Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Clarkdale's Efficiency: Core i5-661 Versus Core 2, Athlon II, And Phenom II

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
January 5, 2010 5:40:09 AM

couldn't have picked a worse AMD pick than the x2 550 to use as a comparison. Its essentially a X4 cpu that didn't pass the tests and sold as an x2, efficient it is not, and outperformed easily by the Athlon II x3 and x4 cpus.

This is no more than a push for the new Intel cpus, cherry picked benchmarks and crapped out AMD cpus. This whole article should be picked up by Intel as their new marketing campaign, take the fastest new Intel cpus and pit them against AMD's slowest.

LRN TO REVIEW PROPERLY
Score
48
Anonymous
January 5, 2010 5:51:25 AM

AMD needs to increase the performance of their CPUs, especially integer-wise, which has been a weakness of AMD CPUs for a long time. If they can improve their floating-point unit again, they will be able to retake the lead. This will also help the Opterons. Power consumption is good and does not need to be reduced further. Their chipsets are superior, in my view, although the 780/785G needs support for two digital-monitors. Their graphics cards are superior as well. It's just their CPU architecture that's fallen behind.
Score
4
Related resources
January 5, 2010 5:54:18 AM

I one major question about this article.

Why do you compare a $196 Core i5 / $279 Core 2 duo(Intel) to a $102 x2 550 / $90 x2 240e (AMD)? This doesn't sound like a linear comparasion.

Taking price into these results, the AMD process performed as expected.

Not trying to bash the author, but I am curious to know what was the logic.
Score
58
Anonymous
January 5, 2010 5:58:23 AM

why do you compare intel cpus that cost 190euro and 240 euro with amd cpus that cost last than half the price of the intels (58 and 95 euro)if you wanna compare it fair you have to take a processor of the same price point like amd the amd x4 905 and low cost intel how you tell this is like every amd cpu is slow but how would it be compared to the atlonII x3 435 in efficiency?
Score
33
January 5, 2010 6:00:12 AM

It is hard to see how AMD is going stop or even slow the growing performance gap between their architectures and intel. Their current strategy of lowering prices and increasing stock clocks has worked pretty well until now, but it is questionable if this will continue to be a successful strategy against the new Core i3/i5 releases. Meanwhile Intel can easily sit back and rake in huge profit margins on 32nm cpus that cost them less to produce than AMD, with less binning issues as the architectures are efficient enough to run at lower clocks and still be competitive. What really looks ridiculous to me is the fact that they mean to release a 6 core 45 nm deneb based cpu - even if you already own an AMD desktop, why would you want to spend extra dosh on new cpu based on outdated process and architecture that is going to sap power!?, especially when by that time the new 32nm AMD generation should be just around the corner - it doesn't make sense to me - the 6 core monster is never going to be mainstream - so AMD is stuck having to either increase clocks or cut prices - which is gonna really be a problem this time for Phemon II, where cut prices is really the only option. As for the cheaper Athlon II series - even the quad 620/630s face some serious competition from the i3 530 - looking at the most recent article on the matter the core i3 is 14% faster across the board and even beats the 620/630 in multitasking and and video encoding clock for clock - at stock it blasted an overclocked 630 at 3.71 Ghz in some benches!!!
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/01/04/intel-...
For a gaming and multitasking cpu there is no better cpu at ~100$, not to mention overclocking....

So how is AMD going to beat this price to performance!?

I guess the best they can hope for until the next gen is customer ignorance. With higher stock clocks and more cores I'm sure they will be able to fool the less tech savvy into thinking they have got a bargain. Just look at the quad battle: AMD has 3.4 Ghz when the closest intel quad in price is running at 2.66 Ghz, and to the general public that must mean AMD is better! That is, until (if ever) the general public gets wise to the importance architecture and fabrication process....
Score
-19
January 5, 2010 6:00:16 AM

You should've compared it to Athlon/Phenom II X3/X4 CPUs, not the X2s. All you just do is to pit a definitely disadvantageous processor against these new ones to make it shine brighter. All this "PR" talk will slide down once the price is included. Oh wait, it wasn't included.
Score
27
January 5, 2010 6:01:10 AM

they should at least tested the athlon X4 620. That would have been a LITTLE bit fair.
Score
34
Anonymous
January 5, 2010 6:02:04 AM

+1 rdawise
Score
20
January 5, 2010 6:06:00 AM

There is some obvious Intel bias here. For top-end 790FX chipset for socket AM3 you don't have to spend $200+ whereas the equivalent (without cheating and sticking an nForce chip on an 1156) you end up paying $300+.

Add to the fact that Intel has made it clear that socket 1156 will not get anything more then quad cores only further screws over people buying in to the socket 1156 hype.

Oh and I just read on the Inq that Intel even cheats with their compilers so when software vendors compile their applications Intel's compiler uses the best paths for Intel and the slowest ones for their competitors.

Oh...and as an upgrader there is no point to upgrading a system if every time you buy a new CPU the motherboard becomes useless...especially when they cost $300+ for a good quality one.

Last but not least I also read over at Anandtech that x86 instructions introduce waste in general...do a search for 'x86 waste'.

Really...I'm happy with 60FPS on my 60Hz screen in games. There is a difference between being happy and being an outright blind materialist. I love my X4 20! ;) 
Score
23
January 5, 2010 6:07:04 AM

nerrawgIt is hard to see how AMD is going stop or even slow the growing performance gap between their architectures and intel. Their current strategy of lowering prices and increasing stock clocks has worked pretty well until now, but it is questionable if this will continue to be a successful strategy against the new Core i3/i5 releases. Meanwhile Intel can easily sit back and rake in huge profit margins on 32nm cpus that cost them less to produce than AMD, with less binning issues as the architectures are efficient enough to run at lower clocks and still be competitive. What really looks ridiculous to me is the fact that they mean to release a 6 core 45 nm deneb based cpu - even if you already own an AMD desktop, why would you want to spend extra dosh on new cpu based on outdated process and architecture that is going to sap power!?, especially when by that time the new 32nm AMD generation should be just around the corner - it doesn't make sense to me - the 6 core monster is never going to be mainstream - so AMD is stuck having to either increase clocks or cut prices - which is gonna really be a problem this time for Phemon II, where cut prices is really the only option. As for the cheaper Athlon II series - even the quad 620/630s face some serious competition from the i3 530 - looking at the most recent article on the matter the core i3 is 14% faster across the board and even beats the 620/630 in multitasking and and video encoding clock for clock - at stock it blasted an overclocked 630 at 3.71 Ghz in some benches!!! http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/c [...] u-review/7For a gaming and multitasking cpu there is no better cpu at ~100$, not to mention overclocking.... So how is AMD going to beat this price to performance!?I guess the best they can hope for until the next gen is customer ignorance. With higher stock clocks and more cores I'm sure they will be able to fool the less tech savvy into thinking they have got a bargain. Just look at the quad battle: AMD has 3.4 Ghz when the closest intel quad in price is running at 2.66 Ghz, and to the general public that must mean AMD is better! That is, until (if ever) the general public gets wise to the importance architecture and fabrication process....


Because its cheaper i can upgrade easily and game properly within a budget. I.e get a 940 and a decent motherboard for 250 and spend cash on a better graphics card = better gaming for less $.
Score
20
January 5, 2010 6:13:09 AM

new car test : ferrari is faster then a VW beatle .
Score
38
Anonymous
January 5, 2010 6:18:48 AM

"The only factor left in AMD’s hand is price and effective value, but this won’t last forever without some major changes."

Thats one BIG factor, you nearly completely overlooked in the article. Effective value is THE factor to most people.
Score
29
January 5, 2010 6:19:29 AM


I think the only people who will buy this 651 chip are hardcore overclocking enthusiasts. It is so expensive. The AMD chips are much better value for money, more than 100% better.
Score
15
January 5, 2010 6:26:54 AM

tacoslaveBecause its cheaper i can upgrade easily and game properly within a budget. I.e get a 940 and a decent motherboard for 250 and spend cash on a better graphics card = better gaming for less $.


In gaming you would have been right to suggest that AMD was better value with its Phenom II X3 720 and Athlon X4 620/630 (not forgetting if you can also get your hands on a cheap 940/955) However with the release of the i3 530 Intel has finally brought some competition at these price points - don't believe me!? - read the linked article: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/01/04/intel-...

In addition the p55 boards are getting as cheap as AM3 790 boards - so apples to apples there as well now. Once you factor in the massive overclocking headroom of the i3 530 then you really have a budget gaming cpu that multitasks as well as the athlon II X4's. So for almost all gaming it is competitive.

What I think is really bad about the new Intel gen 1156 that all you AMD fanboys have yet to mention is the lack of a dual X16 PCi 2.0 lanes option. That segment for High end gaming is strangely where AMD is now the best value, as you can get 790FX board to run your 5800 series CF effectively without the price premium of the Intel X58 series. So really AMD has the best value for high end gaming - but can't claim ultimate victory in the midrange anymore, where the venerable phenom II x3 and newer athlon II X4s used to dominate.

Also - love how you guys dish out the negative feedback without reading the articles - brilliant - and have to agree with all the points about unfair comparison in this article - there is a huge price discrepancy - but I think the just meant to look at power efficiency and there is no way that a phenom or athlon II X4 is gonna beat the 240e there
Score
-9
January 5, 2010 6:32:27 AM

fredericoI think the only people who will buy this 651 chip are hardcore overclocking enthusiasts. It is so expensive. The AMD chips are much better value for money, more than 100% better.


Agree - it won't be the 661 that people consider - it will be the i3 530 which is around £80. The 661 is only interesting if you are looking for a very powerful and yet efficient HTPC - otherwise it is not good value.

As for your value analysis - any facts to back that up??! AMD do make good cpus when it comes to price/performance - but it all depends on what you intend to do and which cpu you are talking about. Blanket statements are hardly informative.
Score
2
January 5, 2010 7:13:47 AM

nerrawgIn gaming you would have been right to suggest that AMD was better value with its Phenom II X3 720 and Athlon X4 620/630 (not forgetting if you can also get your hands on a cheap 940/955) However with the release of the i3 530 Intel has finally brought some competition at these price points - don't believe me!? - read the linked article: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/c [...] u-review/9 In addition the p55 boards are getting as cheap as AM3 790 boards - so apples to apples there as well now. Once you factor in the massive overclocking headroom of the i3 530 then you really have a budget gaming cpu that multitasks as well as the athlon II X4's. So for almost all gaming it is competitive. What I think is really bad about the new Intel gen 1156 that all you AMD fanboys have yet to mention is the lack of a dual X16 PCi 2.0 lanes option. That segment for High end gaming is strangely where AMD is now the best value, as you can get 790FX board to run your 5800 series CF effectively without the price premium of the Intel X58 series. So really AMD has the best value for high end gaming - but can't claim ultimate victory in the midrange anymore, where the venerable phenom II x3 and newer athlon II X4s used to dominate. Also - love how you guys dish out the negative feedback without reading the articles - brilliant - and have to agree with all the points about unfair comparison in this article - there is a huge price discrepancy - but I think the just meant to look at power efficiency and there is no way that a phenom or athlon II X4 is gonna beat the 240e there


I agree that the i3 530 well be the new kid on the block in the value segment. AMD will have to drop prices on at least the x4 925 to compete.

I want to clarify something on my post earlier (other than the grammar errors). I do understand that the author wants to compare dual cores to dual cores, but leaving out the price detail (especially in the conclusion where you predict doom for AMD) seems a little unbalanced.

Score
5
January 5, 2010 7:46:25 AM

nerrawgIn gaming you would have been right to suggest that AMD was better value with its Phenom II X3 720 and Athlon X4 620/630 (not forgetting if you can also get your hands on a cheap 940/955) However with the release of the i3 530 Intel has finally brought some competition at these price points - don't believe me!? - read the linked article: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/c [...] u-review/9 In addition the p55 boards are getting as cheap as AM3 790 boards - so apples to apples there as well now. Once you factor in the massive overclocking headroom of the i3 530 then you really have a budget gaming cpu that multitasks as well as the athlon II X4's. So for almost all gaming it is competitive. What I think is really bad about the new Intel gen 1156 that all you AMD fanboys have yet to mention is the lack of a dual X16 PCi 2.0 lanes option. That segment for High end gaming is strangely where AMD is now the best value, as you can get 790FX board to run your 5800 series CF effectively without the price premium of the Intel X58 series. So really AMD has the best value for high end gaming - but can't claim ultimate victory in the midrange anymore, where the venerable phenom II x3 and newer athlon II X4s used to dominate. Also - love how you guys dish out the negative feedback without reading the articles - brilliant - and have to agree with all the points about unfair comparison in this article - there is a huge price discrepancy - but I think the just meant to look at power efficiency and there is no way that a phenom or athlon II X4 is gonna beat the 240e there


yeah you got my point I can game at high rez 1080p for a lot less cash. I bought a 940 and a 5870, i wouldnt be able to do that for the same amount of cash with an intel setup and get the same amount of gaming performance. With amd i can get a quad core overclock to 3.6 and splurge on a graphics card and get a beast of a pc for a lot less than intel. BUT i would get an i7 if i could its just that i have a budget just like most people here AND like most people here i like to get the most bang for my buck.
Score
5
January 5, 2010 7:57:48 AM

@rdawise: Logic was dual core vs dual core.

@noob2222, masterjaw, tacoslave, johnbilicki:
Ok then - please suggest two AMD processors and one or two Intel CPUs for socket 1156 and we'll get you the results you're looking for. Focus on gaming or mixed benchmarks as in this story?

Thanks,
Patrick
Score
2
January 5, 2010 8:06:42 AM

"There’s still one UltraATA/133 channel, which can be handy for keeping optical or IDE-based hard drives afloat."

...optical-based hard drives?

Sorry for nitpicking. :D 
Score
0
January 5, 2010 8:41:42 AM

pschmid@rdawise: Logic was dual core vs dual core.@noob2222, masterjaw, tacoslave, johnbilicki:o k then - please suggest two AMD processors and one or two Intel CPUs for socket 1156 and we'll get you the results you're looking for. Focus on gaming or mixed benchmarks as in this story?Thanks,Patrick


We get it. The article shows that these i3 and i5 (at least the i5 that was reviewd) ARE THE BEST DUAL CORES currently on the market (performance and efficiency wise). The fact that they + platform cost a lot compared to a better performance AMD system isn't the main focus of the story here. Cause let's be honest here, if you're out for best bang for the buck u aren't going to be interested on how "saving the planet" are these chips cause at the end of the day money doesn't grow on trees so why would i bother buying something that doesn't help my wallet in the long run? (Yes if u take in account the power saved during a year u get 100 something bucks cheaper, but still it's just 100 bucks in a years time).
Now for the suggestion .. it's simple really, take whichever intel i3 or i5 you have and the pick any amd/intel chip in the same price range. Make a pc-out of it, do the math as to how many dollars u have left in the proverbial wallet and see if that buys u a better graphics card/hard drive/wireless router or other pc related equipment.
Bottom line is, high efficiency but weak performance (at the same price point) doesn't help me game better.
Score
3
January 5, 2010 9:12:59 AM

at last a good power measurements. the measurements are more in line with reality then they were in the first article. the psu is oversized again though.
it seems to me that the comparison is unfair especially when linking it to the doom predictions. i guess it would have been more appropriate to use a native dual core, some triple and then some quad cores that match the price points of the new intel cpus.

the new cpus are nice but most are overpriced. amd still has very good value alternatives and this is where the money are. you have nice upgrade paths, decent power consumption especially if you play with voltages (because amd is quite conservative with them), low prices, good performance. however they can't play value game too long and they will have to until they bring the next generation.
Score
0
January 5, 2010 9:15:26 AM

Impressive, only in Tom's Hardware are these new CPUs reviewed as if they're the second coming of Christ!
Score
3
January 5, 2010 9:27:08 AM

johnbilickiThere is some obvious Intel bias here. For top-end 790FX chipset for socket AM3 you don't have to spend $200+ whereas the equivalent (without cheating and sticking an nForce chip on an 1156) you end up paying $300+.Add to the fact that Intel has made it clear that socket 1156 will not get anything more then quad cores only further screws over people buying in to the socket 1156 hype.Oh and I just read on the Inq that Intel even cheats with their compilers so when software vendors compile their applications Intel's compiler uses the best paths for Intel and the slowest ones for their competitors.Oh...and as an upgrader there is no point to upgrading a system if every time you buy a new CPU the motherboard becomes useless...especially when they cost $300+ for a good quality one.Last but not least I also read over at Anandtech that x86 instructions introduce waste in general...do a search for 'x86 waste'.Really...I'm happy with 60FPS on my 60Hz screen in games. There is a difference between being happy and being an outright blind materialist. I love my X4 20!


+1 to you mate. I also love my X4 20 :p  Hehehe, gotta love CPU tweaking!
Score
3
January 5, 2010 9:34:00 AM

There, there guys. No need to be so harsh. I,m an AMD fan. My friends called me a tech geek. And I believe you guys are as well informed/versed with tech knowledge.

What they're showing here is just the fact of the CPUs' power consumption & efficiency. We can all see clearly the GHz of the CPUs and know how much each of them cost. We can make our own conclusion with that. Though this kind of comparison will likely catch the attention of non-nerds who simply want the "fastest & the best". It's the reality (since I failed to convinced my family & friends just coz they can afford the 'best').

The good thing that I see here is that (I really, really hope) AMD will come out with a new formula for their coming CPUs, especially since they're the first (correct me if I'm wrong) to propose the combination of the CPU+GPU in 1 package. We now can't deny that Intel beats them to it, but it doesn't necessarily spells 'doom' for AMD, especially when their Radeons are still leading NVIDIA. On 2nd thought, it does look hard for them, battling with Intel on side (and a half with that IGP) & NVidia on the other... yikes!!
Score
4
January 5, 2010 9:38:17 AM

You should learn from Anandtech.

The clarkdale cpu is great, no doubt, but as lots of guys commented here, cost should also be taken into consideration when comparing cpus.

I know this review is focused on efficiency, but you praise this cpu so much in terms of performance compared to the other (cheaper) offerings that it's hard to ignore the price, don't you think?
Score
11
January 5, 2010 9:41:06 AM

Who really cares about efficiency? I don't give a rats if my processor uses 95W or 45W. At the end of the day its speed and overall power per dollar. Graphics, hard drives etc use a hell of a lot more power than a CPU!
Intel HAS higher performing CPU's, for a much higher price.
My recent upgrade to a AMD X3 Black Edition, with 8 Gig DDR 3 and quality motherboard with 2 x HD4650 Graphics, cost LESS than a i5 CPU and motherboard with 4Gig DDR3 (no graphics).
I can also upgrade my system without replacing motherboards every 6 months!
Score
5
January 5, 2010 10:17:02 AM

I really wish they'd give set budgets for the gaming benchmarks that include prices for a graphics card; say $400 for budget processors, $550 for mid range cpu's, and $700 for the top of the line processors. Since that's really what us as enthusiasts and consumers are interested in.

For $400 a Phenom 2 550x2 could be paired with a much faster graphics card than spending almost all of the budget on an Intel cpu/mobo combo alone, that is according to the article, targeted at the budget crowd.
The term budget is obviously being lost in translation somewhere.
Score
3
January 5, 2010 10:58:54 AM

Toms hardware is getting worst and worst. Add even more advertising and pay even less to the reviewers. This doesn't surprise me. This review is so spinned that even Nvidia is shamed.

Honestly, budget wise, it is Horrible. No directly Clock for clock comparisons, no older and more efficient benchmarks, no direct usage benchmarks. And nothing was worst than what it seemed a payed article conclusion.
Score
3
January 5, 2010 11:23:32 AM

Na', Tom's not getting worse and worse. I'd say they forgot to add the price into the mix (at least, i hope so). It's a very good comparison, specially in power consumption details, very nice.

I agree with all of you who say that they should've added a price comparison into their charts (wich ain't too hard, including MoBo's and CPUs I might add), but bashing them so much for it, doesn't sound right to me :p 

Anyway, I hope Tom's updates the article with our "demands" (lol) and get better like they should ;D

And I'd throw a Phenom II X4 940 or a 965 BE to add the "gang for the buck" chart in there.

Cheers!
Score
1
January 5, 2010 11:26:40 AM

Yeah, I get it the new Intel chips are pretty amazing and priced so as not to draw more attention from Fed investigators for attempting to monopolize the market.

The article should have include AMD price to price with Intel and that is a pretty big snafu. Yes, I know others have done similar reviews. To make it different you could have thrown in the bottom end chips with high end graphics to put a twist on it too.

I think the core market for Intel will be the large volume corporate audience looking at potentially higher energy costs if the left gets their way with cap & trade. A few watts multiplied by thousands could offset the buy in.

It also shows both AMD and Nvidia need to put out better IGPs because this one from Intel look like a HTPC winner if you aren't going to game.

Finally, I hope AMD can put together some more competitive CPUs pretty quick. We need good competition to keep prices somewhere in the sane region where most of us live.
Score
-1
January 5, 2010 11:31:30 AM

It would have been nice if there would have been a cheap AMD and Intel quad core in there to give an indication of good value true 4 core vs the Hyperthreaded parts.
Score
0
January 5, 2010 11:42:12 AM

I agree with all the other posters on this one... piss-poor comparison. You take some of the lowest AMD models and compare them to some of the higher-end Intel models, then proclaim Intel the king. All the while overlooking the massive price difference.

What are the prices for the new Intel CPU and Intel MB? I only found "suggested retail" prices of about $100 for MB and $200 for CPU. So, lets say about $300 for that set-up.

Now, let us say, instead, to the readers.. for that money, you can get an AMD Phenom IIx4 955BE 3.2GHz CPU and an ASUS M4A79XTD Evo AM3 board for $295....

Then compare those two set-ups....

Sure, will the Intel be more energy efficient? yeah... but who the hell cares when you can have a superior performing quad-core CPU based on the 790X / SB750 motherboard.

Sure, I like being "green" and all, but this tree I just can't hug... I know what I would pick.....
Score
3
January 5, 2010 11:56:20 AM

The Intel Core i5 661 kick-ass to AMD!!!!

but... what amd's system can buy for $280??? Athlon II X4 620, MSI K9A2 CF, and maybe HD4670...

now, if you want power-saving system... this is to much money to pay for a CPU, when you can buy a Core2Duo (E5200) and a HD4330 or GT220...

i don't know... i think that the price is the problem with this CPU..

bye!

(sorry for the bad english >.
Score
2
January 5, 2010 12:02:26 PM

hi

if u want to benchmark dual core processors of amd & intel, u should compare phenom ii 550 with Core i5-530 & not with Core i5-661

it`s very ridicule comparing 200$ cpu with 100$ cpu

Score
6
January 5, 2010 12:07:44 PM

Thanks for including mainstream applications, audio, and video benchmarks. It's just the kind of information I'm interested in.
Score
1
Anonymous
January 5, 2010 12:08:08 PM

If you take the crippled compiler into consideration these AMD chips make the new Cheatel 32nm process look pretty UN-advanced. Also, these chips have to hit 3.7Ghz before they are any good. What a blah article.
Score
-2
Anonymous
January 5, 2010 12:09:00 PM

Lol this article is clearly here just to make intel look good (which they are in performance, but fail horribly in price/performance). Im at this time looking to get a new pc, which cpu brand did i go for? clearly AMD, why you may ask? cause i can get a athlon x4 620 + a 790GX mobo + 4Gb ddr3 Ram + a 5770 for much less than what i could have gotten with intel. just for example, to come close to how little i payed for that system here's a intel one i looked at Q8200 + G31 mobo + 2Gb Ram + a 4850...that cost the same as the AMD system, and i couldnt even get a p45 board -.-, not to mention my gaming would have been worse and the Q8200 is worse than the athlon x4 but cost more lol.

Now with these new i3's and i5's, you dont get the possible upgrade to 6-cores (since intel doesnt want to make one for the 1156 socket), you pay alot more for a few fps difference and you get a quicker encoding, ect, time by a minute or 2 (WOW i get to finish sending music to my phone via usb a few minutes quicker, well worth a couple hundred bucks :p ), all this is not worth the extra cash. At least with AMD, if you get a decent AM3 board now, you can get 6-core cpu's later.
Score
1
Anonymous
January 5, 2010 12:24:29 PM

Be nicer people; this chip is the only Clarkdale chip that Intel has made available. Tom's Hardware released this article not to please Intel, but you please you guys by releasing an article in a timely manner.

Wait for Tom's to get their hands on lower i5's and i3's to make it a more fair comparison.

Should they have done it this early? No. Should you accuse them of being biased? Not necessarily, but I see where you are coming from.
Score
2
January 5, 2010 12:31:02 PM

you people are just blind crazy with hate for intel and anything said positive for them. Sure I hate intel too as I own AMD stock and just built a Athlon II 620 rig with a ATI 4670 card. I love the machine as it was dirt cheap and building it supported the company I own stock in.

BUT LETS BE REALISTIC.

Point of article wasnt a price to price comparison it was a processor to processor comparison. AMD is really dragging its feet here and has fallen behind seriously with competitiveness of its processors. Sure they might be competitive for a few more months on a price/price level but that well is running dry fast. Once Core 2 Duo stocks run dry the prices will fall and then Intel cuts pricing of its new I3 and I5 series (this will happen this year). AMD will not be able to compete once that happens.

And to the fools that say saving a few watts of power means nothing when the chip costs more....You know nothing and do not work in the corporate world. Im a software developer for Morgan Stanley which has thousands and thousands of employees and our computers are on 24/7/365 for remote access. Saving power means everything to large corporations.

Anyways as an AMD stock owner I am concerned with the processor division and really hope that they get things moving faster.
Score
0
January 5, 2010 12:33:50 PM

I think KT_Wasp summarizes this nicely. "...this tree I just can't hug..." lol, Priceless.
After past articles have shown that three (or more) cores makes a pretty big difference over two, this is an awful lot of crowing over a dual-core CPU. Ok, the highest-end model beats any other dual-core out there, and I remember my old e6750 was nice and fast. I don't see myself ever buying another dual-core CPU.
Score
1
January 5, 2010 12:37:07 PM

I think a lot of you guys are missing the point here. I am an AMD fan but the purpose of this article was to compare Dual Core CPUS. AMD has very little to show for the Dual core segment, and they stick with the X3/X4 cpus instead of x4 threads to a a dual core. So is it fair.... kinda i5 (and i3) dual core cpus run on 4 threads, so they will be faster than the average AMD DC. Intel makes a better DC and AMD makes one hell of a mid ranged (price based) quad/dual. If Tom's compared a $200 AMD CPU (945?) then it would outperform this i5 and then people will be griping about its a quad vs a dual core... You can never win... but this was an odd comparison

Not sure who will buy this i5 anyway. So much competition in the 200 market for a not so impresive i5 (generally speaking).
Score
1
January 5, 2010 12:40:26 PM

I do agree with cknobman too though. I commented after the first article that this is a high-volume OEM / business machine CPU. We can't hug this tree, but that's ok, it isn't for us, it's for the business world, which buys more machines than we see in our dreams.
Score
0
January 5, 2010 1:15:23 PM

Once again THG manages to make a silk purse out of a pigs ear.

The 661 is a joke of a cpu at a joke of a price. That is what counts.
Score
0
January 5, 2010 1:16:44 PM

Don't you guys usually do a performance per dollar comparison/chart?
Anyway, informative but I expected more for that price.
Score
6
January 5, 2010 1:30:31 PM

I bought an gigabyte motherboard and an amd athlon x2 250 for $50. What intel processor and motherboard could I get at a similar price point?
Score
1
January 5, 2010 1:31:42 PM

these new clarkdale chips seems to be aimed at the buisness users. But still a i3 530 should be more than enough for this market. Anyone that needs cpu power is going to throw power out of the windows. This article about efficiency should have been written when i3 530 was available like someone mentioned.
Another flaw i see in this article is that it talks abt efficiency. i am not sure but i think that buisness tend to upgrade every 6 months or so. SO is power going to be that important a factor considering that the amd cpus can be had for lower cost. I mean by the time the electricity bill savings enter the picture the corporates might just upgrade their systems again...
Score
0
January 5, 2010 1:32:12 PM

these new clarkdale chips seems to be aimed at the buisness users. But still a i3 530 should be more than enough for this market. Anyone that needs cpu power is going to throw power out of the windows. This article about efficiency should have been written when i3 530 was available like someone mentioned.
Another flaw i see in this article is that it talks abt efficiency. i am not sure but i think that buisness tend to upgrade every 6 months or so. SO is power going to be that important a factor considering that the amd cpus can be had for lower cost. I mean by the time the electricity bill savings enter the picture the corporates might just upgrade their systems again...
Score
-1
January 5, 2010 1:32:54 PM

On a second thought, you should've included the x4 series. Then you could've gone ahead pointing out where having 4 cores is an advantage and where dual-cores strength lies. That way it would be a lot easier for consumers to make a purchase decision based on their needs.
Score
0
January 5, 2010 1:48:22 PM

AndrewCutterthese new clarkdale chips seems to be aimed at the buisness users...Anyone that needs cpu power is going to throw power out of the windows...i am not sure but i think that buisness tend to upgrade every 6 months or so...


Businesses hate to upgrade. They do it when they have to, but will otherwise run a machine into the ground. They may revise their "new PC" specification every six months (or more often, and recreate their drive images), but rarely will a business perform a mass hardware upgrade. There are just too many kinks to new systems. The lower power bill of this CPU will make it a very popular choice for new systems (or so it appears; need to wait for the low-end to release!!!), and it may even accelerate some purchasing plans where the sheer number of PCs makes power-saving an issue, but there are plenty of installations still piddling along on old PentiumIIIs who won't upgrade until they die or simply can't run their apps any more.
Score
3
!