First E6850 Benchmarks With Aggressive Pricing

http://www.google.ca/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hkepc.com%2Fbbs%2Fhwdb.php%3Ftid%3D753250%26tp%3DIntel-c2d-e6050%26rid%3D753256&langpair=zh%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8

Well the first benchmarks of the 3GHz 1333MHz FSB E6850 are out and realistically it's only about 3-5% faster than the X6800 mainly in memory sensitive benchmarks. They also ran a comparison between the 2.66GHz 1067MHz FSB E6700 and a 2.66GHz 1333MHz model and it showed only a 1% differentiation which confirms that Conroe is not FSB bottlenecked. It is nice though that even at 3GHz, the E6850 will maintain a 65W TDP.

So with such small performance improvements what do the E6x50 series bring? What they appear to bring is drastically lower prices. In fact, they are so low I'm left wondering what it'll do to Intel's bottom line. (I hold I'm not channeling Sharikou.) According to the price charts, the E6850, which is faster than the $999 X6800, will only cost $266. The lowest model, the 2.33GHz 1333MHz FSB E6550 is supposed to sell for $163, which is lower than today's E6300. The Q6600 Kentsfield is also supposed to drop to $266. Generally, HKEPC have been fairly reliable in their articles, but I'll have to remain a bit skeptical about this pricing scheme. For one thing this would completely eliminate the the market for the 4MB E6320 and E6420 that have yet to be released.

In any case, Intel seems to have taken AMD's performance claims to heart and have decided that regardless of how fast Barcelona is, they are going to price it out of the market. While this pricing structure won't leave room for huge profits, Intel could probably sustain it given that they would have been selling 65nm processors for more than a year and a half by the time the E6x50 series launches so the process is more than mature. Also, the current 1067MHz Conroes have shown plenty of FSB clock room, so going to a 1333MHz probably has little to no effect on yields so it's a no brainer, especially if Intel already intends to launch 3GHz 1600MHz FSB Xeon Extremes. Despite the aggressive pricing, it would be nice for Intel to announce some 1333MHz FSB Kentsfields too (which the upcoming QX6800 does not appear to be) or move forward with the Penryn family. Anyways, it appears that Intel is going to go to great lengths to ensure it doesn't lose the momentum it's built up since the Merom family launched.
146 answers Last reply
More about first e6850 benchmarks aggressive pricing
  1. Ya... those prices seem wacked but you never know. No one expected conroe prices to be this low, and now look...
  2. thanks for the post/link, this is indeed getting a bit hairy, am I guessing that Penryn ramp/release to market is accelerating and that Inel is trying to price AMD's new offering out such as AMD canot make money on 65 nm?? this price war is going to a new level 8O good for me as I plan on building a new system this summer. Last one was an AMD and this one is a C2D :)
  3. Those prices...wow.......just wow. Unbelievable. I cant help but wonder if Intel hasnt been able to make further cost saving refinements to its 65nm process to afford those prices. If they are accurate, and there hasnt been some denomination conversion snafu, those prices are insane.
  4. Whoa. Those prices are seriously... whoa. AMD's current flagship processors will have to drop below $100 to keep the price/performance ratio up. I wonder if AMD will be able to produce Barcelona at low enough cost to compete with Intel's prices.
  5. E6300@1.83@$183
    E6750@2.66@$183

    45%+ clock and 25%+ FSB at the same price. Woo :D
  6. Quote:
    Whoa. Those prices are seriously... whoa. AMD's current flagship processors will have to drop below $100 to keep the price/performance ratio up. I wonder if AMD will be able to produce Barcelona at low enough cost to compete with Intel's prices.


    Ya, if they are for real, thats no longer a little 'bytch' slap, thats a nothing held back kick in the nether region. A bold statement by Intel..."**** off and die AMD"
  7. I can only hope those prices are correct. If they are it looks like Intel is going for the jugular.
  8. Wow. Intel is out for blood, no question. I guess quad cores will be hitting the mainstream a lot sooner than I thought.

    It's already having an impact on AMD.

    http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/technology/03/08/8amd.html
  9. Well here's independent confirmation of the price scheme from Hiroshige Goto at PC Watch Impress.

    http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2007/0202/kaigai333_02l.gif

    Usually this type of early pricing information is either from leaked documents or from mobo manufacturers based on what Intel tells them they are planning on pushing the market. Admittedly neither are firm, but while the exact prices are unclear, they will be noticably lower than current levels, if for no other reason other than to make more room at the top for more quad core models.
  10. Those prices are utterly insane! $266 for a 3Ghz Core 2 Duo? I'm sold! Awesome upgrade from my E6300 for sure. Have to wonder what this will do to Intel's bottom line, and how AMD can possibly match these prices.
  11. This doesn't surprise me at all. We already know how good Intel's chips are. They have no problem "overclocking", which just means Intel are waiting on AMD's move.

    They've been selling off netburst chips for the low end. Once they're all gone, they'll just shift low end C2D into place.

    As i've always said, the thing with C2D has been the fact that if a E6300 was multiplier unlocked, it would essentially be a X6800. It could perform those speeds at stock. You'd struggle to find out it wasn't though overclocking, unless you have a really good cooling solution.
  12. With this Intel is saying that any dual core will soon go into the budget segment while quad-cores will be the only products in the mainstream to extreme range. From a wafer real estate perspective, this is completely reasonable. It costs them twice as much fab capacity to make a QX6700 as it does to make an E6700. I also have no doubt they have sufficient capacity at these price points, as the observation that 95%+ of E6300's o/c past 3.2GHz should tell us their yields are very high.

    But my question is whether Intel will be able to sell so many quad-core parts to keep its ASPs and margins decent. So many people simply don't need four cores and the associated heat output. Is this something their marketing machine can handle?
  13. Geez Louise! Even my poor butt will be able to afford a high end conroe when this kicks in. Simply insane. I honestly cannot see AMD competing with this if Barcelona isn't gonna be in volume on the desktop until Q1 '08

    I guess this is intel's way of saying "thanks for sueing us"
  14. Quote:

    I guess this is intel's way of saying "thanks for sueing us"


    Well, Spud hasnt been around, so I'll say it on his behalf...

    Word
  15. On another note, AND I AM NOT TRYING TO INCITE A FLAME FEST, but I am curious to hear Barons perspective on this, assuming its for real AND assuming he can present it without being insulting.
  16. Quote:


    AMD wanted a competitive environment, I guess they got it.

    Now they seem screaming it's not fair.


    Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
  17. Quote:


    Verb.

    AMD wanted a competitive environment, I guess they got it.

    Now they seem screaming it's not fair.


    That deserves a

    'Word'

    as well.

    In all fairness though, those prices arent fair. They are for lack of a better phrase, a whole bunch of nails in the coffin.

    I dont see anyway AMD can compete with those.
  18. Intel is trying to put the hurt on amd but they are not that stupid to sell a q6600 for under $300 - that is bs!

    what is that sound? omg amd...... :twisted: ... just died!
  19. Quote:
    But my question is whether Intel will be able to sell so many quad-core parts to keep its ASPs and margins decent. So many people simply don't need four cores and the associated heat output. Is this something their marketing machine can handle?

    The funny thing is, even Intel doesn't expect quad-cores to account for more than 10% of total processor sales even in Q4 2007. That then leaves the question as to what they are up to?

    From my perspective, the major part of their strategy revolves around one word. Vista. With the release of a new OS, especially after 6 years, this is the perfect time for the average person to replace their computer. What's more, the added hardware requirements for Vista are just icing on the cake since it discourages upgrading in favour of a simpler for the average user, built of Vista solution, and it encourages people to spend a little bit more on their new system. This is exactly where Intel's strategy is moving. They are pushing high-performance dual cores into the under-$300 mainstream segment which is where they majority of sales is. Granted Barcelona may ultimately be the fastest processor solution this year, but it doesn't matter if Intel can give better price/performance in the lower price segments that count. In theory, the larger volume of Vista related sales will make up for the lower margins. That said Vista doesn't appear to be selling quite as well as hoped and even Microsoft cautioned investors not to get ahead of themselves, but if mainstream and low-end DX10 GPUs ever get released, I think the momentum will really build starting Q2 and especially leading into this years back-to-school season.

    Speaking of DX10 solutions, this is the 2nd area that Intel is moving. As is well known, they are not just focusing on processors anymore, but platforms.

    http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/03/08/gdc2007_intel_g965_integratedgraphics/

    Specifically, Intel seems to finally have gotten their act together and drivers unlocking the GMA X3000s hardware features are nearing completion. The early beta drivers with hardware VS and T&L (the current drivers only support hardware PS like the GMA 950) show decent performance in Call of Duty 2 and the Source engine. If Intel's GMA X3000 is able to match the performance of low-end GPUs like the X1300 and if it is DX10 enabled and can match a X2300, then Intel will be able to push a strong platform integrating a great price/performance CPU with finally a decent performing IGP.

    On the side, Apple is also getting ready to release their new Leopard OS, so mac users will want to be transitioning too. So with both Mac and PC platforms in motion, Intel is trying to position themselves to capture as much of that market as possible.
  20. Quote:
    But my question is whether Intel will be able to sell so many quad-core parts to keep its ASPs and margins decent. So many people simply don't need four cores and the associated heat output. Is this something their marketing machine can handle?

    The funny thing is, even Intel doesn't expect quad-cores to account for more than 10% of total processor sales even in Q4 2007. That then leaves the question as to what they are up to?

    From my perspective, the major part of their strategy revolves around one word. Vista. With the release of a new OS, especially after 6 years, this is the perfect time for the average person to replace their computer. What's more, the added hardware requirements for Vista are just icing on the cake since it discourages upgrading in favour of a simpler for the average user, built of Vista solution, and it encourages people to spend a little bit more on their new system. This is exactly where Intel's strategy is moving. They are pushing high-performance dual cores into the under-$300 mainstream segment which is where they majority of sales is. Granted Barcelona may ultimately be the fastest processor solution this year, but it doesn't matter if Intel can give better price/performance in the lower price segments that count. In theory, the larger volume of Vista related sales will make up for the lower margins. That said Vista doesn't appear to be selling quite as well as hoped and even Microsoft cautioned investors not to get ahead of themselves, but if mainstream and low-end DX10 GPUs ever get released, I think the momentum will really build starting Q2 and especially leading into this years back-to-school season.

    Speaking of DX10 solutions, this is the 2nd area that Intel is moving. As is well known, they are not just focusing on processors anymore, but platforms.

    http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/03/08/gdc2007_intel_g965_integratedgraphics/

    Specifically, Intel seems to finally have gotten their act together and drivers unlocking the GMA X3000s hardware features are nearing completion. The early beta drivers with hardware VS and T&L (the current drivers only support hardware PS like the GMA 950) show decent performance in Call of Duty 2 and the Source engine. If Intel's GMA X3000 is able to match the performance of low-end GPUs like the X1300 and if it is DX10 enabled and can match a X2300, then Intel will be able to push a strong platform integrating a great price/performance CPU with finally a decent performing IGP.

    On the side, Apple is also getting ready to release their new Leopard OS, so make users will want to be transitioning too. So with both Mac and PC platforms in motion, Intel is trying to position themselves to capture as much of that market as possible.

    The Vista/mainstream duul cores relation is a brilliant deduction
  21. I think if the E6850 is this cheap, then I'm sure Intel is going to do a major speed bump for the Core 2 Duo. After all, Core 2 Duo is long over due for one. Maybe, Intel is going to release 3.6Ghz-4 Ghz.
  22. Quote:
    8O 8O 8O

    Holy flip flops batman :!:

    8O 8O 8O

    AMD better get crackin 8O


    I think this may crack them
  23. Quote:

    We had better hope it doesnt; Seriously is that what any of us wants? wouldnt it be better to promote boycotting intel than to see AMD buried for good?

    Seriously What intel is doing is bad for everyone.


    None of us wants AMD dead. I think only Intel wants that.

    But how can one refuse the price/performance perspective of a 3Ghz, cool running (65W), awesome overclocking Core 2 E6850 for just over $260? Or for some people, a Quad Core Q6600 at the same price point might be a better choice. These prices are simply insane.
  24. Vern, it has not happened yet. This might not come to pass. The last I had heard before this was that when the price cuts do come the Q6600 comes down to $530 and not below $300. The question is Intel going to release a Q6400 at the same time and introduce it below $400

    Until I see something from Intel I'm not going to hold much hope to see Conroe's and Kentsfield's at such low prices.
  25. Quote:
    8O 8O 8O

    Holy flip flops batman :!:

    8O 8O 8O

    AMD better get crackin 8O


    I think this may crack them

    We had better hope it doesnt; Seriously is that what any of us wants? wouldnt it be better to promote boycotting intel than to see AMD buried for good?

    Seriously What intel is doing is bad for everyone.

    Of course not. :x

    But I dont see how they can survive that price scheme, regardless of how great K10 may or may not be. I just cant see how AMD can compete. At those prices, Intel is just one step above giving CPUs away in cereal boxs or as CrackerJack prizes.

    With those prices, I now ( :roll: ) must agree with Baron. But, this is all just prediction. We'll have to wait and see when the chips hit the market. At this point, Im considering buying several and storing them before AMD cracks and Intel jacks its prices up.

    Someone should go to Hectors and Henris houses. To make sure they have no rope or guns.
  26. I'm all for $266 quad cores. I think it's a reasonable price. Personally I've always thought that the $350 and higher prices for high end cpus were for people that want to give away money. I'd be happy to buy a quad core for under $300.

    The good logic for Intel, and for AMD later, is simply that people will buy these, because it's a *real* upgrade. A decent quad core is far better than any dual core, IMO.
  27. When are these processors and prices suppose to hit the market?
  28. Quote:

    We had better hope it doesnt; Seriously is that what any of us wants? wouldnt it be better to promote boycotting intel than to see AMD buried for good?

    Seriously What intel is doing is bad for everyone.


    None of us wants AMD dead. I think only Intel wants that.

    But how can one refuse the price/performance perspective of a 3Ghz, cool running (65W), awesome overclocking Core 2 E6850 for just over $260? Or for some people, a Quad Core Q6600 at the same price point might be a better choice. These prices are simply insane.


    Even a die hard intel-ian wants amd around to keep prices in line - $1000 chip days may be over - if not for amd and intel back and forth we still be paying $1000 for 8088!


    ok IBM and Motorola help too
  29. Quote:
    I am in Intel boycott mode,as it serves only ill to all of us for them to permanently damage AMD.They have a great chip but they are lousy human biengs;Henri richard should join them.


    Hey, hey...lousy human beings?!? C'mon.

    Don't try to make a corporation into some sort of entity with emotions, thoughts, or any other thing.

    I work for Intel, and even though those that work with me might think I'm a lousy human being for pushing them, don't go clumping all people that make up Intel as lousy human beings. That's pretty low.

    If you have a love/hate thing with Intel (THE CORPORATION) that's fine and dandy...but don't go grouping the humans within the business as "lousy human beings".
  30. I think it would be smart for AMD to price their desktop (non-server) quads well under $400, and have at least one under $250, because they could make a *lot* of money selling a large number of $250 chips, in big volume. It's a lot better to sell 50M chips at a $150 profit than 5M at a $500 profit of course. Sparking conumer demand, and the subsequent software evolution will benefit both Intel and AMd a great deal. The real pot of gold is if average people with 5 yr old computers all start upgrading their desktops/laptops.
  31. Quote:
    I think Intel has sufficiently made its point, they dont need to get that personal about it. especially since it will screw us all to have AMD dead.


    I do not think intel is making a point i think they are going to show good profits next quarter or so.
    its up to amd to compete and they better get the dies smaller or making some really cheap silicon metal
  32. i don't think amd is any position to sell a $500 quad - they to need to make up the lost profit from all those $100 chips that are costing $200 to make
  33. Quote:
    I am in Intel boycott mode,as it serves only ill to all of us for them to permanently damage AMD.They have a great chip but they are lousy human biengs;Henri richard should join them.


    Hey, hey...lousy human beings?!? C'mon.

    Don't try to make a corporation into some sort of entity with emotions, thoughts, or any other thing.

    I work for Intel, and even though those that work with me might think I'm a lousy human being for pushing them, don't go clumping all people that make up Intel as lousy human beings. That's pretty low.

    If you have a love/hate thing with Intel (THE CORPORATION) that's fine and dandy...but don't go grouping the humans within the business as "lousy human beings".


    Vern

    Bro, I have to agree with Dante. It may suck, but its just business.
  34. Vern, see my post above. AMD and intel both can make huge profits with "cheap" quads.
  35. Quote:
    I think it would be smart for AMD to price their desktop (non-server) quads well under $400, and have at least one under $250, because they could make a *lot* of money selling a large number of $250 chips, in big volume. It's a lot better to sell 50M chips at a $150 profit than 5M at a $500 profit of course. Sparking conumer demand, and the subsequent software evolution will benefit both Intel and AMd a great deal. The real pot of gold is if average people with 5 yr old computers all start upgrading their desktops/laptops.


    Improbable for AMD to sell in competitive volume and price.

    They are severely capacity limited when compared to Intel.

    If Intel makes this pricing move about the only thing which will save them may be the Dell deal.

    Which I doubt will keep them afloat for long or that they will be able to keep it for long if Intel is really going for the jugular.
  36. Quote:
    I think Intel has sufficiently made its point, they dont need to get that personal about it. especially since it will screw us all to have AMD dead.


    As long as Intel is making a profit at these prices (i.e. not being predatory), I don't have a problem with it. AMD will just need to streamline & optimize to compete - as with any other industry.

    Now, if Nvidia would start lowering prices like this, I would be concerned for AMD - I don't know if they have the resources to fight pricewars on two fronts.
  37. Quote:
    I think it would be smart for AMD to price their desktop (non-server) quads well under $400, and have at least one under $250, because they could make a *lot* of money selling a large number of $250 chips, in big volume. It's a lot better to sell 50M chips at a $150 profit than 5M at a $500 profit of course. Sparking conumer demand, and the subsequent software evolution will benefit both Intel and AMd a great deal. The real pot of gold is if average people with 5 yr old computers all start upgrading their desktops/laptops.


    Improbable for AMD to sell in competitive volume and price.

    They are severely capacity limited when compared to Intel.

    If Intel makes this pricing move about the only thing which will save them may be the Dell deal.

    Which I doubt will keep them afloat for long or that they will be able to keep it for long if Intel is really going for the jugular.

    AMD only needs to utilize it's own capacity efficiently and sell the output. AMD doesn't have to sell in Intel volume to make good profits.
  38. :?: Listen to all of you. "omg this will kill AMD" "AMD cant compete with that" maybe this is what Intel needs to compete with K10. Yea I said it, it had to be said. Here we go :wink:
  39. Quote:
    I am in Intel boycott mode,as it serves only ill to all of us for them to permanently damage AMD.They have a great chip but they are lousy human biengs;Henri richard should join them.


    Hey, hey...lousy human beings?!? C'mon.

    Don't try to make a corporation into some sort of entity with emotions, thoughts, or any other thing.

    I work for Intel, and even though those that work with me might think I'm a lousy human being for pushing them, don't go clumping all people that make up Intel as lousy human beings. That's pretty low.

    If you have a love/hate thing with Intel (THE CORPORATION) that's fine and dandy...but don't go grouping the humans within the business as "lousy human beings".

    I am talking the executive staffers,my apologies and nothing personal; but as far as the fellows and executives go,if they werte on fire i wouldnt pee on them.

    This is too far,they flexed their muscle and made a point; I said what I thought and i meant every syllable. Your ultra high head honcho's are friggen creeps;spiritually bankrupt landfills is all they amount to.

    Again, those people are simply doing their jobs. Yes, it seems a bit vindictive, but again, it's business, and nothing more.

    If AMD was still in a more superior CPU position, would you lambast their executives if they acted the same way? Or tried the same tactics?

    Don't go pulling your beliefs about how a person is, only cause they run a company. Spiritually bankrupt landfills? Friggen creeps? Please. You seriously need to just back away and take a break.

    They became executives for a reason - to try to make money for investors. So, if you want to call out the "bad people", call out the people who invest in such a "soulless" corporation, since they keep it going.

    I usually don't care when people attack Intel or AMD, but you've taken it too personally, and really need to step back a bit, and stop the righteous stance against a company doing business - no matter how much you might not like the way they are doing it.

    Again, I don't have any ill will towards you, but I truly believe you're taking this a bit too personal.

    *edit*

    Sorry, but I read your reply to Turpit and I hate to say this, but - you're beginning to sound like Sharkiou with all the "soulless, creeps, spiritually bankrupt, etc" adjectives. Seriously...take a breather. I know you don't want the overpriced CPU prices to come back, I don't either - but damn.
  40. yeah, AMD just needs to be creative in it's response. The obvious thing is to drop a lot of low end dual cores and make more quads.
  41. Quote:
    I am in Intel boycott mode,as it serves only ill to all of us for them to permanently damage AMD.They have a great chip but they are lousy human biengs;Henri richard should join them.


    Why is it that if Intel is bringing the competition to AMD, you are mad at intel? competition is good for the consumer. What do you expect Intel to do? I think they are far ahead on 45 nm that they are moving to the next step while pushing AMD around. You expect Intel to play nice after being sued by AMD? This isn't a fight between Intel & AMD by the way, it is Intel on one side and IBM+AMD on the other. Another front is Intel+Micron vs Samsung in the NAND Flash market. Samsung is also buddies with the IBM alliance. This war has not been nice for anyone and Intel now trying to make the best of it and people like you crying foul?? Isn't this what anyone would expect intel to do? would you rather they keep prices artificially high? AMD brought it upon themselves by suing Intel, period.
  42. You know - as i type and talk with you guys next to me is my core 2 duo e6300 gamer - i am burning a dvd, encoding it, and playing muisc from the same machine, and my spysweeper and avg is on and about 20 programs running and my ai says i am using 3% of my cpu!

    i think its going to a long time before the average user needs a quad core!

    this is bad for amd!
  43. this sounds great...BUT....it sounds liek intel is going to shoot itself in the foot with a rocket launcher. think about it. do you really think intel will sell their chips for this low? even if they sell in large quantities, they will still not make as much money.

    and what are they going to do if amd pulls a fast one. say amd released barcelona...it sucks and it's priced high...then intel drops all of their prices to try to kill amd...then a week later, amd releases a "new" chip, and kills the very best intel chip in performance, power, everything...but they price it at 500 dollars. seems like a far stretch, yes, but if those intel prices are possible, then so is this.

    i guess lets just wait and see. i for one, do not believe this. just a little too hard to believe that intel is this retarded.
  44. Quote:
    If amd was in intels position ?YOU BET YOUR AZZ ID BE BACKING INTEL.


    That's the thing...you can't really do anything to stop either company from forging along with their finanical plan.

    If AMD were stomping Intel, I probably wouldn't have a job because of it, but you know what, I wouldn't be all disgruntled towards AMD. I would just find another job. I won't take any of it personally. I would be more upset at Intel for not putting up a better fight. That's probably what the AMD folks are thinking. I know I felt that way during Netburst. You don't know how embarassing it is to not recommend a CPU you helped build to friends and family when asked what they should get.

    I don't want the return of the $1k CPU. I like the prices the way they are now, but I understand your stance about how Intel could possibly remove AMD, and then jack up prices. Yes, it's not a comfortable proposition, but that's something that only AMD can stop, and they can only stop it by producing a signifigantly competitive CPU.
  45. Quote:
    this sounds great...BUT....it sounds liek intel is going to shoot itself in the foot with a rocket launcher. think about it. do you really think intel will sell their chips for this low? even if they sell in large quantities, they will still not make as much money.

    and what are they going to do if amd pulls a fast one. say amd released barcelona...it sucks and it's priced high...then intel drops all of their prices to try to kill amd...then a week later, amd releases a "new" chip, and kills the very best intel chip in performance, power, everything...but they price it at 500 dollars. seems like a far stretch, yes, but if those intel prices are possible, then so is this.

    i guess lets just wait and see. i for one, do not believe this. just a little too hard to believe that intel is this retarded.


    I understand this thinking, but....the real problem for both companies is the overcapacity compared to current market demand.

    If they can offer more compelling value than their current chips, then people will have more incentive to upgrade. If quads become the new common computer, then the evolution of software to use more power will accelerate, and that will be very much in Intel's and AMD's favor.

    What they need is more consumer demand for chips really. This is a way to get it sooner rather than later.

    btw, everyone, I don't know the precise marginal cost of chips, but one estimate put it nearer to $50 than to $100. Does anyone know the actual marginal cost to make an additional chip? This is one fab's cost of labor, materials, electricity, and taxes for one day divided by the output of one day for the fab.
  46. funny thing is, since C2D the amd chips are so cheap i been buying lots more of them!

    i love all these cheap amd chips $350 fx-60 with os from tiger
    fx-62 on ebay $325

    open box 4200+ for $142 newegg - they have so many open box 939 chips either they are new and they have to say used, or dell sold them to newegg!
  47. Wow. My next upgrade will definitely be a quad core so the faster dual cores don't interest me personally, not on the desktop side. I'd be happy to buy a Turion X2 laptop but I'm switching over to Mac for my next portable. Kentsfield and quad-core K10s don't interest me either because of their higher power requirements. I'll patiently wait for a quad core with a TDP of ≤ 75 watts. I don't think AMD will achieve this with K10, at least not within the next 12 months. Intel probably will with Penryn.

    With Nvidia slashing prices on G80, and Intel joining the fray in late 2008, I just don't see how AMD can keep up on the GPU side either. IBM could come in as a white knight and save AMD but I doubt they'll spend US$20 billion just to keep Intel honest. They might do it for the fabs but would probably decide to use those to build their own chips. AMD is better served right now doing volume business with OEMs (if profitable) and concentrating on Opteron for servers, GPUs (if they can remain competitive) and chipsets for everyone. They should even pull out of the laptop and desktop markets if necessary. I'll maintain my tactical pro-AMD bias for the foreseeable future (including builds or recommendations to family/friends) but that only works if they can offer equal performance for more or less the same price.

    I don't like Baron any more than he likes me but I really would love to hear his take on this whole matter. No cheap shots, no scoring points (from either side), just an honest assessment of the situation. Maybe there's something we could do as a community to help. I don't want AMD going down in smoke; there's too much brain power and innovation at stake. Hopefully they'll settle with Intel (for at least a few billion, which they deserve) and start over with a clean slate.
  48. Quote:

    If AMD was still in a more superior CPU position, would you lambast their executives if they acted the same way? Or tried the same tactics?


    i for one, would say the same thing if amd did this to intel. the thing is that intel is kicking amd while it's down if this is true. yeah, it might be only buisness, but i didnt see them making major price cuts with the pentium 4's. why? cuz they weren't on top. now that they are, they want to see how much they can flex their muscle. lets face it. amd cannot defend themselves right now because they do not have the production power that intel has.

    to be fair, if the tables were turned, and amd tried to pull this on intel, i would again be throwing flags. you already beat up and humiliated your opponent...dont kick him while he's down. let him get up, get a second wind, and then go back at it. what ever happened to "the spirit of competition". now everyone is trying to crush everyone else and saying it's "just business".
  49. If AMD hadn't gutted their balance sheet to buy ATI and expand capacity they wouldn't be in trouble now. They chose to overextend themselves at the very moment that Intel finally came back and retook the lead. Very stupid indeed.

    30% market share at any cost? That cost may well be chapter 11.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs