Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Open letter to AMD

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 13, 2006 6:47:33 PM

I was browsing on Tomshardware and I came across the price per performace graph for the new Conroe processors vs. the AMD based FX and X2 series processors. It really seems to me that the E6600 Conroe is either faster or about the same performance as the FX-62 but when I checked pricewatch.com the FX-62 is priced significantly higher than the Conroe E6600. In fact it is priced almost twice as much as the E6600 Conroe. I'm not a brain surgeon or anything but why would any intelligent person buy the FX-62 processor when it gets blown out of the water by a lower priced processor? The answer to this is "I am not able to read the price per performance graph at Tomshardware, it's too complicated." Let me sum it up for you, the E6600 processor and above are far superior to AMD based processors. This means that since the FX-60 and FX-62 show weaker performace when compared to the E6600 it should be priced less. Let me give you a figure, the FX-60 should be priced at $270 and the FX-62 at $315. Please take notice of this, these prices from AMD don't seem to reflect the new architechture from Intel. If you have a hard time reading the graph try reading the benchmarks, numbers don't lie.

More about : open letter amd

September 13, 2006 7:27:08 PM

you're right, strictly by performance the AMD proc should be priced less. but AMD really can't just cut prices completely. sure they'd compete for a while but then they would just be bankrupt faster than you can say netburst. i think AMD's plan is to stick it out for the AMD diehards and fanboys who wouldn't buy intel no matter what. also the limited availability of conroe is turning some impatient buyers back to AMD. after all, even those "high" prices are significantly lower than they were 6 months ago. AMD really cannot compete with Core2 right now and profit from it, so they are doing their best to take the hit and look forward to the next technology cycle where they may be able to best intel. they didn't just purchase ATi for nothing...
September 13, 2006 7:30:05 PM

This is stupid.... AMD knows what they are doing. Why would you believe an FX series proc compete with the regular e6600? If anything it should compete with the e6800 extreme or whatever....and that might be the reason it should be a lower price....
Related resources
September 13, 2006 7:44:02 PM

AMD might have the yield problem to produce high quantity FX62, so if they lower the price then the lower bin will be lower. Thus, it will hurt AMD bottom line
September 13, 2006 7:46:44 PM

One thing to take into consideration is that AMD's chips are more mature and therefore so are the motherboards and other accessories that support them. Does this justify a higher price? No, i'm not arguing against you but I also don't believe they should halve the price of their chips.
September 13, 2006 7:49:08 PM

One thing to take into consideration is that AMD's chips are more mature and therefore so are the motherboards and other accessories that support them. Does this justify a higher price? No, i'm not arguing against you but I also don't believe they should halve the price of their chips.
September 13, 2006 7:57:46 PM

AMD has a biult in customer base of existing socket 939 owners that do not want to buy new motherboards, format their hard drives, and go thru the hassle when they can just upgrade from a old athalon 64 3500 venice to a fx60 or 62 by dropping in a new processor. I'd say a fair price would be the performance level price you suggested in first post plus say.... $75 to $100 premium to avoid the hastle and extra expense of another motherboard, reformat etc.. That would make the FX60 stated before between $350 and $375. and the FX 62 at $400 to $425 to make it worth taking over the Core 2.
September 13, 2006 8:03:13 PM

Quote:
This is stupid.... AMD knows what they are doing. Why would you believe an FX series proc compete with the regular e6600? If anything it should compete with the e6800 extreme or whatever....and that might be the reason it should be a lower price....

No, FX-62 should compete against Pentium D 820.
Both are on 90nm process, both dual core, both 2.8GHz, both 1MB L2 per core. Fair enough..... :roll:
Becouse they are identical, the cheaper one is better.
September 13, 2006 8:09:08 PM

Quote:
This is stupid.... AMD knows what they are doing. Why would you believe an FX series proc compete with the regular e6600? If anything it should compete with the e6800 extreme or whatever....and that might be the reason it should be a lower price....

No, FX-62 should compete against Pentium D 820.
Both are on 90nm process, both dual core, both 2.8GHz, both 1MB L2 per core. Fair enough..... :roll:
Becouse they are identical, the cheaper one is better.

That's true.
September 13, 2006 8:10:13 PM

How can you say that two processors with nearly the same performance are not direct competitors? The only thing that FX62 shares with the X6800 is high price. On performance, the 62 is yesterday's news. Even a AMD diehard would have a hard time buying a 62 knowing that he is paying over $800 for the 4th best chip on the market.


The original post does not take into account total system cost which makes the AMD procs a little more attractive than it would first appear.
September 13, 2006 8:27:49 PM

Quote:
The original poster also must not know that the PentiumD 965EE is still $1015. Otherwise he wouldnt have posted this attacking AMD.

Give it a rest - the 965EE isn't the Intel flagship product, anywhere that will have it will be NOS. FX62 is the best product AMD manufacture, and as it can't compete with a mid-priced Intel chip it shouldn't command that price.
September 13, 2006 8:37:07 PM

Unlocked multipliers you can play with/OC a ton.
That's the main reason.

If you want the best.
You pay a premium.
Also yeah pentium D extreme whatever is $$$ still also.
September 13, 2006 8:45:23 PM

look at the performance charts and tellme if they perform the same also!!!
September 13, 2006 9:07:16 PM

Quote:
The original poster also must not know that the PentiumD 965EE is still $1015. Otherwise he wouldnt have posted this attacking AMD.

Give it a rest - the 965EE isn't the Intel flagship product, anywhere that will have it will be NOS. FX62 is the best product AMD manufacture, and as it can't compete with a mid-priced Intel chip it shouldn't command that price.

So your saying the 965EE should be $1000 when it cant even compete with a $180 E6300? Give us a break please. :roll:

No I think he is saying no one is talking about the 965EE and rightfuly so. It would be like talking about the FX-55 or some other outdated product (and no it shouldnt be 1,000$ I would value it at around 300$ at the most...) I kind of agree that AMD should lower its prices to compete but its just not feasable for them :(  I guess untill K8L or K9 comes out AMD will just have to take its lumps. lol
September 13, 2006 9:11:08 PM

Quote:
The original poster also must not know that the PentiumD 965EE is still $1015. Otherwise he wouldnt have posted this attacking AMD.

Give it a rest - the 965EE isn't the Intel flagship product, anywhere that will have it will be NOS. FX62 is the best product AMD manufacture, and as it can't compete with a mid-priced Intel chip it shouldn't command that price.

So your saying the 965EE should be $1000 when it cant even compete with a $180 E6300? Give us a break please. :roll:

LOL
Quote:
[]
there is no way they will lower the prices to compete with the 6600/6700 so keep dreaming about $320 fx series





Oooh oooh can I be the first to bytch slap you when they do??
The market doesnt allow you to sell inferior products at higher prices, it doesnt work that way. Could you see Saturn selling its Ion for $40,000? .


AND that was 2 months ago what happened?
September 13, 2006 9:18:26 PM

Quote:
... I'm not a brain surgeon or anything but why would any intelligent person buy the FX-62 processor when it gets blown out of the water by a lower priced processor? ...


The answer is down to 3 groups of people:

There are many consumers in PC purchasing situations don't know about what they're buying and/or haven't heard that AMD isn't fastest any more.

There are also lots of AMD fanboys that can't mentally adjust, and will always argue AMD is better than Intel even though there's no cost/performance justification any more. They will stay with AMD or even buy new AMD CPUs just for brand loyalty even though they're now overpriced and way slower than the competition.

Then there's the people with an exisiting AMD-compatable motherboard who want to upgrade now and prefer to spend maybe 1000 dollars on an outdated CPU than 400 for an E6600 + 200 for an intel-compatable motherboard because a sense of false economy tells them 'why buy a new motherboard when you already have one that works.

AMD and many mail-order companies are counting on those groups to offload their outdated stock-on-hand to at inflated prices in the short term to keep their business alive until they have a new product to come back at intel with.
September 13, 2006 9:18:35 PM

No doubt that the latest FX prices are... at least to say exotic.
Quote:
No, FX-62 should compete against Pentium D 820.
Both are on 90nm process, both dual core, both 2.8GHz, both 1MB L2 per core. Fair enough..... Rolling Eyes
Becouse they are identical, the cheaper one is better.

Could do, but there's a mistake in your statement too... the single false statement required to make a theory fall: I'd get a X2 3800+ for few $ more instead of a 820; 90nm, half the cache and beat it in almost everything. Cheaper is never better, except when you can't afford anything more.
September 13, 2006 9:33:28 PM

Quote:
I was browsing on Tomshardware and I came across the price per performace graph for the new Conroe processors vs. the AMD based FX and X2 series processors. It really seems to me that the E6600 Conroe is either faster or about the same performance as the FX-62 but when I checked pricewatch.com the FX-62 is priced significantly higher than the Conroe E6600. In fact it is priced almost twice as much as the E6600 Conroe. I'm not a brain surgeon or anything but why would any intelligent person buy the FX-62 processor when it gets blown out of the water by a lower priced processor? The answer to this is "I am not able to read the price per performance graph at Tomshardware, it's too complicated." Let me sum it up for you, the E6600 processor and above are far superior to AMD based processors. This means that since the FX-60 and FX-62 show weaker performace when compared to the E6600 it should be priced less. Let me give you a figure, the FX-60 should be priced at $270 and the FX-62 at $315. Please take notice of this, these prices from AMD don't seem to reflect the new architechture from Intel. If you have a hard time reading the graph try reading the benchmarks, numbers don't lie.



AMD is moving to 65 nano dual core and quatro cores with
Opterons, Athlons64 and Turions 64.

The capacity of the plant is limited and AMD is really not interested to continue production of CPUs in low volumes. Retooling the plant to meet just low quantities is costly. It is more profitable to continue the production of dual core than to continue the production of FX-62.

It is reasonable to manufacturers to manufacture limited number of top of the line best sellers and to tweak those with defects which otherwise would be waste in to cheaper lower speed CPUs.

So the lower price is not in the best interest of AMD when it moves other CPUs in volume without retooling the plant for such low volume.



AMD thee for is NOT interested in a VOLUME sells of FX chips and maintain the low supply for those who want and can afford them at premium cost.

AMD does not need to compete in a race with Intel on a few processors where the profit margin is to low, only volume counts, as profits are made on sales in volume.

It is business and not a charitable organization!
September 13, 2006 9:34:27 PM

Quote:
This is stupid.... AMD knows what they are doing. Why would you believe an FX series proc compete with the regular e6600? If anything it should compete with the e6800 extreme or whatever....and that might be the reason it should be a lower price....

No, FX-62 should compete against Pentium D 820.
Both are on 90nm process, both dual core, both 2.8GHz, both 1MB L2 per core. Fair enough..... :roll:
Becouse they are identical, the cheaper one is better.

um......check the preformance charts...on paper yes they are identical but the FX-62 is far better preforming then the 820
September 13, 2006 9:41:40 PM

Quote:
This is stupid.... AMD knows what they are doing. Why would you believe an FX series proc compete with the regular e6600? If anything it should compete with the e6800 extreme or whatever....and that might be the reason it should be a lower price....

No, FX-62 should compete against Pentium D 820.
Both are on 90nm process, both dual core, both 2.8GHz, both 1MB L2 per core. Fair enough..... :roll:
Becouse they are identical, the cheaper one is better.

um......check the preformance charts...on paper yes they are identical but the FX-62 is far better preforming then the 820

Yes thats what he is saying that on paper they are equal in all measurements save for performance. Then you check the price and low and behold Intel seems to be charging a lower price becouse they know they couldnt sell it for the same amount as the higher performing FX-62 ! I think in a round about way he is saying he agree's with the original poster ?
September 13, 2006 9:47:14 PM

Quote:
This is stupid.... AMD knows what they are doing. Why would you believe an FX series proc compete with the regular e6600? If anything it should compete with the e6800 extreme or whatever....and that might be the reason it should be a lower price....

No, FX-62 should compete against Pentium D 820.
Both are on 90nm process, both dual core, both 2.8GHz, both 1MB L2 per core. Fair enough..... :roll:
Becouse they are identical, the cheaper one is better.

um......check the preformance charts...on paper yes they are identical but the FX-62 is far better preforming then the 820

Yes thats what he is saying that on paper they are equal in all measurements save for performance. Then you check the price and low and behold Intel seems to be charging a lower price becouse they know they couldnt sell it for the same amount as the higher performing FX-62 ! I think in a round about way he is saying he agree's with the original poster ?

what im saying is basing a comparison on frequency and L2 cache isnt a fair comparison because of how the different architectures operate. As other people have mentioned comparing the intel flagship (X6800) to the AMD flagship (FX-62) is a more reasonable comparison
September 13, 2006 9:48:00 PM

Quote:
The original poster also must not know that the PentiumD 965EE is still $1015. Otherwise he wouldnt have posted this attacking AMD.

Give it a rest - the 965EE isn't the Intel flagship product, anywhere that will have it will be NOS. FX62 is the best product AMD manufacture, and as it can't compete with a mid-priced Intel chip it shouldn't command that price.

So your saying the 965EE should be $1000 when it cant even compete with a $180 E6300? Give us a break please. :roll:

LOL
Quote:
[]
there is no way they will lower the prices to compete with the 6600/6700 so keep dreaming about $320 fx series





Oooh oooh can I be the first to bytch slap you when they do??
The market doesnt allow you to sell inferior products at higher prices, it doesnt work that way. Could you see Saturn selling its Ion for $40,000? .


AND that was 2 months ago what happened?

AND Im still standing by that. Do you know of anyone that has paid $850 for a FX62 lately?? Hmmmmmmmmm.......didnt think so.

So you still dont think you'll see $300 fx processors??
Do you think people are going to buy 2, $850 fx's for 4x4??
Im going to double bytch slap you when the time comes. :wink:


Give it a break dude. Anything can be bought at a cheaper price if you wait long enough. As you've said already, the market won't allow an inferior product to be sold at a higher price....all things considered.
September 13, 2006 9:49:25 PM

I don't think AMD will be lowering the price for the FX 62 until it comes out with a viable solution to C2D. Besides, you never drop the price for your flagship model, you want that power on 939 or AM2, you have to expect to pay a premium
September 13, 2006 10:08:52 PM

Quote:


AND Im still standing by that. Do you know of anyone that has paid $850 for a FX62 lately?? Hmmmmmmmmm.......didnt think so.

So you still dont think you'll see $300 fx processors??
Do you think people are going to buy 2, $850 fx's for 4x4??
Im going to double bytch slap you when the time comes. :wink:


What does me knowing if anybody bought a $850 fx-62 have to do with anything? There is not enough information about 4x4 and i dont know why you would bring it up.
fact is they cant drop there prices that much because if they did they would have to give away there lower end models that is pretty much anything under x2 4800's,
but i guess if you wait long enough it will drop.
September 13, 2006 10:23:50 PM

I hear AMD is looking for a new "arm chair" CEO to sort out their pricing. Looks like you may have stumbled onto the answer to all their problems.

It's funny that with all their high priced management, they didn't notice this obvious solution. Good Job! :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
September 13, 2006 10:24:13 PM

You have a point there, but you also have to think for a minute. AMD still makes 90nm chips while Intel makes 65nm chips. 90nm and 65nm chips cannot compete because 65nm chips have a greater advantage over 90nm. 65nm chips produce less heat while providing great oc'ing and performance. If the FX-62 was a 65nm chip it would probably outperform the E6600 anyday. Besides what has Intel done right? Hmmm let's see Intel stock has remained pretty much the same since the release of it's Conroe chips, while AMD's stock increased a total of eight points since the release oh Conroe and AMD's price drops. Look at Intel's future Quadro Kentsfield. This thing produces so much heat, you can cook your morning eggs on it, 66 C at full load! Clearly AMD has the advantage with their soon-to-be released 4x4. As you can see AMD is the clear winner here.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1988736,00.asp
September 13, 2006 10:45:26 PM

Quote:
You have a point there, but you also have to think for a minute. AMD still makes 90nm chips while Intel makes 65nm chips. 90nm and 65nm chips cannot compete because 65nm chips have a greater advantage over 90nm. 65nm chips produce less heat while providing great oc'ing and performance. If the FX-62 was a 65nm chip it would probably outperform the E6600 anyday.

Your logic is...Okay, I'm no expert, but here goes:

Remember that process is only part of the story - the key element is architecture. Yes, 65nm chips do produce less heat and consume less power (I believe because the circuit paths are shorter), but the chip's actual design determines its true potential. By your logic, Intel's Cedar Mill and Presler P4s should have overtaken most of the K8 line when they were released. Did they? No - they may have reduced power consumption by moving to a smaller process, but they were still Netburst chips with the same architecture. K8, despite its larger process, still defeated the P4 because it had a more efficient architecture. The point is that even the best and smallest process available won't save a CPU from a crappy uArch.

Quote:
Look at Intel's future Quadro Kentsfield. This thing produces so much heat, you can cook your morning eggs on it, 66 C at full load!

Are you kidding me? I think that's a fantastic number for a quad-core processor. Intel had single-core Prescotts that ran hotter than Kentsfield does. Then there was also the failed Tejas core...150W at 2.8GHz.

Quote:
Clearly AMD has the advantage with their soon-to-be released 4x4. As you can see AMD is the clear winner here.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1988736,00.asp

How is 4x4 the winner? Do you have a performance benchmark? Or a power consumpsion bench? We don't have any benchmarks of the 4x4 platform. Because of that little detail, you can't compare 4x4 to Kentsfield.

You can't declare AMD the winner before they've even entered the ring.
Wait for benches to emerge, then make a conclusion.
September 13, 2006 10:52:30 PM

I was being factitious, but of course you're right. Any problem AMD has pales by comparison to the deep rooted struggles at Intel.
September 13, 2006 10:54:50 PM

I agree the E6600 is a better CPU, but also understand that people buy brands they trust. For example Walmart has the lowest prices but I never shop there because I don't like the way their busniess is run. In addition in some cases you will save money buy bying the FX since you won't have to upgrade or somthing, just let people know that if it will cost you more than xxx to go to a core 2 then just buy a new AMD proc. for your existing socket.
September 13, 2006 11:15:30 PM

Quote:
Besides AMD isn't the one in trouble it's Intel who's in trouble. They're the ones cutting jobs. AMD is still creating more jobs.

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2006/04/28/21572...
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32557
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14679917/

There's more where that came from! :D 


You mean Intel is restructureing, and all of those people that are getting laid off will get help from Intel to find new employment, the retraining nessary got that new employment and a very good release package.
September 13, 2006 11:26:06 PM

So does that negate the point of Intel having serious problems, or confirm it?
September 13, 2006 11:29:37 PM

Quote:
So does that negate the point of Intel having serious problems, or confirm it?


They had serious problems now they are in the final stages of rectifying it.
September 13, 2006 11:43:43 PM

AMD, meanwhile, put themselves 2.5 billion in debt and that's seen as a good thing. :lol:  I love the stock market.

At 100 million dollars in profit a quarter, how long until they pay off that ATI acquisition? :) 
September 13, 2006 11:46:36 PM

Quote:
AMD, meanwhile, put themselves 2.5 billion in debt and that's seen as a good thing. :lol:  I love the stock market.

At 100 million dollars in profit a quarter, how long until they pay off that ATI acquisition? :) 


Just have to have faith that they will deliver a great platform with in the next 18 months.
September 13, 2006 11:48:33 PM

I think everyone is missing one little (but very importent i think) detail;

have you noticed that there is not a single 64bit benchmark comparison???
vista coming soon, everybody declared intel as a winner...

can anyone answer what if intel lacks on 64bit as they did before???

AMD has proven it self on 64bit and why dont we see ANY benchmarks on 64bit???

(but please dont come with excuses like not enough drivers, benchmark tools etc..)
September 13, 2006 11:54:21 PM

Quote:
I think everyone is missing one little (but very importent i think) detail;

have you noticed that there is not a single 64bit benchmark comparison???
vista coming soon, everybody declared intel as a winner...

can anyone answer what if intel lacks on 64bit as they did before???

AMD has proven it self on 64bit and why dont we see ANY benchmarks on 64bit???

(but please dont come with excuses like not enough drivers, benchmark tools etc..)


:o 
September 14, 2006 12:12:23 AM

Small question, do you use any 64bit programs? Or 64bit OS's? Do you know any 64bit programs? Besides I'm pretty sure there are 64bit benches and comparisons, you might have to look harder.
September 14, 2006 12:21:24 AM

Quote:
So does that negate the point of Intel having serious problems, or confirm it?


They had serious problems now they are in the final stages of rectifying it.

Time will tell. There is still a lot, and I mean a lot, of inventory in the distribution channel that needs to be dealt with. The new C2D products only make the problem worse. Look for the serious earnings hits to continue as the write downs hit the financial statements.

The Intel fanboys evaluate Intel's performance based solely on their affection for the new C2D processors, rather than business fundamentals.
September 14, 2006 12:30:53 AM

Quote:
Small question, do you use any 64bit programs? Or 64bit OS's? Do you know any 64bit programs? Besides I'm pretty sure there are 64bit benches and comparisons, you might have to look harder.


Small Answer, shall we stay in today forever? if you buy an intel or amd cpu today would you not like to able to use it with a brand new 64bit OS? (which is not very far future)

in terms of computer you have to think future or you are a money loser, this is the most rapidly evolving/improving/changing business in the world...

forget about today... this is the most commonly made mistake in here people only thinking for today...

plus, think like this; (we all know that AMD has proven it self on 64bit as i told before) you buy an AMD today and when vista comes out you'll have a '0' cost and very nice upgrade, what if the people who buy intel today cant have this nice feeling? wont they be sorry?..
September 14, 2006 12:36:26 AM

Okay okay I agree with you there. Thanks for the clearifcation bro. I probably won't be getting Vista for atleast 2 - 3 years after its release.
September 14, 2006 12:41:08 AM

Quote:
So does that negate the point of Intel having serious problems, or confirm it?


They had serious problems now they are in the final stages of rectifying it.

Time will tell. There is still a lot, and I mean a lot, of inventory in the distribution channel that needs to be dealt with. The new C2D products only make the problem worse. Look for the serious earnings hits to continue as the write downs hit the financial statements.

The Intel fanboys evaluate Intel's performance based solely on their affection for the new C2D processors, rather than business fundamentals.

Inventory is the least of their problems, they could sell those excess P4's for 50 bucks a pop and still come out even. I also wasn't talking about the Core 2, I was just stating as a corporation Intel is in the final stages of rectifying the internal problems that have plagued the company during the "P4" era.
September 14, 2006 1:25:48 AM

Quote:
So does that negate the point of Intel having serious problems, or confirm it?


They had serious problems now they are in the final stages of rectifying it.

Time will tell. There is still a lot, and I mean a lot, of inventory in the distribution channel that needs to be dealt with. The new C2D products only make the problem worse. Look for the serious earnings hits to continue as the write downs hit the financial statements.

The Intel fanboys evaluate Intel's performance based solely on their affection for the new C2D processors, rather than business fundamentals.

Inventory is the least of their problems, they could sell those excess P4's for 50 bucks a pop and still come out even. I also wasn't talking about the Core 2, I was just stating as a corporation Intel is in the final stages of rectifying the internal problems that have plagued the company during the "P4" era.

My debate is with the "final stages of rectifying the internal problems" comment. IMO, Intel isn't even close to the final stages of resolving their profit problems. And in the end, those are the only problems that really matter.

A final note, you couldn't be more wrong about the effect of selling P4's at $50 (or pick a number). Keep in mind that many of these products have already been reported as sales at much higher prices and margins. The distrubutors and OEM's will need to be made whole with credits and sales reversals will need to be recognized.
September 14, 2006 1:30:50 AM

Quote:


The Intel fanboys evaluate Intel's performance based solely on their affection for the new C2D processors, rather than business fundamentals.


Remember, we're a selfish bastardly generation who really doesn't care of the performance of their business fundamentals. We care about if our favorite company releases a faster processor then the arch-nemesis company.

I've been wondering this for quite a while, why is there SO much hullaballoo about AMD loosing?
OK, so I'm a AMD fanboy. Don't like Intel, I'll say it right off the bat. I've been a AMD owner since my K6 233, and have enjoyed each rig I've built since. But let's look at the history timeline...

AMD's had a superior architecture with a blazingly more powerful FPU than intel since when? Since the dawn of Pentium III. Yes, the Classic Athlon Slot A proc's were the beginning of AMD's reign in the performance segment. Even the debut of the Netburst and all it's glory, AMD's microarchitecture was still more efficient and powerful than intel's offerings. How many years has it been, my friends? Many years. Were you expecting AMD to keep the performance line forever? Were you expecting Intel to never release a superior product? Why is everyone yelling, "AMD is going to die!" just because they've lost the highest performing sector of the market? They still have wonderful offerings, and many, many people are still purchasing their products, and will continue to do so (like me :D  :D  :D  )
AMD and Intel, NVIDIA and ATI, Corsair and OCZ, (OCZ fanboy!), Sony (the devil) vs Nintendo (bad comparison), Cheech vs Chong (even worse comparison),

They all hand over the performance crown back and forth to each other. It's about time Intel made a clear victory, but it's all gain for us consumers. I just hope AMD wastes no time in delivering a powerful, efficient, revolutionary product in the near future, and doesn't spend years catching up, like intel did ;) 
September 14, 2006 1:36:04 AM

Who says AMD's dead? Nobodies lost until the fat lady sings, or you declare bankruptcy.
Quote:
AMD's had a superior architecture with a blazingly more powerful FPU than intel since when?

History means bupkiss when you're dealing in a dynamic market that works with who's on top now.
Its the equivilent of two kids arguing an one tells the other that I have a history of being better than you. WhoTF cares! The past only exists in memory.
September 14, 2006 1:58:20 AM

Quote:
I was browsing on Tomshardware and I came across the price per performace graph for the new Conroe processors vs. the AMD based FX and X2 series processors. It really seems to me that the E6600 Conroe is either faster or about the same performance as the FX-62 but when I checked pricewatch.com the FX-62 is priced significantly higher than the Conroe E6600. In fact it is priced almost twice as much as the E6600 Conroe. I'm not a brain surgeon or anything but why would any intelligent person buy the FX-62 processor when it gets blown out of the water by a lower priced processor? The answer to this is "I am not able to read the price per performance graph at Tomshardware, it's too complicated." Let me sum it up for you, the E6600 processor and above are far superior to AMD based processors. This means that since the FX-60 and FX-62 show weaker performace when compared to the E6600 it should be priced less. Let me give you a figure, the FX-60 should be priced at $270 and the FX-62 at $315. Please take notice of this, these prices from AMD don't seem to reflect the new architechture from Intel. If you have a hard time reading the graph try reading the benchmarks, numbers don't lie.


OPen letter to Rikeeee<whatever>.

AMD processors are faster than 85+ percent of Intel processors because P4 is a BLIGHT ON THE COMPUTING INDUSTRY.

Maybe Intel just WANTED Opteron to take the world by storm.
September 14, 2006 1:59:02 AM

Quote:

History means bupkiss when you're dealing in a dynamic market that works with who's on top now.
Its the equivilent of two kids arguing an one tells the other that I have a history of being better than you. WhoTF cares! The past only exists in memory.



I totally and completely disagree with you. History means everything to this day's technological dynamic market. If AMD didn't build such a strong history of recent years, they'd be NOWHERE.
Remember Digital's old Alpha chips that sprung out of nowhere? they were hitting 650mhz while we were congradulating the PII 300's?
Alpha was on top by FAR, by leaps and bounds, but they had no HISTORY.
Look at XGI, another company with BAD HISTORY. they had promising products, but they can't compete with ATI and NVIDIA, who's history is STRONG and POWERFUL.

Intel, has the LONGEST and STRONGEST history. That's why they have such a large grasp on the market share. AMD was the new guy with no history, and because of that, they STRUGGLE to gain support.
Look how long and hard AMD had to work just to build their reputation to be known enough to be finally accepted by Dell. Why did that happen? because of AMD's HISTORY.

when we say, "PC Chips has a history of making crappy products"
products which dont' last, are cheaply built, and leak capacitor crap all over the place, and say they come out with some high quality mobo that blows the competition in stability, longevity, and performance MOST of the enthusiasts won't buy it because of their sour HISTORY.

We base our opinions of a company on who've they've BECOME. And we see what they've BECOME through their HISTORY.

If anyone else dares to post such a crappy post saying, "history doesn't matter" BE WARNED.

the next post of mine...

WILL BE ALL IN CAPS!
September 14, 2006 2:23:11 AM

Please, refrain from going all caps. It makes you look like a fanboy. I'm not saying you are, its just a warning from a helpful ninja.
Sorry to make you all hot and bothered but i thought the forum was talking about performance and power now and how to get back on top.
Correct me if I'm wrong (well you probably will anyways, Valium anyone?)
You've been warned.... the ninja is watching
September 14, 2006 2:52:27 AM

Quote:
Why AMD and Intel dont lower the prices on their old upper line chips to move inventory is beyond me, but the simple fact is they shouldnt even be included in the chart because nobody is going to buy them at that price.

You predicted the AMD price cuts and you were right, with the exception of the FXs. I don't understand how anybody would buy a Pentium EE for that amount of money. At least the FXs are better. C2D is another story. If I wanted to be fanboyish I would say that anyone who can follow wusy's Conroe overclocking guide will get more performance for their money with C2D than anything AMD can offer, but the fact is that both the X2s and the C2Ds are good CPUs and should be judged on the basis of price/performance. I need a new "home away from home" computer and it'll probably be something AMD based that I can get at CompUSA when I go visit my parents. Why would I get something mediocre (Celeron D, Sempr0n) when I can get a good AM2 X2 system for just a little more. A Pentium D might also be under consideration but for the same price I'll take the X2. 8) HP has some interesting offerings for small form factor PCs that use Core Solo or a mobile Athlon X2. There's nothing wrong with the Core Solo but if for the same price I can get an X2 3800+, it's no contest.
September 14, 2006 3:04:22 AM

Quote:
AMD processors are faster than 85+ percent of Intel processors because P4 is a BLIGHT ON THE COMPUTING INDUSTRY.

Maybe Intel just WANTED Opteron to take the world by storm.


Oh Baron, you're so full of 5hi7, which is why I prefer to refer to you as BM.

P4s and P-Ds are not blights. I'm using one right now and it sure doesn't seem like a blight to me. It's inferior to the Athlon 64 X2 but it still performs very well, TYVM. Only an obsessively sick person like you would refer to a CPU as a "blight", especially one that has always been stable and offerred me little to complain about (except the heat). And like all Intel CPUs, it will be productive for years to come because they build them tough. You have stability, performance and durability, plus dual core. You call that a blight? I'm sure you do, but you live in a different planet.
!