AMD2 prices? I mean wth?

[Wolv34ine]

I would have thought that the overwhelming majority of recent cpu buyers would have gone Intel, given the new tech.
I am not, as I plan to support AMD. Seeing as so many have jumped ship I really would have thught that there would be some price incentive to get/stay AMD...
As it is they still seem expensive....anyone know what gives?

 

[XtAsY]

At present, Intels Core 2 CPU's are just simply the best investment. There really is no competition, AMD are the underdogs at the moment big time and they know it. I mean, Intels £210 E6600 outperforms AMD's FX 62 which is £470! And, the E6600 is an awesome overclocker too so can pull ahead even more! If you want the best performance and value for money, there is only once choice at the moment and thats Intel. Your move AMD

 

[Gashman]

yeah the core architecture is slightly better than K8, and i do mean only slightly, since K8 is still quite a strong processor, AMD just need to solve a pre-fetching error there K8 architecture has, but its no use saying 'the E6300 can beat the FX-62' because whats so impressive about that? i mean my processor has done 2.9Ghz on current setup, which is faster than FX-62, but there very good overclockers there more or less constantly faster clock for clock than AMDs offering, but revision F2 is out december (65nm K8) and there expected to overclock well and then K8L is due out sometime Q1 2007 i believe, which is said to be a 'conroe killer', so IMO i think AMD are in a good position at the moment, highest share prices they've ever had i think, plus buying ATI only makes them stronger

 

[XtAsY]

then K8L is due out sometime Q1 2007 i believe, which is said to be a 'conroe killer'

I'll believe it when I see it

 

[FreeStream]

yeah the core architecture is slightly better than K8, and i do mean only slightly, since K8 is still quite a strong processor, AMD just need to solve a pre-fetching error there K8 architecture has, but its no use saying 'the E6300 can beat the FX-62' because whats so impressive about that? i mean my processor has done 2.9Ghz on current setup, which is faster than FX-62, but there very good overclockers there more or less constantly faster clock for clock than AMDs offering, but revision F2 is out december (65nm K8) and there expected to overclock well and then K8L is due out sometime Q1 2007 i believe, which is said to be a 'conroe killer', so IMO i think AMD are in a good position at the moment, highest share prices they've ever had i think, plus buying ATI only makes them stronger

K8L, Conroe killer? Q1 2007? What have you been smoking...

Even if they do pass Intel on Performance, I doubt they are going to overclock as much as C2Ds do.


IMO Intel have still got the lead for a good 6 months yet...

 

[Wolv34ine]

Regardless of the "whats next" and "whos fastest now" arguements, its clear that from a sales point of view AMD are getting a spanking on CPU sales.

My point is where is the pricing incentive to get an AMD ( even if its a bit slower than an Intel)?

It seems like staggering ignorance to me.

At these rates they must be selling next to no AMD chips.

 

[Kamakazie!]

Regardless of the "whats next" and "whos fastest now" arguements, its clear that from a sales point of view AMD are getting a spanking on CPU sales.

My point is where is the pricing incentive to get an AMD ( even if its a bit slower than an Intel)?

It seems like staggering ignorance to me.

At these rates they must be selling next to no AMD chips.

LOL, i think you need to do some read up on AMD chip sales.
AMD still can't make enough chips to supply the demand. The prices are high because they are selling every single processor that they can make. Simple economics.
For most AMD parts, they are pretty much competitive with C2D on price/performance and spank the P4's. Intel are probably at most, at 30% output of C2D's. This means the rest of their desktop inventory is still P4 processors.

You seem to forget that the money and the big sales are not in the enthusiast arena, it is in the business and server space. Overclocking does not matter here and nor does 5% performance advantage.
For businesses it is a case of:
3800+ for £499
or
E6300 for £550
(note this is just a wild estimate to illustrate my point)

That decision is easy.... 3800+ all the way.

 

[Kamakazie!]

K8L, Conroe killer? Q1 2007? What have you been smoking...

Even if they do pass Intel on Performance, I doubt they are going to overclock as much as C2Ds do.


IMO Intel have still got the lead for a good 6 months yet...

I think most people would be very surprised if the K8L does not beat C2D with its IPC. However, whether it clocks so well is another issue entirely. This only matters for the enthusiasts though and that = few sales.

I think you are right with the 6months lead anyway, since latest roadmaps say shipping Q2 07 for the K8L.

 

[allllec]

Regardless of the "whats next" and "whos fastest now" arguements, its clear that from a sales point of view AMD are getting a spanking on CPU sales.

not true, not true at all - in fact AMD have a larger market share than they did say 6-12months ago. Obviously - yes there sales could potentially be slightly higher if intel where out of the picture - but that's only by a tiny amount - enthusiasts are a tiny percentage of CPU buyers. AMD have the same clients the did a while back, plus one big big new one - Dell. So no - they are not 'getting a spanking on CPU sales' anyway that was to just let you know

i would GUESS that they haven't lowered prices because if they did for us they would have to lower them even more for there big customers (for example dell) which is where a lot of their income comes from

 

[Big.Wayne]

I would have thought that the overwhelming majority of recent cpu buyers would have gone Intel, given the new tech.
I am not, as I plan to support AMD.

Hi, I think the CD2 is still not here yet at a mainstream level. Of course most PC gEEkers know about them but joe public are buying things at a price point, they don't see reviews from anandtech or spend hours trawling the forums, they just walk into a shop and see a system for £400 etc. Most of the bigger manufacturers still have a shed load of slighlty older CPUs which they are selling in highstreet systems.

There is no point in getting involved in brand loyalty, just use what offers you the best performance for your particular budget . . .

INTEL have pretty much had sand kicked in there faces for the past few years by AMD, Its only right that INTEL have come back with a stonking product. I bet there are a lot of people in these forums who have never used an INTEL cpu before CD2.

That fanboy stuff is just silly, its almost like both AMD and INTEL are football teams??

 

[allllec]

That fanboy stuff is just silly, its almost like both AMD and INTEL are football teams??

they arnt

 

[GAMEfreak]

omg best idea ever, i so have to design an AMD and intel set of footbal kits lol. imagine having a football match, and a bit of hooliganism afterwards XD

 

[Wolv34ine]

Wow, you guys are either in one camp or the other arent you..
I wasnt attacking AMD, in fact if it wasnt for AMD then I woudnt have got a PC all those years ago as Intel where way too expensive. Way I see it AMD have looked after ( unwittingly or on purpose) the gaming community, and I for one am loyal. I refuse to get a Intel, not because I hate Intel or anything so purile, but because I believe we should support what we like.
The other factor is that in order to get the Intels to "be quicker" than AMDs you need to overclock. Im a games developer and stability is absoloutley paramount, I have lost count of the times I needed to rebuild my machine and lost data due to my attempts at overclocking. So I wont be doing any of that with any chip I get.
I just see the ads for Dell PCs (Core 2 due inside) on tv (not a cheap medium) and all the press the Intels have had on the web and cant help but suppose AMD are suffering a hit in cpu sales. I am not saying that they arent selling any, but what I am saying is that I think the "pro" Intel model as garnered some momentum in the right circles and AMD cant help but feel that. And my expected response was to compete, ie lower prices for the chips that are out there, therefore keeping a lot of their users who have immediatley jumped ship when they heared Intel where quicker.
As it is they are as much as or more for what is , as far as a lot of users say, less.

 

[div0]

But I think you're missing the point a bit.

New chips and new designs generally mean lower yields, at least until the manufacturing process has been fine tuned.

AMD is already struggling to make enough of its existing processors to keep up with the demand from HUGE companies like Dell. So I guess they don't feel the need to lower prices any further.

 

[Wolv34ine]

Nevermind

 

[Delvis]

Well...You say they're struggling to keep up with demand because of the current manufacturing process, but for all we know changing to a 65nm process will help them KEEP demand up a lot more, who knows, only time will tell...

I'l say one thing, not directly involved with the oringal questin at all...But currently AMD server cpu's ie opterons are a FAIR amount better than any Intel offering, we've had the Quad core cpu from intel for ages now at work, and two dual core Amd cpu's perform better than the Quad currently, and yes we have tried the Xeon varient...

But hey, things change, the market constantly changes as we all know!

Thing is tho, Amd have dropped prices on Am2 if you think about it, currently for the same price as a 4400+ socket 939 back about 6 months ago now you can get a Socket Am2 5000+ practically....

Oh well, i still have my 4400+, i could upgrade to conroe, but i really can not be bothered

 

[XtAsY]

The other factor is that in order to get the Intels to "be quicker" than AMDs you need to overclock.

Not true at all. The Intel CPU's are faster at the moment overclocked or not. You need to look at some benchies mate and all will be revealed!

 

[Jabbs]

yeah the core architecture is slightly better than K8, and i do mean only slightly, since K8 is still quite a strong processor, AMD just need to solve a pre-fetching error there K8 architecture has, but its no use saying 'the E6300 can beat the FX-62' because whats so impressive about that? i mean my processor has done 2.9Ghz on current setup, which is faster than FX-62, but there very good overclockers there more or less constantly faster clock for clock than AMDs offering, but revision F2 is out december (65nm K8) and there expected to overclock well and then K8L is due out sometime Q1 2007 i believe, which is said to be a 'conroe killer', so IMO i think AMD are in a good position at the moment, highest share prices they've ever had i think, plus buying ATI only makes them stronger

The point is a 6300 at only 2.5 gig beats a 2.8 gig fx62, seeing as most are getting 3gig+ out of there 6300's it would mean to compete a fx62 would need to clock too 3.3 gig to be on par with a 3gig core2 and i doubt they will oveclock that much on air as everyone is using with there core2. So a £111 cpu can outperform a £469 amd thats why everyone goes on about core2.

The extra cache the 6600 has means at 2.4 stock its faster than the fx62, seeing as those things are hitting 3.4+ amd need to pull there fingers out in a big way to hit back, if they do ill end up swopping back next year as most will do.

Too end the fanboy argument i have always used amd in the past as they had the best cpu's, i have no loyalties i go for what offers me the best performance as it should be, atm core2 does.

 

[XtAsY]

Too end the fanboy argument i have always used amd in the past as they had the best cpu's, i have no loyalties i go for what offers me the best performance as it should be, atm core2 does.

Same way it is with me. I was considering earlier on to go for an AMD X2 5000+, once I saw how much better value for money the Core 2 was in terms of price/performance, there really was no competition. When I build my next system and AMD are tops again, I'll build an AMD system. If Intel are tops, I'll build an Intel system. Simple as that.

 

[Jabbs]

Thats it no need for loyaltie, amd had the crown for years when intel had the P4 out, things always change like the gfx cards one time amd are top then nvidia its good to have competition as it makes a win win situation for us buyers.