Intel can't compete with AMD below 400$ range!

[cryogenic]

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/17/athlon64x2s_now_41_percent_below_intel_curve/

You might take this as flame starter .... I know .... I know ....

But AMD main competitor in the market wich IS Netburst can't even reach AMD or close on for that mater... it is simply left behind.

This means AMD owns the MP server market and the desktop mainstream from a performance/cost point of view! Period!

Wich makes happy, cause if AMD manages to get 50% market share in the end I will be able to freely chose the best technology at the lowest prices from either Intel or AMD, and the competition will drive unforeseen level on inovations.


Sorry Intel fanboys but for us to win, Intel has to lose this time!

 

[cryogenic]

But AMD main competitor in the market wich IS Netburst can't even reach AMD or close on for that mater... it is simply left behind.

Yes, Netburst is behind K8, but K8 is far behind Conroe. So AMD fanboys lose, not Intel....

Well tha's true in the enthusiast marketplace, i must admit, but not in the mainstream. Intel can't compete with AMD under 400$ procs not even with Conroe. Not to mention that Inteln can't compete with lowend Conroe volume vs lowend X2 volume.

 

[turboflame]

There is no conroe competing with low end X2s. The cheapest e6300 allendale is around $220, while X23800+ is about $150 and X24200+ is around $180.

 

[cryogenic]

Low end Conroe > low end X2.

same price lowend X2 > same price lowend Conroe (only slithly)
lowend X2 Volume >>>> lowend Conroe volume
X2 motherboard availabilty >>>>>>>>>>> Conroe MB availability
X2 MB price <<< Conroe MB price
---------------------
X2 >>> Conroe

 

[exit2dos]

Seems to me that they threw in the overpriced netburst EE chips to throw off Intel's average price. Add to that, the Conroes are going for a premium price right now. I think one should wait a few weeks for the supply/demand ratio to steady before doing price comparisons.

I am not a fanboy of either side, but this concerns me:

With AMD prices continuing to fall, the stage appears to be nearly set for the other shoe to drop: a possible new FX series processor that enables the FX-62's prices to fall, or a possible "4x4" series processor that takes over the premium side of AMD's price/performance scale.

On one hand, lower prices would make the 4x4 a viable alternative. On the other hand, why do AMD prices continue to fall? Are there problems moving them?

 

[cryogenic]

AMD prices fall because they need market share and to suport better price/perf image otherwise they woud be overshadowed by Intel's image of superriority, artificialy created by Conroe in the mainstream also, not just the high end.

 

[exit2dos]

AMD prices fall because they need market share and to suport better price/perf image otherwise they woud be overshadowed by Intel's image of superriority, artificialy created by Conroe in the mainstream also, not just the high end.

I agree that lower prices is the way to go for market penetration, especially on low to mid-range, but:

1) Are the lower prices due to AMD? If so, how much lower can they go after their initial price cutting? Don't forget that AMD is still 90nm, so their production costs are relatively higher than Intel's 65nm.

2) Are the lower prices due to the retailers? The "Conroe Effect" may be hurting the AMD movement causing retailers to "price-to-move" AMD stock. With all the Conroe demand, this should be expected to some degree. If this is the case, then AMD prices should stabilize when the market settles down.

Not trying to be pro-Intel here, but the Conroe launch undervalued AMD chips. I think any further price reductions, while great for the consumer, will be a strain on AMD.

 

[mesarectifier]

I know value is a fairly strong selling point for most PC components, but to be perfectly honest when a Core 2 Duo pwns all the X2s and FXs that AMD have released in just about everything you start to realise that the extra 50 or so $ or £ are very much justified and very well spent.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

There is no conroe competing with low end X2s. The cheapest e6300 allendale is around $220, while X23800+ is about $150 and X24200+ is around $180.

Umm check NewEgg...

Core 2 Duo E6300 is going for around $200USD while the Athlon64 X2 4200+ is going for $183USD and the Athlon64 X2 3800+ is going for around $149USD.

Tests compilled one various sites show the E6300 to be more of a match for the Athlon64 X2 4600+ then the 3800+ or 4200+. One must also remember that it is newer technology.

Also remember how AMD was drowning us in high prices when they introduced there Athlon64 X2 where as Core 2 Duo's have started up relatively cheap.

Either way, lowest end/cheapest Dual Core is the Athlon64 X2 3800+, best price/performance remains the Core 2 Duo E6300... for now at least.

 

[exit2dos]

that would be the uther shew,gall dernit. :!:

:lol: :lol:

Yes, there's never been a better time to buy a CPU.

Remember: If the shew don't fit, try the uther one.

 

[spud]

Low end Conroe > low end X2.

same price lowend X2 > same price lowend Conroe (only slithly)
lowend X2 Volume >>>> lowend Conroe volume
X2 motherboard availabilty >>>>>>>>>>> Conroe MB availability
X2 MB price <<< Conroe MB price
---------------------
X2 >>> Conroe

Same priced low end X2 performance is less than current low end Core 2 offerings at this point in time. Additionally all Core 2's over clock to near or equal FX performance, so your arguments point is incorrect.

Low end X2 volume is significantly lower than low end Core 2 volume, Intel can out produce AMD with one 65nm facility, and additionally binning with be Intel’s favor so again your arguments point is incorrect.

X2 motherboard availability at this point in time may be slightly better than Core 2 motherboards, but as the popularity of the Core 2 dwarfs the X2 those numbers will shift significantly over then next quarter. So I suppose you are sort of correct.

X2 motherboard pricing is about the same as an equally equipped Core 2 setup less the fact with the Core 2 you get a significantly better performing processor, less heat output and significant over clocking headroom.

X2's gets utterly pawned by the Core 2's.
(Well not utterly but I feel like being a ass today.)

 

[jaguarskx]

Seems to me that they threw in the overpriced netburst EE chips to throw off Intel's average price.

Agreed. Pentium 4 EEs should not have been included since less expensive Conroes can beat those CPUs.

However, I suppose TGDaily included them because they are readily available to be purchased, but they still do skew the price/performace ratio of Intel's current generation of CPUs.

I don't think Intel will be able to compete in the sub $200 category until next year when C2D E4300 is ready to come out. I really don't think Intel will be lowering the tray prices of current Core 2 Duo CPUs until next year.

 

[jaguarskx]

X2's gets utterly pawned by the Core 2's.
(Well not utterly but I feel like being a ass today.)

:lol:

That's okay. Some people, like 9-inch, are being asses everytime they post.

 

[jaguarskx]

I don't think Intel will be able to compete in the sub $200 category until next year when C2D E4300 is ready to come out. I really don't think Intel will be lowering the tray prices of current Core 2 Duo CPUs until next year.

I'll update that to sub $195 since ZipZoomFly is selling the E6300 for $195 with free shipping.

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80858

 

[49ers540]

AMD prices fall because they need market share and to suport better price/perf image otherwise they woud be overshadowed by Intel's image of superriority, artificialy created by Conroe in the mainstream also, not just the high end.

You sell it cheaper because you can't get rid of it.

 

[ltcommander_data]

Must people have already mentioned what I'm going to say, but I'll summarize anyways. THG's data may be sound, but it is very misleading in its presentation. A lot of this is because of inclusion of Netbursts models that shouldn't really be included like the 840EE.

Virtually all 90nm chips have now been end of lifed including the 5xx series, the 6x0 series, the 8x0 series, all Netburst Extreme Editions, and the 920D, 930D, and 940D. The "official" Intel product line up is the $93 805D, $113 820D, the $133 915D, the $163 945D, and the Conroes. All the other models may still be available, but they are not "preferred" models anymore and are therefore overpriced. Those overpriced models are the ones skewing the data and making it look like Intel doesn't have anything competitive in the under $400 segment.

In actuality 90nm single cores are going to be cleared out as 805Ds or 820Ds, while 65nm Netbursts are being cleared out as 915Ds and 945Ds. With Intel's dual die approach single cores can be cleared out twice as quickly along with regular dual core stock. Now the price points for those 4 Netbursts are very competitive even though they are Netbursts. For one the 805D is under $100 which is a dual core in Celeron D and Sempron territory. The 915D is definitely slower than the X2 3600+, but it has the advantage of being cheaper at $133 to $148, and also being available right now. The X2 3600+s primary target is China and will be made available in other markets as availability allows. Also, it's important to note that the 915D will be replaced with the 925D on October 1st at the same $133 price point which should better put pressure on the X2 3600+.

Now it's mentioned that the E6300 is overpriced right now, but that's fine because it can easily compete against the X2 4200+ and X2 4600+ at $200. But what will compete against the X2 3800+? That's the job of the 945D. At $163, it's $4 more expensive, but the average performance of the 945D is higher than the X2 3800+ so it works out quite well. (Yes the X2 3800+ will be faster in games, but slower in other areas.) As well, the initial 945D versions are C1 stepping, but a newer D0 stepping is arriving which should allow lower power consumption considering a 3.6GHz 960D now has a 95W TDP instead of 130W. The X2 3800+ still consumes less power, but the gap isn't as large anymore. That all makes the 945D quite competitive against the X2 3800+.

Essentially, the reason why Netburst stock will continue to clear is because of those 4 models that I mentioned which offer decent performance considering their price. Intel's next round of price drops come October 22 where the 915D will drop to $113, the 820D drops to $93, and the 805D is discontinued. (The 925D will remain at $133). With these 4 Netbursts holding their own in the under $200 segment, Intel has bought time for Conroe to be overpriced initially until stocks rise. Besides E6300 and E6400 availability is very good right now so prices should drop quickly after the higher models are finally available.

A decent price performance comparison is here:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-shootout_13.html

The prices are based on "ideal" manufacturer prices, but the performance and power numbers should be accurate so you can just translate the data points across the price axis to the market price. For example, you will see that even if the E6300 sells for $195 as Zipzoomfly prices it, it'll still beat the price/performance between the X2 4200+ and the X2 4600+. Also $195 is only $12 more than Intel prices it which is perfectly acceptable given the demand.

 

[Siba]

But AMD main competitor in the market wich IS Netburst can't even reach AMD or close on for that mater... it is simply left behind.

Yes, Netburst is behind K8, but K8 is far behind Conroe. So AMD fanboys lose, not Intel....

Well tha's true in the enthusiast marketplace, i must admit, but not in the mainstream. Intel can't compete with AMD under 400$ procs not even with Conroe. Not to mention that Inteln can't compete with lowend Conroe volume vs lowend X2 volume.

What? Never heard of the E6600, I take it?

 

[dmacfour]

AMD is also being adopted by DELL

 

[AODBOB]

um... wha? I bought my E6600 for $380 which is below $400. Now someone tell me how an AMD with a price tag below $400 beats my E6600...

 

[notquitehere188]

I don't think Intel will be able to compete in the sub $200 category until next year when C2D E4300 is ready to come out.

damn celerons, damn them to hell.

 

[gudodayn]

um... wha? I bought my E6600 for $380 which is below $400. Now someone tell me how an AMD with a price tag below $400 beats my E6600...

yeah~~the E6600 is great at $380.....if I was gonna get a new system, a Conroe it shall be.

But the problem is, going to a Conroe requires a new motherboard, new memory for me (probably for a lot of users ~ using previous AMD CPUs, Intel users probably need at least the first two items)

I upgraded to a 3800 X2 for $154 and OCed it to 2.5GHz and real world applications are not that much slower than my friends newly built E6300 or E6400 when running games (we're all using 7900GTs, frame rates are all hitting above 60 frames /sec so which is why we couldnt noticed any difference anyway)....differences come in benchmarks!!!

Same goes for almost every other applications, 3DMax, Photoshop, Illustrator CS, TMPGEncoder, Premiere, etc
Its probably a little bit quicker but not to the point where Conroe is done processing and X2 is half way through...............
I dont run SuperPI scores because it does JACK-ALL!!!!........no production value whatsoever.........UNDER 10 seconds for 1MB.....congratulations to whoever that is - you managemend to figure out a way to waste less time in your life running SuperPI day in day out!!!

Both of my friends had AMD machines but they regret it now and realised they should've gone the AMD CPU upgrade path.......their Conroe system upgrade cost they nearly another grand for that little bit extra.......
Not to mention the trouble and the COST they went through to get their boards but maybe they just had bad lucks!!

This is also why AMD's market continue to grow.............everybody loves a dirty cheap dual core that performs above average~~who doesnt???

 

[o1die]

The best price for the e6300 has dropped to $195. I won't list the vender as they are currently sold out. $195 is approaching 4200 x2 pricing.

 

[ltcommander_data]

*caught sleeping*

And I thought C1 were already pulling out uber-impressive results one after another! Damn!

Here's the official D0 stepping PCN:

http://intel.pcnalert.com/content/eolpcn/PCN106404-00.pdf

With the D0 stepping all Preslers up to the 3.6GHz 960D have a 95W TDP. That's not bad considering the original 3.4GHz 550 single core had a 115W TDP.

 

[ltcommander_data]

The best price for the e6300 has dropped to $195. I won't list the vender as they are currently sold out. $195 is approaching 4200 x2 pricing.

Zipzoomfly is selling the E6300 for $195 and they are saying it's in stock on their website.

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80858

Intel recommended price is $183.

 

[AODBOB]

I share the same views about synthetic benchmarks. Useless stuff that I don't feel in my daily activities.

The only pure CPU task that I sometimes do is 3dmax renderings which are much faster on the E6600 vs. my old 2.5Ghz P4. I was planning on buying a new system this summer anyways so when the conroe came out I jumped right on it.

btw: the title of the thread is "Intel can't compete with AMD below $400 range!". I took that to mean in direct comparison, I forgot about the fact the user has to spend extra cash on Ram, motherboard etc. I never tear apart my old systems, I just keep them for private servers (music, movies, anime, games) or spares for when friends come over.

That 3800+ X2 is a nice chip and coupled with a 7900GT I don't think you should/will need to upgrade for another year or so depending on what you do, but my poor rig (2.53Ghz P4, 1GB DDR400 ram and 128MB 9600Pro) was hitting the limits in my games so I had to upgrade.