Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Good news for AMD?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 31, 2008 7:19:38 PM

Heres some good news if true http://en.expreview.com/2008/03/31/core-2-duo-e7300-vs-... Its the first one on one comparison Ive seen. Anyone else got any? So far, so good

More about : good news amd

March 31, 2008 7:37:35 PM

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but this doesn't seem like good news to me. The X3 uses significantly more power and consistently gets beaten by every Core 2 except the lower clocked e4500. It does decent in multi-threaded cinebench and for some reason lost planet, but it should as it has an extra core on the core 2's. Even then it still loses to the e8200 every time.
March 31, 2008 7:44:17 PM

Lower clocked? Better reread it. It savages the E4500 and holds its own against higher clocked Intel offerings in many benches
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2008 7:47:19 PM

Not bad. I am disappointed though that it uses the same amount of power as an X4 and currently is only an OEM product. I wish they would just hurry up and release them (all the new phenoms).
March 31, 2008 7:53:02 PM

The power usage never stopped the P4s, so thats a non issue. If you add 15% to the benches against the e8200, being as thats whats the difference is in clock speeds, they look really good, clock for clock
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2008 8:01:03 PM

Ja, for most people its a non-issue, but I was considering one for my low power comp. and I expected less cores = less power. Oh well, there's still hope for the 9100e/9150e Quad if they ever are released to retail.
March 31, 2008 8:06:55 PM

Yeah, its supposed to be mainly notebook, but they do have a way of sneaking their way to desktop
March 31, 2008 8:56:03 PM

I don't see this as a good news at all.

1. X3 8600 is consistently outperformed by E7300, which has only about 1% of clock difference. Adding that to X3's score, it is still outperformed.

2. When compared to an aged E4500, and has about 100Mhz clockspeed advantage, it still could not fare better. It did win in some of the benchmarks, while lose in some.

3. The cost of manufacturing a X3 is definitely considerably higher than E7300. Of course AMD has to market this as a low-end product, which hurts their ASP.

4. Intel can drop the prices on the lower end 45nm CPUs as they wish, which gave AMD a pricing pressure.

5. X3 consumes a considerable amount of power compared to even E4500. This may also means it may runs a little hotter.

Now let's look at pricing.

Intel's tray price for E8200 and E7300, respectively.
E8200 = 166USD
E7300 = 133USD.

This means AMD has to price their X3s in the range of 100~150USD. Considering that it costs AMD the same to produce a X3 and a X4, I hardly see AMD benefits from this. At best they can claim some marketshare with future upgradeability, I seriously doubt they can price X3s high enough to actually rank in decent profit.

March 31, 2008 9:21:59 PM

Lets start by using some math. 2.66 minus 2.3 =.36 thats way more than 1%, more like 15%. AVI DX 7300 120 secs. 8600 150 secs. Now thats close, considering the 15% difference. Cinebench multi 7300 is 5582 . The 8600 is 5303. Now again, consider the 15%. The gaming, it loses 2 out of three. Now, thats not a bad showing at all
March 31, 2008 9:28:48 PM

E7300 runs at a mere 2.53Ghz, which is 166Mhz short of 2.66Ghz you cited.
EDIT: E7300 runs at 2.66Ghz, while E7200 runs at 2.53Ghz. Thanks jaydeejohn for pointing that out.

In Cinebench 10, 8600 scored within 5% of E7300 in multiple, while losing 55% in single. Since most games are still written single to dual threaded, that difference in 55% would mean significant in games, such as Crysis.



Next, E7300 is priced at 133USD. 8600 is priced at 175 USD, while E7300 won in majority of benchmarks.
March 31, 2008 9:29:18 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Heres some good news if true http://en.expreview.com/2008/03/31/core-2-duo-e7300-vs-... Its the first one on one comparison Ive seen. Anyone else got any? So far, so good


Damn, The X3 got trounced.

The E7xxx Series is Intels low cost chips replacing the E2xxx series and they can't even beat them.

The really only good point for AMD is they are able to package and sell their defective chips for some revenue.
March 31, 2008 9:40:37 PM

First, theres no official pricing on the 8600s, second quit spreading FUD. http://bandwidth.se/view/6207 Its a 2.66Ghz cpu. Now redo your outlook please? This isnt about any enthusiast outlook as much as its good news for AMD. In all probability these chips are all tlb chips, . But, something is always better than nothing. And it does perform well at stock
March 31, 2008 9:50:30 PM

Oops.. my bad.. Confused E7300 with E7200 :p . Thanks for pointing that out.

Again, I still uphold my outlook. The clock deficient has increased from 10% to 15%, which still puts E7300 ahead of 8600 in most benchmarks.

Of the 3 gaming benchmarks tested, 8600 lost in two, with Lost Planet favoring more cores.

In Cinebench, after taking account of the 15%, E7300 would score 10% lower than 8600 in multiple, while outperforms it by 50% in single. Again, since most softwares out there are still single to dual threaded, having more cores do not equate more performance.

In media encoding, 8600 loses squarely to even E7200, who only has 10% clockspeed advantage. Things may be different if benchmarks that do not favor SSE4 are used, and 8600's performance still remain to be seen.

The price of 8600 can be found here:
http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/AMD_B3_Phenom_X4_%26_X3...

This is for certain: we may need more benchmarks to get a better understanding of 8600's performance. However, from the preliminary benchmarks, 8600 does not seem to be a good performance/price.
March 31, 2008 9:56:33 PM

As we dont really have a price point this cant be done either. Tho we can see that when you average in the speed differences, it performs quite well. Now as for ocing and the price...we all know how the ocing will go, but for OEM, and later, the pricing may swing in AMDs favor...
March 31, 2008 9:57:56 PM

I don't care how close it is, AMD just needs to be able to freaking launch it at this point.
March 31, 2008 9:59:29 PM

Look at it this way, if they throw them out as a non performing quad, yet a still capable tri core, and get anything for them, and I mean anything, its better than nothing. Plus, its something Intel JUST CANT DO. So that leaves them in a unique position for these cpus, which can be priced accordingly whatever it takes
March 31, 2008 10:00:54 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
As we dont really have a price point this cant be done either. Tho we can see that when you average in the speed differences, it performs quite well. Now as for ocing and the price...we all know how the ocing will go, but for OEM, and later, the pricing may swing in AMDs favor...


It may, as AMD reduces the price of Tolliman like they reduced the price on Phenoms. This will probably win AMD some design wins, and eventually market share. However, OEMs are not what AMD rely for financial support. Servers and retails are what AMD needs in order to remain profitable.
March 31, 2008 10:05:53 PM

Thats not the overall point here tho. Who buys a single core nowadays? Those ARE throwaways for the most part. These tri cores are still a useful and viable product. Even competitive to a degree. I see it as good news IMHO
March 31, 2008 10:30:23 PM

yomamafor1 said:
Servers and retails are what AMD needs in order to remain profitable.


Remain profitable? I though AMD stopped being profitable a good 3 quarters ago, possibly more.
March 31, 2008 10:46:40 PM

Its not profitable to throw out dual core rejects, but you have to do what you have to do. Multicore is the future. AMD got there first by using a true quad. Now they have this advantage of using their rejected quad core, but still viable tricore for its own advantage. Something Intel cant do. I want to see AMD profitable. Intel has used the same system as AMD, its just that Intel doesnt produce a true quad as yet, so they cant do this. Im betting they will once they go IMC and AMD paves the way. Is this good tech? No. Will it work? Did the Centrino work? Its all about the profits. And as a consumer, if this helps AMD, Ill profit from it with a lil competition.
March 31, 2008 10:53:15 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Its not profitable to throw out dual core rejects, but you have to do what you have to do. Multicore is the future. AMD got there first by using a true quad. Now they have this advantage of using their rejected quad core, but still viable tricore for its own advantage. Something Intel cant do. I want to see AMD profitable. Intel has used the same system as AMD, its just that Intel doesnt produce a true quad as yet, so they cant do this. Im betting they will once they go IMC and AMD paves the way. Is this good tech? No. Will it work? Did the Centrino work? Its all about the profits. And as a consumer, if this helps AMD, Ill profit from it with a lil competition.


I'm sorry but to me this didn't seem to make sense. You seemed to be insinuating that due to the fact that AMD has a "true-quad", as you called it, this gave them a technological advantage. Surely Intel has the technological advantage due to the fact they have the more efficient and more powerful architecture? If Intel really wanted they could make a tri-core, but why bother when their dual cores perform better than the competitors tri-cores?
March 31, 2008 10:56:39 PM

Technological, power...... Joe blow doesnt know what he doesnt need to know. And whats that got to do with making money? And recouping losses, as we all know, a dud dual core is useless, whereas a viable triple core is still usefull in todays market
March 31, 2008 11:30:46 PM

looks pretty good for gaming
April 1, 2008 12:26:26 AM

jaydeejohn. i agree with you on this. either they throw out there fualty quads or they make tri's. honestly what do you think intel is going to do once they make there first native quad and they start getting fualty cores? do you think they are going to throw them out quantumsheep??? or do you think they are going to make tri cores to atleast cover there ass for cost of making the chip?
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 1, 2008 12:43:44 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
The power usage never stopped the P4s, so thats a non issue. If you add 15% to the benches against the e8200, being as thats whats the difference is in clock speeds, they look really good, clock for clock


Um wasn't AMD's whole shtick during the Prescott P4, not all P4's, days their ability to do more at lower power usage? So Intel couldn't use the same shtick i see.

It seems weird that a CPU with one core deactivated uses the same as a good quad.It almost makes it seem like the power hunger comes from the L3 cache and not the cores mainly. But still thats more power than you would expect huh. Maybe power is leaking out the faulty core?

bmadd said:
jaydeejohn. i agree with you on this. either they throw out there fualty quads or they make tri's. honestly what do you think intel is going to do once they make there first native quad and they start getting fualty cores? do you think they are going to throw them out quantumsheep??? or do you think they are going to make tri cores to atleast cover there ass for cost of making the chip?


Well I guess we will have to wait and see what happens. If Intel gets enough good yeild they may only have a few bad ones that they can throw away. I understand why AMD is doing it but they are trying to create a market that doesn't exist and when their yeilds hit a certain lvl they may not be able to feed that market and it will die.

Intel might not even ever have that problem. But more than likely they will. But to me it seems like they wont have enough to really brand a CPU as they will be introducing Nehalem(their first naitive quad/octo) on their 45nm process which will probably get better yeilds by then as they have been working on it since last year.
April 1, 2008 2:46:02 AM

I see the tri cores doing quite well in oem markets...after that i dunno, we're at a strange point in pc architecture where we have multi cores without having the software to take advantage of it....possibly a first time this has happened in the advent in computing, with single cores you knew where you were...with dual cores you knew where you were and had the added benefit of a second core to take care of the none primary apps...so where does that leave 3 cores? and even more pertinent where does it leave quad cores? (and yes we can all name several games/apps that will use 4 cores but as a percentage this is damn small - i do not video encode as such, at least not to the extent that i'm bothered if it finished an hour or 5 hours before i get in from work :p ) This isn't an AMD or Intel situation as such, its just a transition in the market. At the moment i find it hard to recommend more than dual core since the basic fact is that not much takes advantage of it....and when the time occurs that software can then there will be better/cheaper quad/octo cores able to utilise it. Now personally i'd like a quad core as my next build simply for the huge e-penis....but i know it'd be largely impotent.
So in the end i see the x3's as a good marketing move but little in the real world....hell in hindsight i wish AMD had simply kept the athlon architecture and put all their money into process, apart from the odd app the world simply doesn't need more than dual core.
No doubt people will pick fault with my statements but thats what makes life so gun :D 

Carod
April 1, 2008 2:52:19 AM

7 cans of stella and i keep it together untill the end...gutted! :D  and yes i meant to say fun :p 
April 1, 2008 6:11:44 AM

Here's the thing to remember. Most of those tri-cores will be going into Dell, HP boxes. Those benchies were all running with no other apps. Imagine how things would look if they were run with the kind of bloatware Dell, HP installs.
It works for power users as well. The more cores you have, the more progs you can run.
April 1, 2008 6:21:00 AM

Thats exactly where Im coming from. The market. Whos arguing here? All I see is I said something positive about AMD in regards to making a buck. Out comes technology, superior, faster, more efficient. I said it competes quite well with the 7xxx series from Intel in those benchmarks, can maybe make an extra buck for AMD, and all the sudden Ive ascended the mountain to some battle abour superior techology. Sheeeeesh. If Intel DID make a true quad core, like I said , theyd be doing exactly the same thing.Did I strike a few sensitive spots by telling the truth? Sorry. But it is the truth. AMD is first to market a tri core 86 cpu. Period. If that gets your shorts in a bunch, dont blame me, blame Intel. Its always the same, mention AMD and out come people to defend them. For what? Im sure this isnt something Intel would be or is in fear of.Did I ever say it was good tech? All these my cpu oces better than your cpu statements? No, as a matter of fact I said it was bad tech. Obviously, since these cpus are either tlb bug B2 stepping or just faulty quads. BUT, anyone who can do math can see, clock for clock, these tri cores hold up quite nicely against the cpus listed. Attacking AMD is getting old. You want more from AMD? Well I guess youll have to let them sell their tricores and make a few measly bucks so they can.
April 1, 2008 7:19:44 AM

Chill Jay, there are a few Intel employees here. They get nervous of loosing thier jobs any time someone says something good about AMD
April 1, 2008 7:31:05 AM

I know that. Its all this bashing that just gets us no where. I certainly hope no one loses their jobs period. And, especially over a tricore thats more of a somewhat competitor and salvation for AMD than great tech
April 1, 2008 9:20:19 AM

It performs pretty much as I expected, its not like these are the first tri core benchmarks. It was always going to be competitive in multithreaded performance, but due to the low clockspeed single/dual threaded performance suffers.

jaydeejohn, 'clock for clock' performance doesn't mean much since Phenoms won't clock anywhere as high as Core 2. They're not capping themselves at 2.5GHz for fun you know.

What is relevant is how it performs at its target price point. Looking at these benchmarks it should be priced below an E7300, since it loses in the majority of benchmarks.

One (non technical) advantage tri core holds over dual core is that people always assume more = better. 3 cores must be better than 2 right? :p 

I'll agree with you that tri cores can be considered 'good news' for AMD, at least financially. Getting some money from a faulty quad is much better than sending it to landfill, no matter how you spin it.

As Intel used higher clockspeeds during the P4 era to their advantage, AMD could use a similar strategy, but with core count instead, to pick up sales by having more cores than the competition at the same pricerange. It doesn't matter if it can't outperform a dual core, most people outside the enthusiast circle don't study benchmarks anyway. Marketed correctly this could be a potential windfall for AMD. Never underestimate the naivety of the general public. In business, if your product is perceived to be better, then thats what matters. ;) 

But as an enthusiast, I'd find it hard to recommend this CPU to anyone. Of course we don't know how it will be priced at this point, but at the assumed $100 - $150 range it really doesn't hold any advantage over C2Ds.
!