Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

5000+ Up 22%. Comparable to E6300 @ 2x Price?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 9, 2006 4:58:21 PM

Ok, I don't wanna start any flame wars here. No AMDageddon required with Fanboys launching suicide raids into a hail of bullets. But why in the blue blazes would the 5000+ jump 22% in a week when most of the other AMD processors have dropped up to the same amount?

TG Daily Article

The quote that states:

The X2 5000+ has evolved in AMD's main weapon against the Core 2 Duo processors, as it provides performance that is comparable to the midrange of Core 2 Duo CPUs (E6300/E6400).

Is fairly absurd as the E6300/E6400 series are available for almost half the THG quoted 5000+ price of $393.

NewEgg E6300

NewEgg E6400

So the price goes up on a processor simply because it performs as well as the competitor's half-priced CPU?

Am I losing my small mind here, or is my dyslexia kicking in? I know, I know... A mind is a terrible thing to waste! :?
December 9, 2006 6:34:50 PM

Not really!


Perhaps you should refer to the post about anti-trust price gouging.
December 9, 2006 7:19:28 PM

Quote:

Is fairly absurd as the E6300/E6400 series are available for almost half the THG quoted 5000+ price of $393.

So the price goes up on a processor simply because it performs as well as the competitor's half-priced CPU?

Am I losing my small mind here, or is my dyslexia kicking in? I know, I know... A mind is a terrible thing to waste! :?


Not sure where the high price of the AM@ 5000+ came from, as the street price seems closer to $320.00. Maybe a retail price was quoted instead of a selling price. Don't know.

What does bug me more is why there are so many different models of AMD cpus coming out that have little or no apparent difference except for cost. Give me something that is really better, something which measureably gets higher benchmarks, something like an FX64 or FX66 that gets over 3 ghz. Then I might get interested.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
December 9, 2006 7:25:52 PM

not sure but doubt it will last long with all the additional models being released in January. Maybe a hiccup in the supply chain somewhere.
December 9, 2006 7:43:04 PM

Quote:
Ok, I don't wanna start any flame wars here. No AMDageddon required with Fanboys launching suicide raids into a hail of bullets. But why in the blue blazes would the 5000+ jump 22% in a week when most of the other AMD processors have dropped up to the same amount?

Theirs is 2 reasons for the increase in price as the 5000+ has quickly drop from the top CPU list due to the FX-7X's and up and comming 65nm's. Those that would buy the upper CPU's from AMD's are holding off for one of these 2 reasons.

Quote:
The quote that states:

The X2 5000+ has evolved in AMD's main weapon against the Core 2 Duo processors, as it provides performance that is comparable to the midrange of Core 2 Duo CPUs (E6300/E6400).

Is fairly absurd as the E6300/E6400 series are available for almost half the THG quoted 5000+ price of $393.

Here we must look at the major buyers of these CPU's. To Businesses and organizations the X2 5000+ is the higher performing CPU due only to gamming numbers moves the E6400 upto the X2 4800+. Businesses and organizations will total ignore the gaming benchmarks. In MS office the X2 5000+ shows near the performance as the E6600. Businesses and organizations are pushing up the price of these chips as they look to be the better buy for those app's. The orgination I work for has a choice of buying the X2's or the Pentium D's.

Quote:
So the price goes up on a processor simply because it performs as well as the competitor's half-priced CPU?

Am I losing my small mind here, or is my dyslexia kicking in? I know, I know... A mind is a terrible thing to waste! Confused

No, this just has a lot going on behind the scenes that one has a real hard problem getting all the factors. The EX6800 and the Pentium D960 have both moved the same way due to these factors. The EX6800 isnt the fastest CPU anymore so top end buyers have moved away and Intel and AMD will have to responed by lowering prices.
December 9, 2006 8:26:15 PM

Expect all these CPUs to rise in price by around 20%:

OPN (Tray) OPN_PIB Processor Model Frequency Socket Wattage Die:
ADO5000IAA5DD ADO5000DDBOX AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 5000 2600Mhz Socket AM2 65W 65nm SOI
ADO4800IAA5DD ADO4800DDBOX AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 4800 2500Mhz Socket AM2 65W 65nm SOI
ADO4400IAA5DD ADO4400DDBOX AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 4400 2300Mhz Socket AM2 65W 65nm SOI
ADO4000IAA5DD ADO4000DDBOX AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 4000 2100Mhz Socket AM2 65W 65nm SOI

- Too bad they only have 2 x 512 KB L2 cache though.
December 9, 2006 8:56:52 PM

Quote:
Expect all these CPUs to rise in price by around 20%:

OPN (Tray) OPN_PIB Processor Model Frequency Socket Wattage Die:
ADO5000IAA5DD ADO5000DDBOX AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 5000 2600Mhz Socket AM2 65W 65nm SOI
ADO4800IAA5DD ADO4800DDBOX AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 4800 2500Mhz Socket AM2 65W 65nm SOI
ADO4400IAA5DD ADO4400DDBOX AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 4400 2300Mhz Socket AM2 65W 65nm SOI
ADO4000IAA5DD ADO4000DDBOX AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 4000 2100Mhz Socket AM2 65W 65nm SOI

- Too bad they only have 2 x 512 KB L2 cache though.

8O Are you kidding???!!! The only CPU prices rising are those of pieces no more in production such ar S939 dual cores or S478 P4s, all other prices are dropping, dropping, dropping everywhere and as AMD adds other K8 and K8L models models to the lineup, they will further drop for many diferent reasons such as price spacing, Intel pressure etc.
December 9, 2006 9:16:04 PM

Quote:
Ok, I don't wanna start any flame wars here. No AMDageddon required with Fanboys launching suicide raids into a hail of bullets. But why in the blue blazes would the 5000+ jump 22% in a week when most of the other AMD processors have dropped up to the same amount?

Theirs is 2 reasons for the increase in price as the 5000+ has quickly drop from the top CPU list due to the FX-7X's and up and comming 65nm's. Those that would buy the upper CPU's from AMD's are holding off for one of these 2 reasons.

Quote:
The quote that states:

The X2 5000+ has evolved in AMD's main weapon against the Core 2 Duo processors, as it provides performance that is comparable to the midrange of Core 2 Duo CPUs (E6300/E6400).

Is fairly absurd as the E6300/E6400 series are available for almost half the THG quoted 5000+ price of $393.

Here we must look at the major buyers of these CPU's. To Businesses and organizations the X2 5000+ is the higher performing CPU due only to gamming numbers moves the E6400 upto the X2 4800+. Businesses and organizations will total ignore the gaming benchmarks. In MS office the X2 5000+ shows near the performance as the E6600. Businesses and organizations are pushing up the price of these chips as they look to be the better buy for those app's. The orgination I work for has a choice of buying the X2's or the Pentium D's.

Quote:
So the price goes up on a processor simply because it performs as well as the competitor's half-priced CPU?

Am I losing my small mind here, or is my dyslexia kicking in? I know, I know... A mind is a terrible thing to waste! Confused

No, this just has a lot going on behind the scenes that one has a real hard problem getting all the factors. The EX6800 and the Pentium D960 have both moved the same way due to these factors. The EX6800 isnt the fastest CPU anymore so top end buyers have moved away and Intel and AMD will have to responed by lowering prices.

If you meant to say the E6400 shows perfromance near the x25000+ I would agree, but THGs charts show a different story regarding E6600 vs X25000+

This bench shows a 19.3% performance gain in Ofiice2003


This bench shows a 21.8% performance improvment in Office2003


I would hardly call a 4/5 the perfromance as being "near"
Furthermore, there are businesses that do more than word processing, in which case the E6600 tends to outperform X25000+ by a 10~20% margin.



With at least a10% perfromance increase, and at 3/4 the price, than the X25000, I fail to see the logic in the statement that "Businesses and organizations are pushing up the price of these chips as they look to be the better buy for those app's" In fact, I see no reason to choose x25000+ over E6600 with one exception, that being companies who are upgrading. It is certainly cheaper to go from a X23800 to a X25000+ (assuming the mobo and BIOS support that)rather than buy a completely new E6600 system.

On the other hand, if a companies sole interest is word processing, they would be better served by the X23800 in terms of price rather than either E6600 or X25000+ or even the E6400
December 9, 2006 9:47:19 PM

Supply and demand for those on Athlon 64 X2 systems, Socket AM2, that want to upgrade for Christmas (demand goes up, supply only just started, so it is low, thus prices go up).

Market conditions.

This is for the 65nm SOI parts at 65 watts btw, as they'll be killer overclockers in the right hands, the best from AMD in a long, long time.

The 90nm SOI stuff on Socket AM2 will stay where it is, give or take, and Socket 939 and Socket 940 stuff has been slashed in early October (to compete), and again recently (to move stock so 65nm parts can replace it over the next 6 - 9 months).

The initial batch is always small too, so 65nm will be in high demand (unless people want to replace their whole AMD Socket AM2 system, with an Intel Core 2 Duo system, at a higher cost to themselves).

I expect to see a few more Socket AM2 rigs on eBay because of this, as it might be cheaper to sell existing system then move to Core 2 Duo anyway.

(But if everyone is selling used AM2 boards, and no-one is buying them, then prices on them will drop, so TCO will remain 'similar'. Although the CPU makes up a higher percentage of TCO than the mainboard - so expect a rise in TCO for AM2 - AMD64 X2 65nm SOI systems overall).
December 9, 2006 10:22:37 PM

Of course the first 65 nm production will be limited, however, few people would care if what they're buying is a 89W, 90nm CPU or a 67W, 65nm one, and most of the people buying a whole system don't really know what 65nm means and since performance is the same, even system builders won't care much. Sincerely, I'd not care about it at all.
I'd rather say hat the 90nm parts' prices will drop still a bit to clean the shelves.
December 9, 2006 10:38:38 PM

Quote:
Ok, I don't wanna start any flame wars here. No AMDageddon required with Fanboys launching suicide raids into a hail of bullets. But why in the blue blazes would the 5000+ jump 22% in a week when most of the other AMD processors have dropped up to the same amount?

Theirs is 2 reasons for the increase in price as the 5000+ has quickly drop from the top CPU list due to the FX-7X's and up and comming 65nm's. Those that would buy the upper CPU's from AMD's are holding off for one of these 2 reasons.

Quote:
The quote that states:

The X2 5000+ has evolved in AMD's main weapon against the Core 2 Duo processors, as it provides performance that is comparable to the midrange of Core 2 Duo CPUs (E6300/E6400).

Is fairly absurd as the E6300/E6400 series are available for almost half the THG quoted 5000+ price of $393.

Here we must look at the major buyers of these CPU's. To Businesses and organizations the X2 5000+ is the higher performing CPU due only to gamming numbers moves the E6400 upto the X2 4800+. Businesses and organizations will total ignore the gaming benchmarks. In MS office the X2 5000+ shows near the performance as the E6600. Businesses and organizations are pushing up the price of these chips as they look to be the better buy for those app's. The orgination I work for has a choice of buying the X2's or the Pentium D's.

Quote:
So the price goes up on a processor simply because it performs as well as the competitor's half-priced CPU?

Am I losing my small mind here, or is my dyslexia kicking in? I know, I know... A mind is a terrible thing to waste! Confused

No, this just has a lot going on behind the scenes that one has a real hard problem getting all the factors. The EX6800 and the Pentium D960 have both moved the same way due to these factors. The EX6800 isnt the fastest CPU anymore so top end buyers have moved away and Intel and AMD will have to responed by lowering prices.

If you meant to say the E6400 shows perfromance near the x25000+ I would agree, but THGs charts show a different story regarding E6600 vs X25000+

This bench shows a 19.3% performance gain in Ofiice2003


This bench shows a 21.8% performance improvment in Office2003


I would hardly call a 4/5 the perfromance as being "near"
Furthermore, there are businesses that do more than word processing, in which case the E6600 tends to outperform X25000+ by a 10~20% margin.



With at least a10% perfromance increase, and at 3/4 the price, than the X25000, I fail to see the logic in the statement that "Businesses and organizations are pushing up the price of these chips as they look to be the better buy for those app's" In fact, I see no reason to choose x25000+ over E6600 with one exception, that being companies who are upgrading. It is certainly cheaper to go from a X23800 to a X25000+ (assuming the mobo and BIOS support that)rather than buy a completely new E6600 system.

On the other hand, if a companies sole interest is word processing, they would be better served by the X23800 in terms of price rather than either E6600 or X25000+ or even the E6400
True but MS word isnt office but 1 app of office. That leaves out the most used business app. The databases!!! Im talking of office averaged across all the apps many demo tests.
Here is a link of a time test of many office demos with a completion time show the X5000+ near the E6600 and the E6300 getting killed in office over all.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/Core2DuoL...
Note the X2 5000+'s time of 504 and the E6600's time of 501 Only 3 less than the E6600 and the E6300 531 a good 27 slower. As close as the 5000+ is to the E6600 the E6400 would loss in this test aswell. The E6400 should be around the 516 mark. heres the link to main test page the slide came from.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=279...
I dont know why your assuming I mean word only.
December 9, 2006 10:47:30 PM

Quote:

True but MS word isnt office but 1 app of office. That leaves out the most used business app. The databases!!! Im talking of office averaged across all the apps many demo tests.
Here is a link of a time test of many office demos with a completion time show the X5000+ near the E6600 and the E6300 getting killed in office over all.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/Core2DuoL...
Note the X2 5000+'s time of 504 and the E6600's time of 501 Only 3 less than the E6600 and the E6300 531 a good 27 slower. As close as the 5000+ is to the E6600 the E6400 would loss in this test aswell. The E6400 should be around the 516 mark. heres the link to main test page the slide came from.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=279...
I dont know why your assuming I mean word only.


Those numbers look erroneous to me. How can an X2 5000+ be faster than an FX-62?

FX-62 - 506
X2 5000+ - 504?!?! errrr....
X2 4600+ - 517
X2 4200+ - 518
X2 3800+ - 531

I will let any sane THG member make up their minds as to the validity of these numbers...

I would assume these benchmarks have some sort of margin of error (and quite big at that), because there is NO logical reason why an X2 5000+ should be quicker than an FX-62. It is clocked 200MHz slower, and has 1/2 the L2 cache.

Sorry, close but no cigar. You're just clutching at straws here.

With your 2nd link, if you extrapolate the results you will see an E6400 neck and neck with the X2 5000+.
December 9, 2006 10:48:01 PM

Quote:
Expect all these CPUs to rise in price by around 20%:

OPN (Tray) OPN_PIB Processor Model Frequency Socket Wattage Die:
ADO5000IAA5DD ADO5000DDBOX AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 5000 2600Mhz Socket AM2 65W 65nm SOI
ADO4800IAA5DD ADO4800DDBOX AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 4800 2500Mhz Socket AM2 65W 65nm SOI
ADO4400IAA5DD ADO4400DDBOX AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 4400 2300Mhz Socket AM2 65W 65nm SOI
ADO4000IAA5DD ADO4000DDBOX AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 4000 2100Mhz Socket AM2 65W 65nm SOI

- Too bad they only have 2 x 512 KB L2 cache though.

I expect AMD will cut the price on these or drop from production as the 5200, 5400, 5600, and the 6000(locked multiplyer version of the FX-64) to come out. This is old news information from about a month ago but should be correct.
December 9, 2006 11:03:26 PM

Quote:

True but MS word isnt office but 1 app of office. That leaves out the most used business app. The databases!!! Im talking of office averaged across all the apps many demo tests.
Here is a link of a time test of many office demos with a completion time show the X5000+ near the E6600 and the E6300 getting killed in office over all.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/Core2DuoL...
Note the X2 5000+'s time of 504 and the E6600's time of 501 Only 3 less than the E6600 and the E6300 531 a good 27 slower. As close as the 5000+ is to the E6600 the E6400 would loss in this test aswell. The E6400 should be around the 516 mark. heres the link to main test page the slide came from.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=279...
I dont know why your assuming I mean word only.


Those numbers look erroneous to me. How can an X2 5000+ be faster than an FX-62?

FX-62 - 506
X2 5000+ - 504?!?! errrr....
X2 4600+ - 517
X2 4200+ - 518
X2 3800+ - 531

I will let any sane THG member make up their minds as to the validity of these numbers...

I would assume these benchmarks have some sort of margin of error (and quite big at that), because there is NO logical reason why an X2 5000+ should be quicker than an FX-62. It is clocked 200MHz slower, and has 1/2 the L2 cache.

Sorry, close but no cigar. You're just clutching at straws here.

With your 2nd link, if you extrapolate the results you will see an E6400 neck and neck with the X2 5000+.
Maybe an error but the X2 3800+ shows the same mark as the E6300. The X2 4600+ is about the mark of the E6400 so the X2 5000+ is ahead of the E6400 any rate. The second link is a combination of all three slides of which many programs are not used in business or orginazations. THG's test show at time the X2 5000+ does go ahead of the FX-62 for what ever reason so IMO its correct.
December 9, 2006 11:09:37 PM

Quote:

True but MS word isnt office but 1 app of office. That leaves out the most used business app. The databases!!! Im talking of office averaged across all the apps many demo tests.
Here is a link of a time test of many office demos with a completion time show the X5000+ near the E6600 and the E6300 getting killed in office over all.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/Core2DuoL...
Note the X2 5000+'s time of 504 and the E6600's time of 501 Only 3 less than the E6600 and the E6300 531 a good 27 slower. As close as the 5000+ is to the E6600 the E6400 would loss in this test aswell. The E6400 should be around the 516 mark. heres the link to main test page the slide came from.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=279...
I dont know why your assuming I mean word only.


Those numbers look erroneous to me. How can an X2 5000+ be faster than an FX-62?

FX-62 - 506
X2 5000+ - 504?!?! errrr....
X2 4600+ - 517
X2 4200+ - 518
X2 3800+ - 531

I will let any sane THG member make up their minds as to the validity of these numbers...

I would assume these benchmarks have some sort of margin of error (and quite big at that), because there is NO logical reason why an X2 5000+ should be quicker than an FX-62. It is clocked 200MHz slower, and has 1/2 the L2 cache.

Sorry, close but no cigar. You're just clutching at straws here.

With your 2nd link, if you extrapolate the results you will see an E6400 neck and neck with the X2 5000+.
Maybe an error but the X2 3800+ shows the same mark as the E6300. The X2 4600+ is about the mark of the E6400 so the X2 5000+ is ahead of the E6400 any rate. The second link is a combination of all three slides of which many programs are not used in business or orginazations. THG's test show at time the X2 5000+ does go ahead of the FX-62 for what ever reason so IMO its correct.

It's called margin of error, when you have enough results you can extrapolate the results and get a 'clearer' picture.

At best, an X2 5000+ is *slightly* ahead of an E6400, and is slower than an E6600 in *all* cases, which definitely doesn't justify charging almost twice the amount of an E6400 and a 20% higher pricetag than an E6600.

What exactly are you trying to prove here Elbert? That the X2 5000+ is good value? That AMD is right in raising the prices?
December 9, 2006 11:14:43 PM

Quote:

True but MS word isnt office but 1 app of office. That leaves out the most used business app. The databases!!! Im talking of office averaged across all the apps many demo tests.
Here is a link of a time test of many office demos with a completion time show the X5000+ near the E6600 and the E6300 getting killed in office over all.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/Core2DuoL...
Note the X2 5000+'s time of 504 and the E6600's time of 501 Only 3 less than the E6600 and the E6300 531 a good 27 slower. As close as the 5000+ is to the E6600 the E6400 would loss in this test aswell. The E6400 should be around the 516 mark. heres the link to main test page the slide came from.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=279...
I dont know why your assuming I mean word only.


Those numbers look erroneous to me. How can an X2 5000+ be faster than an FX-62?

FX-62 - 506
X2 5000+ - 504?!?! errrr....
X2 4600+ - 517
X2 4200+ - 518
X2 3800+ - 531

I will let any sane THG member make up their minds as to the validity of these numbers...

I would assume these benchmarks have some sort of margin of error (and quite big at that), because there is NO logical reason why an X2 5000+ should be quicker than an FX-62. It is clocked 200MHz slower, and has 1/2 the L2 cache.

Sorry, close but no cigar. You're just clutching at straws here.

With your 2nd link, if you extrapolate the results you will see an E6400 neck and neck with the X2 5000+.
Maybe an error but the X2 3800+ shows the same mark as the E6300. The X2 4600+ is about the mark of the E6400 so the X2 5000+ is ahead of the E6400 any rate. The second link is a combination of all three slides of which many programs are not used in business or orginazations. THG's test show at time the X2 5000+ does go ahead of the FX-62 for what ever reason so IMO its correct.

It's called margin of error, when you have enough results you can extrapolate the results and get a 'clearer' picture.

At best, an X2 5000+ is *slightly* ahead of an E6400, and is slower than an E6600 in *all* cases, which definitely doesn't justify charging almost twice the amount of an E6400 and a 20% higher pricetag than an E6600.

What exactly are you trying to prove here Elbert? That the X2 5000+ is good value? That AMD is right in raising the prices?
No, just that my first post was correct where office on the X2 5000+ beats the E6400 and is near the E6600. When given a choice by your business or organization of the X2 or pentium D.
December 9, 2006 11:22:49 PM

Quote:
Elbert, this is funny I just looked over the data, E6400 is between a 4800+ and 5000+ in common apps, and trade blows with an FX-62 in gaming basically between 5000+ and FX-62, on average an E6400 is about 5000+ type performance.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=c2le&pag...
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=280...
http://www.behardware.com/articles/623-12/intel-core-2-...

True but gaming a business or organization has no need. Im not sure what your pointing to here as im defending my first post where I stated "office benchmarks show the X2 5000+ near the E6600." Someone got off on word but isnt enough of a reason when given a choice between an X2 or pentium D system in a business or organizations.
December 9, 2006 11:25:02 PM

Quote:

True but MS word isnt office but 1 app of office. That leaves out the most used business app. The databases!!! Im talking of office averaged across all the apps many demo tests.
Here is a link of a time test of many office demos with a completion time show the X5000+ near the E6600 and the E6300 getting killed in office over all.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/Core2DuoL...
Note the X2 5000+'s time of 504 and the E6600's time of 501 Only 3 less than the E6600 and the E6300 531 a good 27 slower. As close as the 5000+ is to the E6600 the E6400 would loss in this test aswell. The E6400 should be around the 516 mark. heres the link to main test page the slide came from.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=279...
I dont know why your assuming I mean word only.


Those numbers look erroneous to me. How can an X2 5000+ be faster than an FX-62?

FX-62 - 506
X2 5000+ - 504?!?! errrr....
X2 4600+ - 517
X2 4200+ - 518
X2 3800+ - 531

I will let any sane THG member make up their minds as to the validity of these numbers...

I would assume these benchmarks have some sort of margin of error (and quite big at that), because there is NO logical reason why an X2 5000+ should be quicker than an FX-62. It is clocked 200MHz slower, and has 1/2 the L2 cache.

Sorry, close but no cigar. You're just clutching at straws here.

With your 2nd link, if you extrapolate the results you will see an E6400 neck and neck with the X2 5000+.
Maybe an error but the X2 3800+ shows the same mark as the E6300. The X2 4600+ is about the mark of the E6400 so the X2 5000+ is ahead of the E6400 any rate. The second link is a combination of all three slides of which many programs are not used in business or orginazations. THG's test show at time the X2 5000+ does go ahead of the FX-62 for what ever reason so IMO its correct.

It's called margin of error, when you have enough results you can extrapolate the results and get a 'clearer' picture.

At best, an X2 5000+ is *slightly* ahead of an E6400, and is slower than an E6600 in *all* cases, which definitely doesn't justify charging almost twice the amount of an E6400 and a 20% higher pricetag than an E6600.

What exactly are you trying to prove here Elbert? That the X2 5000+ is good value? That AMD is right in raising the prices?
No, just that my first post was correct where office on the X2 5000+ beats the E6400 and is near the E6600.

It is so easy to just pick any particular benchmark to 'prove' your point. I even found an 'Office Productivity' benchmark where an E6300 beats the FX-62!


The point is, there is no definitive 'Office benchmark' because Office consists of a suite of programs, what may excel for Powerpoint may not apply to Excel or Access.
December 9, 2006 11:25:27 PM

I don't see why businesses would need anything more than a Good Ol' X2 3600+ or Random Intel Dual Core.
December 9, 2006 11:27:02 PM

Quote:
I don't see why businesses would need anything more than a Good Ol' X2 3600+ or Random Intel Dual Core.

Exactly why most only give you choice of a Pentium D or X2.
December 9, 2006 11:31:31 PM

Quote:

At best, an X2 5000+ is *slightly* ahead of an E6400, and is slower than an E6600 in *all* cases, which definitely doesn't justify charging almost twice the amount of an E6400 and a 20% higher pricetag than an E6600.


It is better value to upgrade from something old on Socket AM2, to an Athlon 64 X2 5000 on 65nm SOI, than it is to replace the mainboard and get a Core 2 Duo E6600.

That is the point of the prices.

You can't upgrade to a Core 2 Duo from a Socket AM2 board, so long as they have the most 'cost effective upgrade' solution on the market, they'll sell all their chips in the first batch with a better margin. (ed - Clarification as misquoted below): "AMDs" Business is about making money, and marketing is about making something seam better than it really is. This upgrade is a "good deal" for anyone on Socket AM2 who doesn't want the expensive of swapping mainboards, but wants higher performance now. Any other 'way' and they'd be shooting their own profit margins while not gaining enough extra customers to make the same profit.

- Think about it -

The Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (65nm SOI, Socket AM2) is still a few (ed: several) months off, and I wasn't aware they are planning a 65 watt FX-64 - :p 
December 9, 2006 11:33:53 PM

I would have to say worldbench 5's test is the most complete running several demo's for each app in office.
December 9, 2006 11:35:06 PM

Quote:

At best, an X2 5000+ is *slightly* ahead of an E6400, and is slower than an E6600 in *all* cases, which definitely doesn't justify charging almost twice the amount of an E6400 and a 20% higher pricetag than an E6600.


It is better value to upgrade from something old on Socket AM2, to an Athlon 64 X2 5000 on 65nm SOI, than it is to replace the mainboard and get a Core 2 Duo E6600.

That is the point of the prices.

You can't upgrade to a Core 2 Duo from a Socket AM2 board, so long as they have the most 'cost effective upgrade' solution on the market, they'll sell all their chips in the first batch with a better margin. Business is about making money, and marketing is about making something seam better than it really is. This upgrade is a "good deal" for anyone on Socket AM2 who doesn't want the expensive of swapping mainboards, but wants higher performance now. Any other 'way' and they'd be shooting their own profit margins while not gaining enough extra customers to make the same profit.

- Think about it -

And how many business actually bought AM2? AM2 has only been out for 6 months.

So you're telling me businesses all rushed to buy AM2 systems on launch day and have a 6 month upgrade cycle? Please... :roll:

The X2 5000+ is grossly overpriced for the performance it provides.
December 9, 2006 11:37:05 PM

Quote:

And how many business actually bought AM2? AM2 has only been out for 6 months.

So you're telling me businesses all rushed to buy AM2 systems on launch day and have a 6 month upgrade cycle? Please... :roll:

The X2 5000+ is grossly overpriced for the performance it provides.


Why the hell did you quote that, agree with it, then use :roll: ?

The bold parts is "AMDs Business thinking", not "Customer Businesses thinking", because almost zero businesses bought Socket AM2 systems, and those that did certainly do not require an upgrade now.

[Clarified]
December 9, 2006 11:37:39 PM

Quote:
I don't see why businesses would need anything more than a Good Ol' X2 3600+ or Random Intel Dual Core.


Well done!

They don't care.

There's been some funny replies in this thread...

Databases on x2 5000+'s? The whole idea of a database is that it is run from a centrailized location. Not on every machine. That's server grade cpu's. Databases are heavy duty! If they aren't then what you are gaining is minimal.

Business' just buy what they have to. 1200mhz athlons aren't on offer for $20 per machine so they basically buy the cheapest technology that is available. Thats why C2D won't really affect AMD too badly since they call sell all their slower processors to the low end of the market. For OEM's it doesn't matter, they stick a £30 mobo with a £50 processor and <insert company here> is happy.

Office? are you kidding. Employees themselves waste more time in a day than a machine wastes in a year. If you want more office productivity get some new hardcore staff.
December 9, 2006 11:39:24 PM

Quote:
I would have to say worldbench 5's test is the most complete running several demo's for each app in office.


If you say so chief...



Overall Worldbench Score
E6600 - 140
X2 5000+ - 130
E6300 - 120

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that an E6400 would be very close to the X2 5000+ numbers.
December 9, 2006 11:42:18 PM

Quote:

And how many business actually bought AM2? AM2 has only been out for 6 months.

So you're telling me businesses all rushed to buy AM2 systems on launch day and have a 6 month upgrade cycle? Please... :roll:

The X2 5000+ is grossly overpriced for the performance it provides.


Why the hell did you quote that, agree with it, then use :roll: ?

The bold parts is "AMDs thinking", not "Businesses thinking", because almost zero businesses bought Socket AM2 systems, and those that did certainly do not require an upgrade now.

Who said I agreed with you? I just think your 'reasons' for justifying these price hikes are rather lame. If they in any way reflect 'AMD's thinking' then AMD has some shoddy pricing managers as well.

Who the hell raises the prices on an already overpriced and uncompetitive product?
December 9, 2006 11:43:15 PM

Quote:
I would have to say worldbench 5's test is the most complete running several demo's for each app in office.


If you say so chief...



Overall Worldbench Score
E6600 - 140
X2 5000+ - 130
E6300 - 120

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that an E6400 would be very close to the X2 5000+ numbers.
Nor doesn't take a genius to figure out that an X2 5000+ would be near the E6600 numbers.[
Now take only office numbers and you have you answer.
Here they are:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=279...
Click on middle image.
December 9, 2006 11:45:38 PM

I see a 1x1 GIF.
December 9, 2006 11:46:05 PM

Quote:
I would have to say worldbench 5's test is the most complete running several demo's for each app in office.


If you say so chief...



Overall Worldbench Score
E6600 - 140
X2 5000+ - 130
E6300 - 120

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that an E6400 would be very close to the X2 5000+ numbers.
Now take only office numbers and you have you answer.
Here they are:
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/Core2DuoL...

The same numbers that show negative scaling from X2 5000+ and FX-62? Sorry, no can do.

Why don't you try claiming that the X2 5000+ outperforms the FX-62? Maybe the extra cache weighs down the FX-62 too much. :wink:
December 10, 2006 12:08:24 AM

Quote:
I would have to say worldbench 5's test is the most complete running several demo's for each app in office.


If you say so chief...



Overall Worldbench Score
E6600 - 140
X2 5000+ - 130
E6300 - 120

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that an E6400 would be very close to the X2 5000+ numbers.
Now take only office numbers and you have you answer.
Here they are:
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/Core2DuoL...

The same numbers that show negative scaling from X2 5000+ and FX-62? Sorry, no can do.

Why don't you try claiming that the X2 5000+ outperforms the FX-62? Maybe the extra cache weighs down the FX-62 too much. :wink:
Or maybe office is more optimized for and older core. :o  Ive seen benchmarks where the X2 4800+ beats the X2 5000+ so yes it can and does occure. Its not like the cores are the same and at times the FX may have more overhead due to core differances.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1...
Note the core of the X2 4800+ and that it beats the X2 5000+.
December 10, 2006 12:19:58 AM

Irrelevant anyway. Office is just not a real time application. Gaming is, fps is everything, the difference between one second and another is death. With office it's just not the same. It's an awful comparison of processing power.

If an employee has a coffee break that is 2 seconds longer than he should have all the advantage is lost.

please present me with a scenario where a faster processor is going to save you its money worth in this situation.
December 10, 2006 12:23:31 AM

Quote:
Irrelevant anyway. Office is just not a real time application. Gaming is, fps is everything, the difference between one second and another is death. With office it's just not the same. It's an awful comparison of processing power.

If an employee has a coffee break that is 2 seconds longer than he should have all the advantage is lost.

please present me with a scenario where a faster processor is going to save you its money worth in this situation.

Irreleevant as gaming isnt used for business or orginazation apps where your limited to a choice of a X2 or a pentium D. Reading my first post is adviced.
December 10, 2006 12:26:51 AM

This is quite irrelevant though. Corps buy mass and cheap. It doesn´t matter if it takes 2 seconds to fire up word or 15. Overall reliability and price are what counts, with overal reliability being just a sub-set of price. A x2 3600 is fast enough for word. And it will be fast enough for word in 3 years.

I somewhat believe that bigger companies can get a 5000 for the price of a 3800. That would kill the supply of Athlon 5000 processors and increase the price in the retail market. On the other hand it might be possible that the quantity is very limited to begin with, wich would drive the price to insane heights (just like now) too. I fail to see other reasonable explanations for that price. Well, unless its close to the manufacturing price, in which case AMD is simply screwed.
December 10, 2006 12:33:21 AM

Quote:
This is quite irrelevant though. Corps buy mass and cheap. It doesn´t matter if it takes 2 seconds to fire up word or 15. Overall reliability and price are what counts, with overal reliability being just a sub-set of price. A x2 3600 is fast enough for word. And it will be fast enough for word in 3 years.

I somewhat believe that bigger companies can get a 5000 for the price of a 3800. That would kill the supply of Athlon 5000 processors and increase the price in the retail market. On the other hand it might be possible that the quantity is very limited to begin with, wich would drive the price to insane heights (just like now) too. I fail to see other reasonable explanations for that price. Well, unless its close to the manufacturing price, in which case AMD is simply screwed.

This is the point of my first post were your limited by your company or organization to a choice of a X2 or a pentium D. With this limites guess what X2 many get? With a mass purchase the X2 5000+ is purchased alot and the price for consumers rise.
December 10, 2006 12:36:43 AM

Given that choice only the pentium D is reasonable. The 805 is cheaper than any other dualcore on the market.
December 10, 2006 12:52:48 AM

Quote:
Here we must look at the major buyers of these CPU's. To Businesses and organizations the X2 5000+ is the higher performing CPU due only to gamming numbers moves the E6400 upto the X2 4800+.

For gaming the 4800+ is performing like E6300, while the E6400 outperforms the 5000+:














Quote:
In MS office the X2 5000+ shows near the performance as the E6600.

The E6600 outperfroms all AMD CPUs for MS Office and MS_Office-like applications. Others allready provided links with E6600 vs X2 5000+ Office perfromance. If you need, I'll dig up some from our sticky thread about Core 2
December 10, 2006 1:05:13 AM

Quote:
Given that choice only the pentium D is reasonable. The 805 is cheaper than any other dualcore on the market.

True but some go with fastest in that choice.
December 10, 2006 1:10:39 AM

someone needs to read my first post and many in between. 99% of your post has nothing to do with my posts and the 1% has been went over.
December 10, 2006 7:45:09 AM

Quote:

Business' just buy what they have to. 1200mhz athlons aren't on offer for $20 per machine so they basically buy the cheapest technology that is available.


It's not easy making generalizations especially when it pertains to such a huge range as "businesses."

About four years ago I was advising the CEO of a $200 million company (not huge, but not bad) on upgrading all his PCs. I came up with a really well-balanced estimate between killer performance and economy. He looked at the $270,000 pricetag and said "You've got 400 grand. Get me the best."

So I set him up with Genuine IBM 8088 PC Jrs., pocketed the difference and moved to Tahiti.

OK, just kiddin' on the last sentence! :twisted:
December 10, 2006 7:48:18 AM

Quote:
So I set him up with Genuine IBM 8088 PC Jrs., pocketed the difference and moved to Tahiti.

OK, just kiddin' on the last sentence! :twisted:
So...that's where you got all the STD's from. :wink: :p 
December 10, 2006 8:00:04 AM

Quote:
So...that's where you got all the STD's from. :wink: :p 


Nah. I'd already had:

Chlamydia
Donovanosis
Gonorrhea
Lymphogranuloma venereum
Non-gonococcal urethritis
Hepatitis B
& of course, Herpes

All I got in Tahiti was pubic lice. The size of Hermit Crabs. Had to smash 'em with a sledge.

:twisted:
December 10, 2006 8:55:35 AM

Quote:
So...that's where you got all the STD's from. :wink: :p 


Nah. I'd already had:

Chlamydia
Donovanosis
Gonorrhea
Lymphogranuloma venereum
Non-gonococcal urethritis
Hepatitis B
& of course, Herpes

All I got in Tahiti was pubic lice. The size of Hermit Crabs. Had to smash 'em with a sledge.

:twisted:Gee, do you walk around with a skull & crossbones placard hung around your neck? :o  hehe
December 10, 2006 11:26:23 AM

Gee, do you walk around with a skull & crossbones placard hung around your neck? :o  hehe[/quote]

Nope. This year I'm embarassed to admit I'm a Raiders fan! :) 
December 10, 2006 12:20:51 PM

Quote:
Elbert, this is funny I just looked over the data, E6400 is between a 4800+ and 5000+ in common apps, and trade blows with an FX-62 in gaming basically between 5000+ and FX-62, on average an E6400 is about 5000+ type performance.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=c2le&pag...
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=280...
http://www.behardware.com/articles/623-12/intel-core-2-...

True but gaming a business or organization has no need. Im not sure what your pointing to here as im defending my first post where I stated "office benchmarks show the X2 5000+ near the E6600." Someone got off on word but isnt enough of a reason when given a choice between an X2 or pentium D system in a business or organizations.

No point really, it was just coincidental that in another thread someone asked which was better an E6400 or an AMD X2 4200+, I simply glanced through 2-3 different sites that had physically measured the E6400 with an 4200+ and others and noted how it came out in terms of performance.

My how the tables have turned.... before AMDs major strength was in fact gaming, today C2Ds major strength ironically is in gaming :)  On the whole, excluding games and this is just eyeballing, E6400 falls somewhere around 4800+ with some apps challenging close to a 5000+
Thats a good point and looks like both companys are going after the other business. Risking their own market share for the others by Intel designing their new Core 2 Duo with alot of FPU's and AMD move to 2 socket motherboard that sucks for gaming but rules for business.
December 10, 2006 1:39:03 PM

Well,

It's really rather simple why they have raised the prices, in my opinion. The demand on all AMD chips, despite them being slower than Core 2 counterparts, is still very high. They are selling everything they can make.

So, if you are selling all X2 5000's at price X, bump the price up accordingly, until supply and demand start to even out, I can't blame them for bumping the prices up, sure you and I might not buy one for that price, but they are obviously still selling very well.

Now, on the other hand, if they were not selling as well, then, you would see the price drop on them. It seems to make sense to me, I might be off base, and if I am, feel free to correct me.

I am not saying it is as good price/performance as an E6400, but, the fact they are still selling so well is the largest factor for the price.

wes
December 10, 2006 2:49:34 PM

Quote:
It's really rather simple why they have raised the prices, in my opinion. The demand on all AMD chips, despite them being slower than Core 2 counterparts, is still very high. They are selling everything they can make.


I'm not doubting that is the case, but I have to ask myself why? To whom? Is anyone buying AMD at their price/performance other than Mike Dell? And even he's trying to back outta the deal!
December 10, 2006 3:09:22 PM

The high price is easy to explain for the 5000+ - simple supply and demand.

Walk into any BestBuy or equivalent box hawker and the machine they are push at the magical $999 price point (with a 19 inch LCD) is an Athlon 5000+

Between them HP, Compaq, DEll, etc have sucked up all the 5000+ inventory - there just is nothing left for the channel.

If you look at the system pricing of Dell or HP is is clear they are paying a lot less for a 5000+ than they are for a E6400, so that is the box they schlock to the unknowing masses.
December 10, 2006 3:16:18 PM

Quote:
If you look at the system pricing of Dell or HP is is clear they are paying a lot less for a 5000+ than they are for a E6400, so that is the box they schlock to the unknowing masses.


Ok, so let's look at NewEgg Prices for CPUs.

5000+: $313
E6400: $212

Now if I place an order for a few hundred thousand E6400s I had damn well better get them for no more than $120 (or much less). That means that the 5000+ is being sold to the big guns far about a third the street price. I aint no industry egghead guru, but that is an outrageous margin, no matter how you cut it. Shouldn't the DOJ start sniffing around here too?
December 10, 2006 8:48:28 PM

Honestly, i don't understand how they calculated that 22% increase in price of the 5000+.
At least here in Germany, the 5000+ is on average 20-30€ less than the E6600.
And its price has been constantly dropping since its debut.
!