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.

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...

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....

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

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.

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.

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.

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.....
Becouse they are identical, the cheaper one is better.

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.....
Becouse they are identical, the cheaper one is better.

That's true.

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.

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.

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.

look at the performance charts and tellme if they perform the same also!!!

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.

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

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.

LOL

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?

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.