Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD adds new flagship Athlon 64 X2 processors 5400+,5600+

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 12, 2006 4:45:34 PM

Quote:
The new processors 5400+ and 5600+ use socket AM2 and increase the clock speed from 2.6 GHz of the 5000+/5200+ to 2.8 GHz. As previously, AMD uses different cache sizes for different performance ratings of its processors: The 5400+ has 1 MB L2 cache, the 5600+ 2 MB.

Quote:

While we do not have the performance numbers of the X2s yet, AMD feels confident enough to price the 5400+ and 5600+ right against the E6700. Intel's fastest mainstream processor currently lists for a tray-price of $530 (retail: $525), while AMD charges $485 for the 5400+ and $505 for the 5600+.

(source)
As much as we'd all like to see AMD being more competitive soon, this launch seems to be ridiculous.
The 5600+ is obviously a joke, and the 5400+ should be priced around 300$ to be taken seriously...
December 12, 2006 4:48:44 PM

Quote:
The new processors 5400+ and 5600+ use socket AM2 and increase the clock speed from 2.6 GHz of the 5000+/5200+ to 2.8 GHz. As previously, AMD uses different cache sizes for different performance ratings of its processors: The 5400+ has 1 MB L2 cache, the 5600+ 2 MB.

Quote:

While we do not have the performance numbers of the X2s yet, AMD feels confident enough to price the 5400+ and 5600+ right against the E6700. Intel's fastest mainstream processor currently lists for a tray-price of $530 (retail: $525), while AMD charges $485 for the 5400+ and $505 for the 5600+.

(source)
As much as we'd all like to see AMD being more competitive soon, this launch seems to be ridiculous.
The 5600+ is obviously a joke, and the 5400+ should be priced around 300$ to be taken seriously...

Why is it obviously a joke? I doubt they'll be horribly competitive with the E6600 and E6700, but AMD has got to release something until Barcelona & Co. arrive.
December 12, 2006 4:56:31 PM

it may be a joke to enthusiasts with the higher power consumption and lack of overclocking but...

it however makes perfect sense to release these for the OEM market. since OEM users almost never overclock, and even if they did their components are usually sub-par for such tasks. their only alternative is to upgrade to factory overclocked processors which ensures their warranties remain intact and also gives them higher performance. so in this instance it makes perfect sense for AMD to stretch the performance as much as the toledo core will allow them to in order to keep their relations with the big OEMs
Related resources
December 12, 2006 5:25:50 PM

Because they're priced in the range of the E6700, but their performance should be a bit lower than the E6600.
Especially the 5600+, i'd expect it to perform nearly identical to the 5400+, cache doesn't seem to make much of a difference on AM2 CPUs.
a c 99 à CPUs
December 12, 2006 5:36:02 PM

Possibly the most interesting part of that article is that Intel will finally be putting the Xeon Woodcrest's 1333 MHz FSB on the E6x50 Core 2 Duos. I don't know if it will help out performance much, but a desktop 1333 MHz FSB requires a new Intel chipset, which *will* help with getting the quad cores to a faster bus speed.
December 12, 2006 5:36:42 PM

Quote:
it may be a joke to enthusiasts with the higher power consumption and lack of overclocking but...

it however makes perfect sense to release these for the OEM market. since OEM users almost never overclock, and even if they did their components are usually sub-par for such tasks. their only alternative is to upgrade to factory overclocked processors which ensures their warranties remain intact and also gives them higher performance. so in this instance it makes perfect sense for AMD to stretch the performance as much as the toledo core will allow them to in order to keep their relations with the big OEMs

It does not make a sence. 5600 is performing slighlty slower than E6600. The price of E6600 is $300, while the price of 5600 is $500. Ofcourse some noobs will buy it, but most people will buy what offers better performance/price. No doubt, that is the E6600.
Also, the price of X2 5200+ is ridiculous. It performs slightly better than E6400, but being owned in everything by E6600. Its PIB price is $400, while E6400 is $200 and E6600 is $300.
I understand that the parts with 2x1MB of L2 are more expencive to produce, and I wonder why they are releasing those X2 models?
What I don't understand is the pricing of the X2 with 2x512kB of L2.
Looks like that AMD and Intel have changed their roles.
With Netburst, Intel offerings were slower, more expencive, wasted more energy and dissipated more heat. Now the same is happening with K8, it is slower, more expencive, wastes more energy and dissipates more heat.
December 12, 2006 5:41:48 PM

I'm still dumbfounded as to why these parts are even being released on a 90nm process. I'm also dumbfounded as to why you can't yet purchase a 65nm x2 anywhere.

I realize that the chips are initially slated to go to OEM's first, but I have ALWAYS (when the launch wasn't a paper launch that is) seen OEM procs up within a few days of release on at least one or two sites but here we are almost two weeks out and I've yet to see any 65nm parts *anywhere*.
December 12, 2006 5:44:39 PM

Uhh, i thought so at first.
But from the point of view of enthusiasts (overclock), these CPUs are less attractive, having a lower multiplier.
December 12, 2006 5:46:10 PM

1) 65nm production is still scarce
2) at the moment 65nm probably can't clock as high as 90nm. And these are close to the maximum frequencies that AMD can release at the moment.
December 12, 2006 5:47:27 PM

Yep, if it was for me, i'd launch only 2x512KB CPUs, clocked at 2.6, 2.8 and 3.0GHz, without all the intermediate (and confusing) model numbers.
December 12, 2006 5:58:42 PM

Quote:
I'm still dumbfounded as to why these parts are even being released on a 90nm process. I'm also dumbfounded as to why you can't yet purchase a 65nm x2 anywhere.

I realize that the chips are initially slated to go to OEM's first, but I have ALWAYS (when the launch wasn't a paper launch that is) seen OEM procs up within a few days of release on at least one or two sites but here we are almost two weeks out and I've yet to see any 65nm parts *anywhere*.


Like I posted before, AMD 65nm, Paper launch. Maybe these new 90nm 5400, 5600 may also be a paper launch? But in this case, this would actually be a good thing for AMD since they are essentially worthless as compared to Conroe at similar price points.
December 12, 2006 6:02:39 PM

Quote:
It does not make a sence. 5600 is performing slighlty slower than E6600. The price of E6600 is $300, while the price of 5600 is $500. Ofcourse some noobs will buy it, but most people will buy what offers better performance/price. No doubt, that is the E6600.
Also, the price of X2 5200+ is ridiculous. It performs slightly better than E6400, but being owned in everything by E6600. Its PIB price is $400, while E6400 is $200 and E6600 is $300.
I understand that the parts with 2x1MB of L2 are more expencive to produce, and I wonder why they are releasing those X2 models?
What I don't understand is the pricing of the X2 with 2x512kB of L2.
Looks like that AMD and Intel have changed their roles.
With Netburst, Intel offerings were slower, more expencive, wasted more energy and dissipated more heat. Now the same is happening with K8, it is slower, more expencive, wastes more energy and dissipates more heat.


I think it does if you are sitting on an existing X2 3800+ OEM machine and are looking for an upgrade. If you were to swap brands and buy a whole new machine then you are looking to spend well over $1200+ to get a whole new setup versus $500 for roughly the same performance.

Then again you may end up paying that back in energy bills. But I would personally rather do that than spend all that time integrating a new machine into the domain, loading up all that software, debugging all those settings, lesser shipping costs, and so forth. Yeah, just crack the case swap processor and be done with it. If only it was that easy everytime. :x

Now your argument is definitely true if their isnt an already existing platform. Then the C2D makes much more sense.

I do agree fully that it would have been a much better decision to do this on 65nm with the reduced heat and power consumption.
December 12, 2006 6:03:07 PM

its clear that amd is not going to really do much with these as far as competition goes. but they will drive the cost of the existing amd chips down more making them more competitive on entry level value which they still hold up to $150 or something like that.
December 13, 2006 1:19:22 AM

Seriously, I'd wait till K8L is released before I buy an AMD processor again.
December 13, 2006 1:26:12 AM

Quote:
Seriously, I'd wait till K8L is released before I buy an AMD processor again.



Why? What you're actually saying is that ONLY the X6800 is worth buying since any other dual, Intel or AMD is actually slower. Because AMD chips can STILL get excellent frame rates out of all levels of GPU - with reasonable power, they are still a viable option.

Those two chips are basically FX62 (now it's $400). No wonder they canceled it.
a c 99 à CPUs
December 13, 2006 1:52:31 AM

Well, yeah, you have a $1000 CPU in your rig. I'd be trying to milk that sucker for a while too :D 
December 13, 2006 2:25:56 AM

Quote:
The new processors 5400+ and 5600+ use socket AM2 and increase the clock speed from 2.6 GHz of the 5000+/5200+ to 2.8 GHz. As previously, AMD uses different cache sizes for different performance ratings of its processors: The 5400+ has 1 MB L2 cache, the 5600+ 2 MB.

Quote:

While we do not have the performance numbers of the X2s yet, AMD feels confident enough to price the 5400+ and 5600+ right against the E6700. Intel's fastest mainstream processor currently lists for a tray-price of $530 (retail: $525), while AMD charges $485 for the 5400+ and $505 for the 5600+.

(source)
As much as we'd all like to see AMD being more competitive soon, this launch seems to be ridiculous.
The 5600+ is obviously a joke, and the 5400+ should be priced around 300$ to be taken seriously...


Sniff....Sniff.....Smells like................


PAPER LAUNCH
December 13, 2006 2:33:04 AM

There are two types of people buying computers.

The 2 percent who what is going on, and the 98% who don't.

The 2% know EXACTLY how a 5600+ will perform, at 2.8 ghz x2 with 2 x 1 megs of cache, this is a renamed FX-62.

An FX62, taken across the board, is just barely faster than an E6600. (or a tad slower, depends on the mix of benchmarks used, but it's +/- an E6600 speed wise)

Given that cache makes almost no difference on the x2 series chips, I would bet a nich stack of chips the 5400+ will be also basically a dead heat with the E6600.

An E6600 is a $325 chip, which uses less power than an Athlon x2, and overclocks a heck of a lot better as well. (it's also less picky about memory as well)

This makes the 5600+, at best, a $300 chip, at least in my eyes.

But there are fanboys who will buy AMD regardless, just as there were Intel fanboys who actually bought EE965 chips..

I am sure Dell and Bestbuy and HP will make a pile of cash of these 5400+ and 5600+ chips.

<<sigh>>
December 13, 2006 2:33:08 AM

Quote:
The new processors 5400+ and 5600+ use socket AM2 and increase the clock speed from 2.6 GHz of the 5000+/5200+ to 2.8 GHz. As previously, AMD uses different cache sizes for different performance ratings of its processors: The 5400+ has 1 MB L2 cache, the 5600+ 2 MB.

Quote:

While we do not have the performance numbers of the X2s yet, AMD feels confident enough to price the 5400+ and 5600+ right against the E6700. Intel's fastest mainstream processor currently lists for a tray-price of $530 (retail: $525), while AMD charges $485 for the 5400+ and $505 for the 5600+.

(source)
As much as we'd all like to see AMD being more competitive soon, this launch seems to be ridiculous.
The 5600+ is obviously a joke, and the 5400+ should be priced around 300$ to be taken seriously...


Sniff....Sniff.....Smells like................


PAPER LAUNCH

If it follows like the 5000+ and 5200+ did, then yep this would likely fall in the paper launch catagory -- however, most of AMD's launches these past few rounds have been 'silent', 65 nm was not really headlined much -- no sample to be seen, 4x4 was trumped by a task manager demo to avoid a great deal of attention....

I wonder what is really going on here.

Smells like.....fear or desperation
December 13, 2006 7:49:26 AM

Quote:
There are two types of people buying computers.

The 2 percent who what is going on, and the 98% who don't.

The 2% know EXACTLY how a 5600+ will perform, at 2.8 ghz x2 with 2 x 1 megs of cache, this is a renamed FX-62.

But there are fanboys who will buy AMD regardless, just as there were Intel fanboys who actually bought EE965 chips..

I am sure Dell and Bestbuy and HP will make a pile of cash of these 5400+ and 5600+ chips.

Agreed.
But those who bought the Prescotts, and *will* buy the 5600+, are not fanboys, but rather uninformed people who will walk into a shop, and be presented with these CPUs from major brands like Dell and HP as being roughly equivalent to the similar priced C2D...
And probably will never even notice the difference when they run only Word, IE7 and watch a movie. :p 
December 13, 2006 8:59:11 AM

Although, looking at this from a weird point of view, debuting a processor that is slower than Intel’s and is priced higher means that Intel wont lower prices to become more competitive.

Is this just AMD damage control? They have a (relatively) long wait till their new uArch comes out and they dont have much to fight back with until then

Edit: Shamless use of Words autospell to correct my post so BM wont try using my grammer against me.
December 13, 2006 10:05:32 AM

Quote:

Edit: Shamless use of Words autospell to correct my post so BM wont try using my grammer against me.

Pssst...
that would be spelled "shameless", "Word's", "won't" and "grammar" :lol: 
December 13, 2006 10:15:30 AM

LMAO, damnit i failed by fogetting to spell check the edit... :cry: 
December 13, 2006 10:28:53 AM

My my..
it's all good. ;) 
But it was so darn funny! :lol: 
I hope nobody puts your sentence there in his sig... :twisted:
December 13, 2006 10:38:39 AM

intel can make chips for less, and sell them for less (cause intel makes 65nm chips and amd makes 90nm atm), so why compare prices between chips by intel and amd. maybe intel should raise their prices to match amd or we should wait for the 65nm amd's to compare to the conroes. . .
December 13, 2006 10:48:06 AM

Quote:
The new processors 5400+ and 5600+ use socket AM2 and increase the clock speed from 2.6 GHz of the 5000+/5200+ to 2.8 GHz. As previously, AMD uses different cache sizes for different performance ratings of its processors: The 5400+ has 1 MB L2 cache, the 5600+ 2 MB.

Quote:

While we do not have the performance numbers of the X2s yet, AMD feels confident enough to price the 5400+ and 5600+ right against the E6700. Intel's fastest mainstream processor currently lists for a tray-price of $530 (retail: $525), while AMD charges $485 for the 5400+ and $505 for the 5600+.

(source)
As much as we'd all like to see AMD being more competitive soon, this launch seems to be ridiculous.
The 5600+ is obviously a joke, and the 5400+ should be priced around 300$ to be taken seriously...


Sniff....Sniff.....Smells like................


PAPER LAUNCH

If it follows like the 5000+ and 5200+ did, then yep this would likely fall in the paper launch catagory -- however, most of AMD's launches these past few rounds have been 'silent', 65 nm was not really headlined much -- no sample to be seen, 4x4 was trumped by a task manager demo to avoid a great deal of attention....

I wonder what is really going on here.

Smells like.....fear or desperation

What surprises me is that so few people seem to have any grasp of any kind of business priorities.

Here are a couple things to consider.

We already KNOW how the new 65nm processors are going to perform. You want bench's? Over/under clock you proc to the right speed and bench it. It's the same thing as the 90nm processor. They probably aren't concerned about getting media samples out because it's not a new product, just a new process.

Why release these? Most people will buy any damn thing. Most people don't know what they're buying. The people I know who ask me what to buy get what I tell them. They know jack about computers. Why does AMD release faster products? Just to make it look like they are being competetive.

As for why release these on 90 nm? Come on, people, use more than one brain cell at a time.

They have ONE fab making 65 nm. ONE
one
one
They don't have 11 or whatever like INTEL does.

They can't afford to have low volume processors tying up their 65 nm manufacturing. They need to compete most in the area they sell most of their processors. If they spent all their resources making procs which would sit in boxes on shelves, they would go bankrupt. They release this stuff in 90 nm because they don't have the manufacturing capacity to do it all in 65. They need to stay alive by selling as many 65nm procs as possible, not making stuff that won't sell.

It's not necessarily a paper launch just because you haven't seen one, it just means they want to sell the damn things. Maybe they don't have the new retail packaging ready and are sending them to OEM's where they can just ship them as fast as possible. Turpit and dvm007

One other thing
I know you all want to bash BM because he says terribly slanted things, but if you READ his statements and THINK about some of them, some of them are right. You buy yourself an 8800 and upgrade your AM2 to a 5600+ and you're going to get good frame rates. He never said you would have the best.

Some people need to either grow up or start using their brains for something other than cranium stuffing.

T
December 13, 2006 11:27:13 AM

I like your post.
But you'll likely be flamed, because you said something unpopular AND are a newbie here...
That said, a couple of things:
* benchmarks of the new CPUs are still interesting, to evaluate their power consumption; also people want to know how high these new parts can overclock
* one reason why you don't see 65nm CPUs is because they're still ramping up their production and they probably have to tweak and refine their process a lot before it's really performing well
* i agree that some of BM's statements are reasonable, but he never gets taken seriously, because he's been so much biased in general. The problem is that in these forums it is now really difficult to say anything vaguely positive about AMD without being flamed, because some AMD fanboys have been so blind, unreasonable, biased, annoying, arrogant and came up with the most absurd explanations to negate the lead that Intel has recently got with Core2.
December 13, 2006 11:39:05 AM

I've been reading Tom's for about 6 years now. Not really a newbie other than to the posting. I've been reading the forums for about a year and only post when I get irate about how dim some people seem to be.
As for getting flamed, I don't really care a whole lot.


I would like to see power usage stats, but it's not going to change the fact that I have an aging s939 x2 system that I hope will make it through grad school when I can buy whateverthehell I want. I'm a numbers fiend. I'm always looking at new hardware.

But...

I know there are people who post here who are in the tech field, but there are so many which either act like children or don't seem to have any idea that AMD's goals are not to please the enthusiast every time. They exist to make money. That means pleasing the most and selling as many processors as they can.
Even some of the intelligent and knowledgable people seem to not have any idea about optimizing revenue streams. Why AMD releases what they release and the way it is done.

I know there seem to be tons of adolescents on here, but I wouldn't think it's too much to ask some of them to consider that a multi-billion dollar corporation has some idea what they are doing.
December 13, 2006 1:11:57 PM

Quote:
I'm still dumbfounded as to why these parts are even being released on a 90nm process. I'm also dumbfounded as to why you can't yet purchase a 65nm x2 anywhere.


I couldn't agree more.

Ladles and germans. I have been an AMD fan, if not fanboy for almost a decade. And it is with this illustrious pedigree that I hereby announce to you:

"AMD Corporate HQ is a Crack House. The only explanation to the marketing moves of the past few months is that they are all stoned out of their gourds. A 5600+ on a Toledo Core is like a 2007 Toyota Prius with a 7.3L Powerstroke diesel in it. Any rational board watching the managment run two separate paper launches and a Quad FX (hahaheeheehaha) intro within a month would fire everybody from the mailroom up. Therefore, the only possible conclusion we can come to is that AMD is a cover for the Cali Syndicate and they have been violating the basic rule of 'never get high on your own supply'."

I, Zarathustra, have spoken. 8)
December 13, 2006 1:32:50 PM

This is an odd play and could be good for them short term. I wonder if they'll release them at the prices they set and if they compete, well, hold them there. If not, then they'll probably drop the prices in a month. This might be to artificially boost Q4 earnings right at the end. I'd say that releasing a product that competes with Intel might boost their stock, but the stocks clearly don't reflect quality of product line right now as Intel and AMD have been neck and neck for awhile.

Dunno, odd that there are no benchies out though. Maybe this is just a confusion tactic as the 5600+ looks very simliar to the FX-62. Maybe an FX-62 price drop soon?
December 13, 2006 1:53:00 PM

Benchmarks show what the possible potential a CPU in a new process can deliver. And, no, no one really knows what the potential of the AMD 65nm is, since there were no ES samples available for said benchmarks. Would you believe a company if it said it created a CPU that runs on 10w of power, and can deliver the same performance as the highest rated CPU today with no proof, other than the CEO or a VP said so?

AMD has 2 FABS, and a foundry (Chartered) making CPUs. Not 1. Yes, one of AMDs FABs was going through a conversion to 65nm, but that is a business need. Something AMD should have considered when deciding to build it. If they believed that their output would be lowered, they could've easily struck a deal with UMC or TMSC to help produce more, but again, that would've cut into their bottom line of profitablity. So, to use the 1 FAB arguement doesn't cut it. They believed their ramp to 65nm was going to be quicker than what it turned out to be. That was their mistake.

Paper launches are defined by who wants to see it as that. When C2D came out and it was available in very limited quantities, all you heard was paper launch. Even though Newegg and other retailers had some, it was still considered a paper launch to some people, because it was released, but not in volume. So, what makes this any different? Retail packaging? C'mon. Once the CPU hits assembly/test, you don't think they already had a package design in mind. I'm sure they weren't going to change that much for a box. As for OEMs, that's where a bulk of the C2Ds went, as well, and it was still called a paper launch. I believe the saying is, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander" works here.

BM says a lot of things, and some are just too outrageous to even believe. I really don't pay much attention to his statements, unless it's pretty much a blatant spread of misinformation. As for the 8800 upgrade. You can put an 8800 on a 4000+/E6300 CPU system and get better frame rates. You don't need to put a high end GPU in a high end system to see improvement.

Nice post, though. This wasn't a flame, just my opinions on what you said.
December 13, 2006 1:54:40 PM

Quote:
This is an odd play and could be good for them short term. I wonder if they'll release them at the prices they set and if they compete, well, hold them there. If not, then they'll probably drop the prices in a month. This might be to artificially boost Q4 earnings right at the end. I'd say that releasing a product that competes with Intel might boost their stock, but the stocks clearly don't reflect quality of product line right now as Intel and AMD have been neck and neck for awhile.

Dunno, odd that there are no benchies out though. Maybe this is just a confusion tactic as the 5600+ looks very simliar to the FX-62. Maybe an FX-62 price drop soon?



Aaaahh, these chips are replacing FX62, which, with ALL OTHER FX single socket, has been cancelled.

So now a locked multiplier FX62 will be around $450. That's what everyone wanted now you have it. Why the complaints?
December 13, 2006 4:14:10 PM

Because that chip underperforms a ~300 USD E6600, and costs ~200 USD more. And that my friend, is a bad deal, just like your's WxW. btw, do you plan getting the system in your house before christmas? :lol: 
December 13, 2006 4:27:06 PM

Quote:
Benchmarks show what the possible potential a CPU in a new process can deliver. And, no, no one really knows what the potential of the AMD 65nm is, since there were no ES samples available for said benchmarks. Would you believe a company if it said it created a CPU that runs on 10w of power, and can deliver the same performance as the highest rated CPU today with no proof, other than the CEO or a VP said so?

AMD has 2 FABS, and a foundry (Chartered) making CPUs. Not 1. Yes, one of AMDs FABs was going through a conversion to 65nm, but that is a business need. Something AMD should have considered when deciding to build it. If they believed that their output would be lowered, they could've easily struck a deal with UMC or TMSC to help produce more, but again, that would've cut into their bottom line of profitablity. So, to use the 1 FAB arguement doesn't cut it. They believed their ramp to 65nm was going to be quicker than what it turned out to be. That was their mistake.



Yes, I understand that people would like to see what the new processors are capable of. But from the company's point of view, why shouldn't they get to charge for the OC, depending on what the head room is. Not saying I don't OC some and have typically bought parts in the past to OC for myself, but this is the first true production run on a new process, so to AMD, releasing test samples is not probably on their highest priority...
I'd like to see what the new processors can do.

I just understand that samples to media outlets may not be their highest priority at this point. The people who really understand the hardware are in the vast minority, so how well a processor OC's is only interesting to a (relatively) small number of people. I'd love to see what the new procs can do... .I also just wish they wouldn't EOL S939 so soon.....

As for Fabs....
I had meant 65nm fabs, however, I didn't specify. It was implied since 65nm processors in particular were the topic, but correct, I didn't actually say that.
I believe Fab 36 is the only one that is doing 65 nm currently. Fab 30 will be renamed fab 38 when it is ready to do 65nm. And I don't believe Chartered does 65 nm for them. I think Chartered only has AMD products in 90 nm.

I could be wrong though.

Personally, I think the use of the term 'paper launch' is overdone. That came around, or into heavy use, when ATI and nVidia didn't have cards on the market for months or at least weeks after they were announced. I can't say this 65nm isn't a paper launch because I havn't seen any for sale, but that doesn't mean that OEM's don't have any.... Personally I would say that NO product availability would have to be had to have a paper launch.

As for BM.... I'd defend him on the QFX thing to some point. I think a new chipset would make a hell of a difference for the thing. And I see it as being, if nothing else, a good test for a revised platform in the future.... But I sure wouldn't want it.... It's like buying a new model car or just after a complete redesign. You always wait for a revision to make sure things work like they should.
I always wait till there are a couple BIOS revisions and maybe even a board revision or two.... Makes me a lot more comfortable about stability.
But, he still seems too unwilling to admit there are shortfalls of some things.

T
December 13, 2006 4:44:09 PM

Intel : 30,000,000+ 65nm parts sold, 45nm ahead of schedule.
AMD : 12 65nm parts sold, 45nm "is gonna be awesome"
December 13, 2006 4:48:00 PM

Quote:
Intel : 30,000,000+ 65nm parts sold, 45nm ahead of schedule.
AMD : 12 65nm parts sold, 45nm "is gonna be awesome"


Ok.....
?

Is that a response to paper launch?
Or if it is a statement with regards to how much Intel is ahead of AMD, I think I mentioned that Intel has quite a few fabs, most of which, I believe can do 65 nm and AMD does not....
December 15, 2006 2:32:51 PM

Your reply button was the closest to the end of the thread. Don't get all ruffled
December 15, 2006 3:32:52 PM

Quote:
Intel : 30,000,000+ 65nm parts sold, 45nm ahead of schedule.
AMD : 12 65nm parts sold, 45nm "is gonna be awesome"


Nola contendere :lol: 
December 15, 2006 4:32:48 PM

Quote:
Because that chip underperforms a ~300 USD E6600, and costs ~200 USD more. And that my friend, is a bad deal, just like your's WxW. btw, do you plan getting the system in your house before christmas? :lol: 


I wouldn't say that. X2 is so fast at games that the only thing being faster gives you is bragging rights. I guess AMD now has their chance to slower chips for more money like Intel has been doing.

The 965EE is STILL $1000.

A 2.8GHz X2 is going to average 80+ fps at high resolution gaming at good power levels.
December 15, 2006 6:22:57 PM

Your point?
December 15, 2006 7:05:28 PM

Quote:
The new processors 5400+ and 5600+ use socket AM2 and increase the clock speed from 2.6 GHz of the 5000+/5200+ to 2.8 GHz. As previously, AMD uses different cache sizes for different performance ratings of its processors: The 5400+ has 1 MB L2 cache, the 5600+ 2 MB.

Quote:

While we do not have the performance numbers of the X2s yet, AMD feels confident enough to price the 5400+ and 5600+ right against the E6700. Intel's fastest mainstream processor currently lists for a tray-price of $530 (retail: $525), while AMD charges $485 for the 5400+ and $505 for the 5600+.

(source)
As much as we'd all like to see AMD being more competitive soon, this launch seems to be ridiculous.
The 5600+ is obviously a joke, and the 5400+ should be priced around 300$ to be taken seriously...

We know EXACTLY how the 5600+ will perform - at 2.8 gghz with 2 x 1 meg cache it's an FX62 with a locked multiplier.

An FX62 is basically a dead heat with a E6600 Conroe ($316) expect is uses almost twice the power and doesn't overclock as well.

The 5600+ is a $260 part IMHO. - At $525 they are trolling for fanboys or smoking crack.
December 15, 2006 7:09:36 PM

sweet, its a vorlon

not every day you get to see one of those :wink:
December 15, 2006 9:23:07 PM

Quote:


We know EXACTLY how the 5600+ will perform - at 2.8 gghz with 2 x 1 meg cache it's an FX62 with a locked multiplier.

An FX62 is basically a dead heat with a E6600 Conroe ($316) expect is uses almost twice the power and doesn't overclock as well.

The 5600+ is a $260 part IMHO. - At $525 they are trolling for fanboys or smoking crack.


OK, let's play a little game. You're the IT dude. You've been called in by the suits to give your advice about replacing 100 desktops. You have two estimates in your hand.

1) 5600+ based system
2) Identical E6700 system that's $70 cheaper.

You know that your job, your mortgage, your wife and your kids are on the line. Put the fanboy in you aside. This is a choice between a comfy job and welfare. Which one do you recommend?

I thought so...

Quote:
sweet, its a vorlon

not every day you get to see one of those :wink:


Yeah, they got all pi$$ed off because they couldn't stomach the Shadows and the plot got so convoluted they couldn't figure out what happened before they were all cancelled. :lol: 
December 15, 2006 9:52:43 PM

Your point is well made, but weakened by linking to an open box Conroe. Open box components are a roll of the dice IMO.
December 15, 2006 11:04:44 PM

Quote:


We know EXACTLY how the 5600+ will perform - at 2.8 gghz with 2 x 1 meg cache it's an FX62 with a locked multiplier.

An FX62 is basically a dead heat with a E6600 Conroe ($316) expect is uses almost twice the power and doesn't overclock as well.

The 5600+ is a $260 part IMHO. - At $525 they are trolling for fanboys or smoking crack.


OK, let's play a little game. You're the IT dude. You've been called in by the suits to give your advice about replacing 100 desktops. You have two estimates in your hand.

1) 5600+ based system
2) Identical E6700 system that's $70 cheaper.

You know that your job, your mortgage, your wife and your kids are on the line. Put the fanboy in you aside. This is a choice between a comfy job and welfare. Which one do you recommend?

I thought so...

Quote:
sweet, its a vorlon

not every day you get to see one of those :wink:


Yeah, they got all pi$$ed off because they couldn't stomach the Shadows and the plot got so convoluted they couldn't figure out what happened before they were all cancelled. :lol: 


The problem is that you can't get a Core 2 system for less than the "comparable" AMD system. Dell has 5000+ systems for 100s less than almost any Intel system.

$933 gets you a 5000+ with 2GB RAM while $908 gets you a 6300 with 512MB RAM. All other options the same on the Dimension.
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2006 11:10:53 PM

Since it is obvious that AMD chips cannot even come close to Conroe in price/performance, AMD should not be announcing new, similarly over priced chips, they should just close the door and declare bankruptcy.

It's just a shame then did not do it several years ago when they could not match Intel. Of course it was also unfortunate for AMD that, when they were way ahead pre-Conroe, Intel did not just close the doors and declare bankruptcy.

Maybe instead of trying to sell new competitive chips, the two can stop competing and merge and then both sets of shareholders can make oodles of money.
December 15, 2006 11:18:09 PM

Quote:
Since it is obvious that AMD chips cannot even come close to Conroe in price/performance, AMD should not be announcing new, similarly over priced chips, they should just close the door and declare bankruptcy.

It's just a shame then did not do it several years ago when they could not match Intel. Of course it was also unfortunate for AMD that, when they were way ahead pre-Conroe, Intel did not just close the doors and declare bankruptcy.

Maybe instead of trying to sell new competitive chips, the two can stop competing and merge and then both sets of shareholders can make oodles of money.



You mean


ALL HAIL THE DUOPOLY?
December 16, 2006 6:34:46 AM

Quote:
[The problem is that you can't get a Core 2 system for less than the "comparable" AMD system. Dell has 5000+ systems for 100s less than almost any Intel system.


Definitely, if you're stuck on name brands. But if we let our fingers do the walking through the newegg pages, it wouldn't be difficult to come up with absolutely identical systems in every way except for MB and CPU. The MB might vary by $10 or so. Then the CPU is the critical price factor.

Also agreed that open box is a no-no. I just grabbed the first URL I found. It's not too hard to find sealed E6700s in the high $400s, so I think the comparison still stands.
December 16, 2006 7:57:17 AM

Quote:
Because that chip underperforms a ~300 USD E6600, and costs ~200 USD more. And that my friend, is a bad deal, just like your's WxW. btw, do you plan getting the system in your house before christmas? :lol: 


I wouldn't say that. X2 is so fast at games that the only thing being faster gives you is bragging rights. I guess AMD now has their chance to slower chips for more money like Intel has been doing.

The 965EE is STILL $1000.

A 2.8GHz X2 is going to average 80+ fps at high resolution gaming at good power levels.
Humm, good one about the EE :lol:  that's the point. No one need complain about anything, but they don't have to buy it either. One could say that these prices are all for appearances' sake; but placing these CPUs in the same price segment as the E6600 and E6700, AMD are obviously hoping that consumers will view these chips in the same light(Like the 965EE and the X6800). When K8L is released, if AMD manages to regain the upper hand in performance-per-watt they will price "corresponding" CPUs the same.
!