 Ghz... can anybody help me to find a review?

Strangely all of the reviews of the Intel Core 2 Duo 4xxx series have disappeared as well. Still, lets find a 6300 review.

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

Ouch. Is the AMD FX 62 about the same as the AMD X2 6000 in terms of performance?

The ball is in your court.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 9:41:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The ball is in your court
You showed me how 6300 got owned by cheapo X2 4600, and I don't care about OC because most people don't OC. Satisfied?


RE: Price/Performance
By FaceMaster on 7/3/2008 6:12:38 AM , Rating: 2
LOL somebody forgot to look at the red bars which show the 6300 being overclocked, beating every AMD processor out there.


RE: Price/Performance
By FaceMaster on 7/2/2008 9:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
Can you go find me some proof of that please?


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 9:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
My proof is called AMD Athlon X2 4850e 2.5 GHz 45W TDP

Now where can I find 45W TDP LGA775 C2D chip? :-P :)))


RE: Price/Performance
RE: Price/Performance
By JumpingJack on 7/3/2008 4:33:18 AM , Rating: 2
Your juxtoposition needs a correction ... the E7200 is within a McDonalds happy meal of the 6000+ and outperforms a 6400+ in most cases and just whollops the 6000+
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2...

AMD is a good choice in the sub 75 dollar range, but Intel is the better value proposition, even at the 110-120 mark:
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/14756

He really is not naive, not so naive as yourself who statement contradicts the data...


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/2/2008 8:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's all about GPU these days, who cares about CPU besides some benchmarkers and vapochillo worshipping freakos and such..


Apparently you can't see the forest for the trees. It is definitely *not* all about the GPU these days. There's more to computing than gaming, you know.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 9:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you can't understand that CPU is not needed for any truly intensive computation anymore, GPU does all the heavy lifting these days. Read up on F@H, BadaBOOM and other modern GPGPU applications, noob :-)

If you think Intel being so twitchy and hysterical about its lousy Larrabee chip is without any reason, you definitely need to do some basic reading on the topic.


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/2/2008 9:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apparently you can't understand that CPU is not needed for any truly intensive computation anymore


Completely wrong. CAD and rendering of various media come to mind on the desktop.. and you're conveniently ignoring the entire realm of server applications.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 9:32:22 PM , Rating: 1
CAD is GPU bound anyway, and media rendering has two answers for you: 1) BadaBOOM and 2) AVT in PowerDirector (Q3 2008)

Read up on these two, and then we'll talk more. Good luck ;)


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/2/2008 9:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
Um, no.. sorry.. you've struck out again.

Complex CAD definitely benefits significantly from more CPU horsepower.

Media rendering is not done only by the programs you specified. Others, many of which are widely used, benefit significantly from more CPU horsepower.

Care to elaborate on server apps?


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 9:53:07 PM , Rating: 1
In complex CAD systems you have a lot of complex 3D rendering to do, so it benefits from GPU quite a lot.

Many older media production suites are CPU bound, but newer software like PowerDirector move from CPU to GPU in order to dractically increase media encoding speed. Do you use MS-DOS based software a lot so that you can criticize quad-core CPUs for not supporting your MS-DOS code properly? Think about it.

Elaborate on server apps? Sure, no problem. nVidia sells GPGPU cards just for those servers. So if you wanna do computational heavy lifting on your servers - use CUDA with nVidia GPUs. You'll do your computations much faster on those GPUs compared to traditional quad-core CPUs.


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/2/2008 10:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In complex CAD systems you have a lot of complex 3D rendering to do, so it benefits from GPU quite a lot.


Nowhere did I say that it didn't.. only that CPU horsepower is very beneficial as well.

quote:
Many older media production suites are CPU bound, but newer software like PowerDirector move from CPU to GPU in order to dractically increase media encoding speed. Do you use MS-DOS based software a lot so that you can criticize quad-core CPUs for not supporting your MS-DOS code properly? Think about it.


Um, no. I'm referring to programs like Vegas (formerly SonicFoundry, now Sony).

quote:
Elaborate on server apps? Sure, no problem. nVidia sells GPGPU cards just for those servers. So if you wanna do computational heavy lifting on your servers - use CUDA with nVidia GPUs. You'll do your computations much faster on those GPUs compared to traditional quad-core CPUs.


Hmm.. let's see.. sure, I'll go through all the added expense and risk on my SQL server, or the server that runs my SAP, of additional cards and fancy GPUs... or I'll go with a couple of gonna-work quad-core CPUs. Yeah, I'm sure that's as obviously easy of a choice as *you* claim it to be.


RE: Price/Performance
By Pirks on 7/2/2008 10:18:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
CPU horsepower is very beneficial as well
I guess GPU power is more relevant once you start doing realtime high-quality designs like architectural prototypes for clients with beautiful 3D renderings of apartments, etc. CPU doesn't help here, only GPU can help with that.
quote:
Vegas
So if Vegas supported only single-core CPUs, you'd criticize dual and quad-cores now, right? ;-) Just because Vegas doesn't understand what is multithreading?
quote:
that's as obviously easy of a choice
You're right, it's always easier to stay back and don't upgrade your hardware/software for as long as you can, but this somehow does not slow the progress down.


RE: Price/Performance
By zsdersw on 7/2/2008 10:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So if Vegas supported only single-core CPUs, you'd criticize dual and quad-cores now, right? ;-) Just because Vegas doesn't understand what is multithreading?


No.

quote:
You're right, it's always easier to stay back and don't upgrade your hardware/software for as long as you can, but this somehow does not slow the progress down.


That's not the choice I was positing. I was talking about the choice between putting in quad-core CPUs that costs the CPUs themselves and one reboot versus messing with GPUs and add-on cards and the development costs of adopting CUDA for the specific tasks of a particular server. If you think that's an obvious choice.. to go the GPU route.. then you're a fool.


RE: Price/Performance
By Aloonatic on 7/3/2008 5:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
I must say, I enjoyed all the flaming/heated debates above. It has made my morning (at work) fly by, thank you.

Just a couple of observations, this article is about market share, so the over-clocking arguments and performance per watt are redundant really, I've yet to see these stats on the PoS (Point of Sale, not what your minds probably went to first!) at PC World.

It's all about cost of the CPU that will get IE7 to load at a reasonable rate and allows yr anti-virus to run in the background without being noticed, whilst still letting the OEM manufacture and the retailer achieve a nice margin?

Seems that, for gaming, you're probably better of spending yr money on a 360 or PS3?

You wont be avoiding the fanboy wars, but you'll be getting nice looking games that still work for a few years, probably longer than on any discrete graphics card/x86 CPU solution in your Pc (for the same price) which is probably used mostly for web surfing, photoshopping, e-mail photos to your family (who don't need to see another 20 pictures of your kids again by the way) and file-sharing anyway.

Does that help?


RE: Price/Performance
By Calin on 7/3/2008 9:33:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, it's price/performance ratio. Unlike the Athlon K7 days, and the Athlon64 days (when AMD had better performance), now Intel is on top. AMD competes fairly well in the low end and mainstream market based on price - and some in some integrated graphics configurations AMD is really better than Intel.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













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