Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Conroe Price Drop For AMD

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 19, 2006 2:40:44 AM

Should I wait for the Conroe price drop on JUly 23/24 for AMD, or should I get

a Conroe (the e6600 probably), and if you say i do get a amd, which one

should i get? - the 3700+ was my first choice, now it might be the 4000+

, or the 3800+ X2..............


for all the CPU gurus out ther, please answer!!!:_)

More about : conroe price drop amd

June 19, 2006 2:44:29 AM

AMD all the way,,, Get the FX-64... Then it will run just about as fast as a E6600 (in some benchies, er two or three)!
But then you could get same performance at lower energy usage and less heat for $530?!!? Tough choice indeed...
June 19, 2006 2:45:29 AM

get the core 2 duo dude, everything he said up there is correct, lower energy around $530 american and its better then the fx62
Related resources
June 19, 2006 3:04:47 AM

Anti-Hyperthreading... something like Lame Hyperthreading... 8)
June 19, 2006 6:12:20 PM

So, basically, this whole "anti-hyperthreading" thing depends on the compiler to optimize the code for its use?

Then why is it a CPU feature?

I thought compilers today pretty much optimize codes for multiple core execution.

The anti-hyperthreading rumors are so exciting to AMD fanboys only because it can do some sort of run-time multi-core optimization without any compiler support, right?
June 19, 2006 6:56:52 PM

AM2 will have pacifica virtualization to run more than 1 OS at time. If you use vmware know Intel eats AMD.
June 19, 2006 7:12:10 PM

Is Pacifica like AMD's version of Vanderpool?
June 19, 2006 7:46:46 PM

Quote:
Is Pacifica like AMD's version of Vanderpool?

Yes it is.
June 19, 2006 7:52:21 PM

Quote:
AMD all the way,,, Get the FX-64... Then it will run just about as fast as a E6600 (in some benchies, er two or three)!
But then you could get same performance at lower energy usage and less heat for $530?!!? Tough choice indeed...


FX-64 AM2 isn't even on the market yet, why would AMD release it at $530, I expect you will see it closer to $1k.

Oops, missread your post, no wonder I'm Idiotnewb. :wink:

I agree the E6600 will do the same for the lower price.
June 19, 2006 8:19:33 PM

go for conroe

but don't preorder it...
although every review on the internet may scream that conroe is faster than amd fx series, it can still be not as good as they all persume it will be because they all tested on models of conroe that differ from the cpu's that they will be really releasing... (knowing intel... :roll: )

my advice
do as I will do. read some reviews of the real conroe after it's been released, then, if you're satisfied, buy it
June 19, 2006 8:34:53 PM

Conroe when shipped will be a different chip due to revisions...
and the newest revision Conroes are actually faster than the first revision reveiws...
So the shipping Conroe will either be as fast as the latest tests out, or a bit faster...

This is common practice in the tech industry... as you refine your processes, quality increases...
June 19, 2006 9:17:25 PM

Exactly! The Core Microarchitecture is still in its infancy. Compare the earliest 64-bit Athlons to today's FX CPUs and the differences are staggering. Even Netburst CPUs improved(relatively speaking) over time. In a few years Conroe CPUs will be even more amazing IMO.
June 20, 2006 1:55:22 AM

Quote:
Should I wait for the Conroe price drop on JUly 23/24 for AMD, or should I get

a Conroe (the e6600 probably), and if you say i do get a amd, which one

should i get? - the 3700+ was my first choice, now it might be the 4000+

, or the 3800+ X2..............


for all the CPU gurus out ther, please answer!!!:_)



IF you get anything get the 4600+ or 5000+. They are supposed to be under $400. It won't be as fast as the Core 2 but it WILL get the job done.
SInce the next gen AM2 may have a surprise or two, it maybe worth it to go with AMD for a good 1 year upgrade path.

Going with Core 2 has the advantage of getting the cheapest one running at the same speed as the most expensive pretty easy but that means your finite limit will be clock speed. IF you can get the 2.13 to 4.5GHz but can't get the 2.93 above it then you have to wait until the next core refresh to go faster - not that AM2 and Core 2 aren't going MORE THAN FAST enough now.

I beleive that platform cost is the reason for AMD dropping their prices so OEMs can get the 667 CAS3 DDR2 in the lower speed systems that have even more need for tight timings since they will use less banwidth.
June 20, 2006 5:56:09 AM

Quote:
Conroe when shipped will be a different chip due to revisions...
and the newest revision Conroes are actually faster than the first revision reveiws...
So the shipping Conroe will either be as fast as the latest tests out, or a bit faster...

This is common practice in the tech industry... as you refine your processes, quality increases...



Quote:
Exactly! The Core Microarchitecture is still in its infancy. Compare the earliest 64-bit Athlons to today's FX CPUs and the differences are staggering. Even Netburst CPUs improved(relatively speaking) over time. In a few years Conroe CPUs will be even more amazing IMO.


Exactly.....which makes me wonder if the next AMD evolution (switch to 65nm and other new techs) will turn around and KO Intel???

Either way, one thing is for sure, compeition between the two is keeping me happy with all the price drops.
Just waiting for 3800 x 2 to be $120 USD......yeah I already own a Pentium D 805, but it wouldnt hurt to have both of my machines running dual core cpus wouldnt it???
June 20, 2006 6:49:13 AM

Quote:
So, basically, this whole "anti-hyperthreading" thing depends on the compiler to optimize the code for its use?

Then why is it a CPU feature?

I thought compilers today pretty much optimize codes for multiple core execution.

The anti-hyperthreading rumors are so exciting to AMD fanboys only because it can do some sort of run-time multi-core optimization without any compiler support, right?

he's talking about "reverse hyperthreading", which allows two processors to run a single thread, instead of two threads on a single processor. While it may be interesting, we won't see it for awhile to say the least..
This would definately be a huge breakthrough if AMD pulled it off....you could have a quad threaded system and run a single threaded program without wasting away valuable threads...example EE965. one hell of a chip if you could get the 4 threads filled, but if you're only using one at a time it will fall behind.
!