Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon x2 Price Cuts Revealed - are they deep enough..?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share

Who has price performance leadership after x2 Price cuts

Total: 166 votes

  • Intel = Clearly the best bang for the buck
  • 36 %
  • Intel = Best bang, but it is fairly close
  • 26 %
  • It is pretty close overall
  • 19 %
  • AMD = Best bang, but it is fairly close
  • 13 %
  • AMD = Clearly best bang for the buck
  • 9 %
July 17, 2006 11:45:37 PM

AMD has announced huge price cuts - here is the new price/performance comparison.

ranked in order of benchmark performance


WHERE DID THIS CHART COME FROM???

This chart is a composite of many composites.

It takes the combined scored for several test suites, specifically:

The Sysmark2004 overall score (Somewhat Intel friendly IMHO)
The PC WorldBench5 score (Somewhat AMD friendly IMHO)
Business Winstone
Multimedia Winstone
3dsmax& Composite score
Quake
Oblivion

All scores were normalized so that an X2 3800 was given a value of 1.000 - ie if a CPU was 20% faster than the X2, it got a score of 1.200

The first 5 benchmarks used should be more or less acceptable to everybody. - the are broadbased, multi-benchmark composites from industry standard tests.

What games to use is hardly a clear matter. Quake and Oblivion are semi- GPU limited, so they likely cast AMD in a slightly favorable light.

On the other hand, running Fear at 640 x 480 would give Intel a crushing advantage, but not really reflect reality.

The raw data is now posted, if you don't like the benchmarks I used, use different ones and "roll your own"


NOTE : Old Netburst "Extreme" XE965 +/- dead even with $183 E6300 performance wise :)  :twisted: :twisted:

Conroe 6800 @ $999.00
Conroe 6700 @ $ 530.00
Conroe 6600 @ $ 316.00 <<Is this the best deal from Intel..?
Athlon FX62 @ $799.00 <<are they smoking crack...?
AM5000+ @ $282.00 <<easily the best AMD value
Conroe 6400 @ $ 224.00 <<or is this the best deal from Intel..?
AM4600+ @ $224
Conroe 6300 @ $183.00
AM4200+ @ $175
AM3800+ @ $149

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3361

July 17, 2006 11:50:59 PM

$800 for the FX 62, so much for $350 or whatever you morons were rambling on about.

Very competitive pricing though, I can finally upgrade my A64s to X2s at AMD's expense.
July 17, 2006 11:57:02 PM

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=279...

Actually, a Conroe E6300 ($187) is closer matched to an X2-4600 ($257) making the price $77 cheaper favoring Intel again...

Not to mention Conroe performs fine using cheaper DDR2 533 memory, and not the elite expensive DDR2 800 memory needed to get respectable benchmarks...
Related resources
July 17, 2006 11:57:27 PM

Quote:


AM3800 at $149 looks like +/- a draw versus the Conroe 6300 at $183 - mind you the Conroe overclocks and the AM3800 doesn't....


Cough*blatant*Cough*lies*Cough !

The X2 3800+ (be it S939 or AM2) DO overclock, beside, there are a lot of S939 users that will upgrade their single cores for an X2 since it does'nt imply buying a new mobo along with DDR2 and possibly a new GPU.

If you factor in the price of a "Conroe Ready" motherboard, the choice is crystal clear, simply dropping a new CPU in make a lot more sense.
July 18, 2006 12:02:28 AM

Quote:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=279...

Actually, a Conroe E6300 ($187) is closer matched to an X2-4600 ($257) making the price $77 cheaper favoring Intel again...

Not to mention Conroe performs fine using cheaper DDR2 533 memory, and not the elite expensive DDR2 800 memory needed to get respectable benchmarks...


The $187 E6300 performs basically the same as the old Intel 965 Extreme edition in a lot of benchmarks - utterly amazing :) 

Any yes you are right, I was being too kind to AMD, the E6300s slots performance wise between the AM4600+ and the AM4200+
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 121 À AMD
July 18, 2006 12:03:17 AM

AMD's CPU will probably rule the value segment.

Intel's CPU will rule the performance segment.

Both will be competitive in the mainstream market, but I think Intel will have the upper hand because of the E6300 and E6400.

Anyway, it's a win-win situation for the consumers.
July 18, 2006 12:12:09 AM

Wow, very steep cuts indeed. Just shows how good Conroe is though. Nice way of showing the clear winner. Although it's already been brought up, I smiled a little when I saw the fx-62 at 700 (not sub 350 as some dolt suggested).

I can't wait to see a large set of data on how well conroe overclocks. Very exciting indeed.
July 18, 2006 12:34:47 AM

Averaging all the benches is the stupidest way of deciding the rank of a cpu. Anyway, i said amd has a slight lead in bang for buck because of the 5000. It will be the best value when the prices drop.
July 18, 2006 12:42:34 AM

Quote:
AMD has announced huge price cuts - here is the new price/performance comparison.

Here is the line up... ranked in order of benchmark performance

Conroe 6800 @ $999.00
Conroe 6700 @ $ 530.00
Conroe 6600 @ $ 316.00
Athlon FX62 @ $799.00
Conroe 6400 @ $ 224.00
AM5000+ @ $282.00
Conroe 6300 @ $183.00
AM4600+ @ $224
AM3800+ @ $149

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3361



Objectively speaking, a Conroe 6400 at $224 is +/- 12% faster than a AM5000+ (based on an average of the Toms Hardware benchmarks) and costs $58.00 less... but I suspect this is enough to keep the AMD fanboys buying the product...

AM3800 at $149 looks like +/- a draw versus the Conroe 6300 at $183 - mind you the Conroe overclocks and the AM3800 doesn't....



A 5000+ for


$282

Holy locomotive, Batman.
July 18, 2006 12:43:57 AM

Quote:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=279...

Actually, a Conroe E6300 ($187) is closer matched to an X2-4600 ($257) making the price $77 cheaper favoring Intel again...

Not to mention Conroe performs fine using cheaper DDR2 533 memory, and not the elite expensive DDR2 800 memory needed to get respectable benchmarks...


The $187 E6300 performs basically the same as the old Intel 965 Extreme edition in a lot of benchmarks - utterly amazing :) 

Any yes you are right, I was being too kind to AMD, the E6300s best matchup performance wise is indeed the AM4600+

See my other post. OEMs will LOVE that.
July 18, 2006 12:47:43 AM

Quote:
AM3800 at $149 looks like +/- a draw versus the Conroe 6300 at $183 - mind you the Conroe overclocks and the AM3800 doesn't....



This will be the new Best Buy special where people will look above their alarm if you say overclock. Core 2 will not be in volume enough to stop that before Dec.

Ask anyone.
July 18, 2006 12:50:10 AM

I was amazed by the steepness of some of the cuts too. Can't wait to see how AMD's and Intel's bottom line looks by the end of the year though.

For people interested in looking at Intel price lists and price cuts, you can look at the links I posted in my announcements thread:

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Intel-Announcem...
July 18, 2006 1:01:38 AM

Quote:



A 5000+ for


$282

Holy locomotive, Batman.


An Intel E6600 for $316
An AMD AM 5000+ for $282

Insane.. But I like it.. a lot actually 8) 8)
July 18, 2006 1:07:55 AM

Damn straight... that pricetag is lookin' REALLY good ;-)
July 18, 2006 1:08:51 AM

Quote:
AMD has announced huge price cuts - here is the new price/performance comparison.

Here is the line up... ranked in order of benchmark performance



NOTE : Old Netburst "Extreme" XE965 +/- dead even with $183 E6300 performance wise :)  :twisted: :twisted:

Conroe 6800 @ $999.00
Conroe 6700 @ $ 530.00
Conroe 6600 @ $ 316.00 <<Is this the best deal from Intel..?
Athlon FX62 @ $799.00 <<are they smoking crack...?
AM5000+ @ $282.00 <<easily the best AMD value
Conroe 6400 @ $ 224.00 <<or is this the best deal from Intel..?
AM4600+ @ $224
Conroe 6300 @ $183.00
AM4200+ @ $175
AM3800+ @ $149

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3361



It's a improvement I will give AMD that.
July 18, 2006 1:28:43 AM

Intel = Best bang, but it is fairly close (NOT for high-end though)
July 18, 2006 1:34:47 AM

i don't understand the graph. should the # be lower or higher?
July 18, 2006 1:36:21 AM

282 Dollars for a 5000+ ?!?

Whatever they're smoking, must be some good shit.
July 18, 2006 1:36:24 AM

i voted intel still has best but most people don't have 200+ dollars to spend on a cpu alone, i know when the price cuts hit i will prolly pick up a x2 3800+ or 4200+ to replace my 3200+ s939

so this is great for people with a s939 system that want a little more life out of their comps
July 18, 2006 1:41:57 AM

Assuming price cuts affect 939. (btw i am running a 939)
July 18, 2006 1:52:21 AM

The price cuts do affect S939 CPUs, they would be those without the "Socket AM2" comment, the 150$ X2 3800+ is quite a good deal, I payed over double of that when I bought mine in December.
July 18, 2006 1:56:27 AM

Quote:
i don't understand the graph. should the # be lower or higher?


It's relative performance, based upon average of anandtechs benchmarks, normalized to a X2 3800 being equal to 1.0.

An E6600 for example is, on average, 29.6% faster than a X2 3800+
July 18, 2006 1:59:11 AM

I really doubt amd will be able to hold out this long, I say intel releases a 3.4 ghz core 2, to completly stomp out amd in one swipe. Its cheaper for intel to produce cpus, they have a bigger user base no matter what anyone thinks on this forum, and they are only going to gain more now that they have the performance crown back. This will be really interesting none the less, but if I was in Intels position, I would crank up the core 2's max clock speed, just to have an extreme lead over the competetion, theres no sence holding back.
July 18, 2006 2:03:16 AM

Can't agree with you.

Clearly, Intel has 2, or 3 speed grades of headroom, but they also have capacity limitations till they get fully ramped.

I expect once they get evrything rampled and the process matured so yileds are good, then they will "hammer" amd and make the 3.00 ghz chip "mainstream"
July 18, 2006 2:04:25 AM

One reason you don't work for Intel. They'll keep the clockspeeds as low as they can until they really need to increase them. If they release an even faster Core 2 Duo, it's only going to compete with the slower Core 2 Duo versions.
July 18, 2006 2:08:41 AM

You honestly think they couldnt release a conroe over 3.2 ghz ?, why is it we see conroes overclocking too 5 ghz, there is plenty of headroom on that chip. How ever it is quite apparant that Intel could last longer in a price war.
July 18, 2006 2:10:59 AM

Its a matter of need not want.
July 18, 2006 2:18:06 AM

Right, intel is only concerned with their image and sales.
They're not going to do anything because it would be "so cool" :lol: 

Its all about the earnings, and the higher you clock the cpu the smaller the yields.
July 18, 2006 2:24:42 AM

Quote:
You honestly think they couldnt release a conroe over 3.2 ghz ?, why is it we see conroes overclocking too 5 ghz, there is plenty of headroom on that chip. How ever it is quite apparant that Intel could last longer in a price war.
You don't understand do you? If Intel were to increase the clockspeed with a newer faster chip, it would only compete with the current Core 2 Duos because AMD has nothing that compares. Intel would be wiser to save the higher clocked Core 2 Duos for when they're needed.
July 18, 2006 2:56:50 AM

Quote:
Right, intel is only concerned with their image and sales.
They're not going to do anything because it would be "so cool" :lol: 

Its all about the earnings, and the higher you clock the cpu the smaller the yields.


LMAO, I could imagine Intel releasing the "so cool" Version of the Core2.

Well, as a s939 user I could say that this puts a smile on my face, I would love to get a Core 2 but I just dont have the funds specially with another baby on the way. SO like mentioned before, this is good for customers. Intel did everyone a favor.
July 18, 2006 2:59:50 AM

Quote:
You honestly think they couldnt release a conroe over 3.2 ghz ?, why is it we see conroes overclocking too 5 ghz, there is plenty of headroom on that chip. How ever it is quite apparant that Intel could last longer in a price war.
You don't understand do you? If Intel were to increase the clockspeed with a newer faster chip, it would only compete with the current Core 2 Duos because AMD has nothing that compares. Intel would be wiser to save the higher clocked Core 2 Duos for when they're needed.

Word.
July 18, 2006 3:53:48 AM

and now everyone knows the reason why im a "BaNG for the buck" FANBOY :) 


gotta love intel and amd :) 
July 18, 2006 4:34:28 AM

Quote:
The price cuts do affect S939 CPUs, they would be those without the "Socket AM2" comment, the 150$ X2 3800+ is quite a good deal, I payed over double of that when I bought mine in December.


I just wish they would hurry up and dump the socket 939 Opterons. I'd snag one or two of those puppies if discounted proportionally...
July 18, 2006 4:57:58 AM

These price cuts aren't going to be nearly enough for enthusiasts to "jump aboard." Up until today, I was hoping to upgrade to a 4800+ (S939) for a bargain price. It's clear that isn't going to happen.

Now I'm seriously considering ditching my AMD system for a Conroe based board/processor. Only sticking point right now is SLI... i've got dual 7800GTX's and i use em.

To my knowledge, there aren't any SLI intel based mobos that support Core Duo 2/Conroe. Am I mistaken?
July 18, 2006 5:00:15 AM

With the right driver you're meant to be able to get SLI to work on 975 boards.
July 18, 2006 5:07:01 AM

Also, Nvidia boards when they come out this month, or maybe next.
July 18, 2006 5:16:07 AM

In August I believe.
July 18, 2006 5:16:34 AM

Quote:
Also, Nvidia boards when they come out this month, or maybe next.


Cool. Looking forward to upgrading then. ;-)
July 18, 2006 5:58:51 AM

I love how the slowest Conroe - 6300, is almost the same speed as the 965XE
July 18, 2006 6:39:17 AM

Guys, what about 939? how low should they go? :?
July 18, 2006 6:59:57 AM

wow I'm soo getting an x5000 AM2 now. And to think that even as early as last week, I was hoping to go for the x3800. Glad I'm waiting a little bit.
July 18, 2006 8:10:32 AM

Hey retard, factor in the mobo, S939 got plenty of juice left in it !
July 18, 2006 8:25:01 AM

As attractive as some of AMD's price drops look, I doubt they will be enough to retain the market share they have grabbed away from Intel in the past couple of years.

Some of the new prices are very enticing for someone that already has an AMD platform since no investment other than a new CPU is necessary. However, those upgraders don't count towards new market share.

Given the prices posted, upgrading to an FX 62 is a poor choice regardless of the situation. The numbers seem to look like this,

Conroe E6600 @ $350.00 ($316 + typical retail markup on midrange CPU) + New motherboard $300

This adds up to $650.00 which leaves another $200 (presuming the FX 62 will retail for $850) to purchase memory. $200 can buy a decent amount of memory. In conclusion, for the price of upgrading to an FX 62, an upgrader can upgrade to a higher performing E6600 instead. It's also likely that the overclocking potential of the E6600 is significantly greater than that of the FX-62.

I believe that given AMD's new price points, they will sell mostly to their established user base and not much to those who are building/purchasing a new machine.

I see a Conroe in my future.
July 18, 2006 8:39:19 AM

Quote:
Right, intel is only concerned with their image and sales.
They're not going to do anything because it would be "so cool" :lol: 

Its all about the earnings, and the higher you clock the cpu the smaller the yields.


This is not true. This only decreases the yield is you raise the slowest available speed.
July 18, 2006 8:43:06 AM

To be realist the increase in performance is not a lot, and I am sure that in near future Toms will have something to show this. As with all CPUs in the past, the higher power the CPU the less power/performance you will get. More money for less performance.

To me at the moment it looks quite close, and will also depend on the Core 2 MB costs (Intel MB tends to be more expensive than AMD MBs), so the AMD may be worth it after all. Then there is SLI, support which there is more choice of MB for AMD. A lot of ppl I know actually went for a SLI MB even though they have one card (you never know if you need one mentality).

I see myself getting a Conroe in near future, but AMD is not going to die so easily.

As for the "upping the clock" discussion, it is definately true that Intel has much more options now. It is not the fact that Intel will up the clock to compete with itself, but the fact that anything new than AMD now throws out, Intel can just up the clock to match it, probably within one or two months.
July 18, 2006 12:06:25 PM

what are the AMD dual core prices likely to be in the UK? is it just a simple currency conversion or is there more to it?

cheers
July 18, 2006 1:09:23 PM

Quote:
To be realist the increase in performance is not a lot, and I am sure that in near future Toms will have something to show this. As with all CPUs in the past, the higher power the CPU the less power/performance you will get. More money for less performance.

To me at the moment it looks quite close, and will also depend on the Core 2 MB costs (Intel MB tends to be more expensive than AMD MBs), so the AMD may be worth it after all. Then there is SLI, support which there is more choice of MB for AMD. A lot of ppl I know actually went for a SLI MB even though they have one card (you never know if you need one mentality).

I see myself getting a Conroe in near future, but AMD is not going to die so easily.

As for the "upping the clock" discussion, it is definately true that Intel has much more options now. It is not the fact that Intel will up the clock to compete with itself, but the fact that anything new than AMD now throws out, Intel can just up the clock to match it, probably within one or two months.
Don't forget that Conroe isn't very picky as far as RAM goes,so you still get great performance with cheap RAM.. not the case with AM2....it needs Top-Of-The-Line RAM to compete with, or beat s939. That sort of nullifies the MB factor.
July 18, 2006 1:22:18 PM

Quote:
what are the AMD dual core prices likely to be in the UK? is it just a simple currency conversion or is there more to it?

cheers


Overclockers uk now has a list of AMD2 prices (they state these are the 24th prices) running at

AMD X2 3800 AM2 @ £94.95 +VAT
AMD X2 4200 AM2 @ £119.95 +VAT
AMD X2 4600 AM2 @ £149.95 +VAT
AMD X2 5000 AM2 @ £189.95 +VAT

probably not the cheapest out there, but it gives a general idea.

Puts the 5000 between the Conroe 6400 and 6600 though and it is seemingly beaten by both.

If it were a 5000 on the 939 socket I'd be placing the order now, would be a nice little upgrade.

But as a new platform needing a new mobo and RAM its not quite competitive enough to take a performance hit v cost.

Conroe appears the best bet, though I am waiting to see what both platforms do, mobo and review wise in the real world (but no, not the 'real world' of GPU limited benchmarks).

Still its good news for pricing generally, hopefully they might fall again all round.
July 18, 2006 2:06:02 PM

Quote:
You honestly think they couldnt release a conroe over 3.2 ghz ?, why is it we see conroes overclocking too 5 ghz, there is plenty of headroom on that chip. How ever it is quite apparant that Intel could last longer in a price war.


Read the previous posts and maybe you will understand.
July 18, 2006 2:10:05 PM

Quote:
what are the AMD dual core prices likely to be in the UK? is it just a simple currency conversion or is there more to it?

cheers


Overclockers uk now has a list of AMD2 prices (they state these are the 24th prices) running at

AMD X2 3800 AM2 @ £94.95 +VAT
AMD X2 4200 AM2 @ £119.95 +VAT
AMD X2 4600 AM2 @ £149.95 +VAT
AMD X2 5000 AM2 @ £189.95 +VAT

probably not the cheapest out there, but it gives a general idea.

Puts the 5000 between the Conroe 6400 and 6600 though and it is seemingly beaten by both.

If it were a 5000 on the 939 socket I'd be placing the order now, would be a nice little upgrade.

But as a new platform needing a new mobo and RAM its not quite competitive enough to take a performance hit v cost.

Conroe appears the best bet, though I am waiting to see what both platforms do, mobo and review wise in the real world (but no, not the 'real world' of GPU limited benchmarks).

Still its good news for pricing generally, hopefully they might fall again all round.

Woo Hoo thats just what i wanted to read, im a happy chappy now.
!