AMD2 prices? I mean wth?

[Wolv34ine]

Take that too far, one will win, and hey presto. No competition, and if thats Intel kiss goodbye to your wallets chaps!

 

[Kamakazie!]

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!

A couple of months ago, on a price/performance basis it wasn't always true. The 4200+ was a better buy than the E6300 in most cases.
The prices have gone up now though so at all price points it is basically true. Except the really low end.
The prices have gone up because there's little stock in the channel. AMD is selling everything it can make which is keeping the prices higher even than AMDs own price guides.

 

[p4radox]

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.

I, like most people, like whatever is best. What you have is brand loyalty.

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

No you don't. C2Ds are faster than Athlon 64s at the same clock speeds, and even when the C2Ds are clocked lower. When you overclock, the performance increase of the C2D far outweighs any slight price difference.

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.

You weren't overclocking properly then. A good overclock is a stable one. Seriously, it's child's play to get a 6300 to 3GHz and have it completely, 100% stable.

As it is they are as much as or more for what is , as far as a lot of users say, less.

I don't understand that last bit.

I don't think AMD's sales are suffering at all, so we don't really need to worry about Intel having no competition.

 

[Corasik]

Even if AMD do pass Core 2 performance levels with K8L, Intels roadmap includes a die shrink, a native quad core, further increases to FSB (1333FSB), and if FSB does prove to be a major performance issue, they have CSI in development.

Intel played performance underdog with P4 for quite some time, and judging by their roadmap, they are well prepared for a long fight to remain the brand for top performance.

AMD's 4x4 platform on the other hand is a joke.

That said I love AMD too. Even though i've used intel since the 8086, AMD have helped keep prices down for years, and the low price on Core 2 is largely due to AMD.

 

[gurusan]

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

Amen brotha!

I enjoy having unnecessarily fast hardware, but at the moment it's not worth it for me to switch from 939 to c2d. My PC is by no means slow...sure it doesn't do superpi in under 20 seconds but I could really care less about that. It's all about gaming FPS for me.

I'm working on it though....plan is to change my watercooling system around a bit, then go C2D most likely with a e6600 and a RD600 board. Then comes the DX10 GPU...maybe something better (or something with a better price/performance ratio) than the 8800 series will be out by then

 

[Duke]

Conroe will be even quicker late 2007 when the 45nm version comes out.. imagine the OCing ability

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/30/intel_45nm_crossover_coming_2008/

 

[Duff-Man]

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

Well best of luck to them. I'm always glad to see new tech come along and raise the bar. We need a strong AMD to challenge the giant that is intel.

That said, core2 is by far the superior processor at the moment, and by a margin I haven't seen for a while. There is nothing in the immediate horizon to suggest that is going to change (more than speculation at best), so in my opinion conroe is the way to go, regardless of past loyalties.

 

[dark4orz]

AMD or Intel - they don't care about anyone, so why should you care. People will just buy best bang for buck. If AMD were to produce a cpu faster then my 6600 - I would go and buy it, but the fact is they haven't yet PERIOD ! Regardless of what rumours are lurking around - the proof is in the pudding and at the moment it's not in AMD's.

Why bother buying a AMD £550 processor, with half of the price consumers have a offering to buy a better processor which is faster even running @ stock.

ps. this is turning into a typical fanboy thread.........

 

[bfar]

Hopefully the future will bring a few more decent chip makers into the desktop market. Might end some of this silliness.

Some of the posts above are both hilarious and pointless. Who gives a damn about Intel or AMD? It's amazing to see you guys getting upset over who is the underdog. Would you really loose any sleep if either AMD/Intel went under?

Just buy the best gear you can get for your money and stop whining. Nuff said.

 

[KiNETiK]

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...

Your saying that AMD server chips are better than Intels offering? How can this be if the latest Xeon 5100 series are based on the core 2 architecture which beats AMD hands down in the desktop market (and from what i remember seeing on tomshardware the 5100 series beats the opterons in server benchies as well)? I'm not trying to say your wrong, just more intrigued since I am buying some new servers at work soon and am trying to make a decision between AMD or Intel..

 

[GAMEfreak]

well actually those chips ( the core 2 server chips (woodcrest is it?) ) suffer problems because of the new type of registered ram they use. its said to degrade performance a lot, and there are benchies on toms and elsewhere which prove that point.

 

[Kamakazie!]

Conroe will be even quicker late 2007 when the 45nm version comes out.. imagine the OCing ability

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/30/intel_45nm_crossover_coming_2008/

They wont be shipping in any real numbers until early 2008. That is IF the 45nm shrink goes smoothly, which it should.
Still, 45nm might not yield a huge amount of extra overclocking ability. Shrinks usually lend to a little of this but mainly lower power consumption and cheaper prices

 

[Delvis]

Your saying that AMD server chips are better than Intels offering? How can this be if the latest Xeon 5100 series are based on the core 2 architecture which beats AMD hands down in the desktop market (and from what i remember seeing on tomshardware the 5100 series beats the opterons in server benchies as well)? I'm not trying to say your wrong, just more intrigued since I am buying some new servers at work soon and am trying to make a decision between AMD or Intel..

Currently...Yes they are i believe, we just done an install for a company which had 9 cabinets worth of 2 x Dual core CPU's in them...Ie 260 x 2. And they're damn fast.

I cant explain fully the potential of the servers, as i wasent involved with the physical testing of them, i was merely told that two of our Opterons was performing better than one of Intels Quad core varients...Granted by the time they are officially released and tweaked a hell of a lot they mite perform better, but who knows. All i know is, the companyi work for always does Clusters of servers using AMD, and were heavily an Intel company in the desktop market segment, whereas servers, yes we will sell many servers with Intel's offerings, but when it comes to mass computing we always use AMD's currently.

Sorry for the pointless essay

 

[Quixote]

I think the AMD scales a bit better than the Core architecture. When you start getting up to 4 cores (however they are arranged, they may start to edge ahead in fully multi-threaded apps.

 

[Briton]

I am not, as I plan to support AMD.

Why would you want to support a company that is selling an inferior product at a higher price? I can't see the sense in that. I haven't had an Intel in years but I will definitely be going Conroe.

 

[Gashman]

yeah seems odd, i mean im happy with my current system and see no need to upgrade yet, but intels offering is superior at the moment, so if your upgrading, should go for conroe, but if your system is good already don't waste your time, AMD need new product to compete mind, and snappy