AMD's price cuts 24 July

[elbert]

Why do you compare the E6600 to the 5000+? Because they both are the 2nd CPU in their respective line-ups?
The 5000+ competes with the E6300 which is a 183-dollar-CPU.

I've never seen any benchs to show a none OC'ed E6300 on average beat than the X2 3800+. The E6300 is equal to in my opinion a X2 4000+ but price wise the E6300 is up against the X2 4200+. If you note the tomshardware benchs they state your better off with the D950 then the E6300 and E6400 performance wise and the reason they dont show the benchs for them.

The E6400 performance is about that of the X2 4600+ and is priced about the same. The E6600 can beat the X2 5000+ in performance but, with the X2 5000+ matching the FX-60 in most benchs, AMD made a good choice matching the performance to price the X2 5000+ has being its cheaper by about $34.

In a perfect world we would match the FX-62 against the E6600 but the FX-62 is being replace by the FX-64 in under a month.

I really like the fact that the buck can now buys a lot more performance as you move up the CPU ladder.

 

[The_Abyss]

The E6300 is equal to in my opinion a X2 4000+

An X2 what?

In a perfect world we would match the FX-62 against the E6600 but the FX-62 is being replace by the FX-64 in under a month.

Who's perfect world? In a perfect world, the FX-62's price would match it's performance counterpart, not cost another $300.

What extra will the FX-64 bring? And how much will it be?

 

[elbert]

The E6300 is equal to in my opinion a X2 4000+

An X2 what?

In a perfect world we would match the FX-62 against the E6600 but the FX-62 is being replace by the FX-64 in under a month.

Who's perfect world? In a perfect world, the FX-62's price would match it's performance counterpart, not cost another $300.

What extra will the FX-64 bring? And how much will it be?
True but as of yet no released CPU matches the FX-62. Come on if your going to flame dont leave an easy opening.

The FX-64 will outperform the current top CPU the FX-62 and by how much I have no ideal. The price of the FX-64 will be higher than an equal performance Intel Core 2 duo but The FX will give added value as it will work in the upcomming 4X4 mobo.

 

[elbert]

The E6300 is equal to in my opinion a X2 4000+

An X2 what?

In a perfect world we would match the FX-62 against the E6600 but the FX-62 is being replace by the FX-64 in under a month.

Who's perfect world? In a perfect world, the FX-62's price would match it's performance counterpart, not cost another $300.

What extra will the FX-64 bring? And how much will it be?

He is either misintrepeting the datd or has not seen all the benchmark data yet. There is scant data on the E6300 but it does indeed out perform a 4000+ , matching or exceeding ar 4200+ in most all benchmarks:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=12
Page 12 paints a good picture but if you step back to page 10 you see the E6300 loss even to the X2 3800. If you go throw all the benchmarks you'll see its a very upcommen CPU and at time scores high on one test and then falls far short on others. My biggest problem with the E6300 is its Nero score, I love Nero, and the X2 3800+ wins that benchmark. The mozilla WME test shows E6300 having an less than even performance with the X2 4200+ and Office XP bench has the X2 3800+ dead even with the E6300. I in good faith can not give a better rating then a X2 4000+.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=10

The great thing about this vast difference in the E6300 to the X6800 is the massive performance differance gained by a little over 1Ghz. The Core 2 duo at 4Ghz should be a massive CPU.

 

[Leto_Atreides]

The E6300 is equal to in my opinion a X2 4000+

An X2 what?

In a perfect world we would match the FX-62 against the E6600 but the FX-62 is being replace by the FX-64 in under a month.

Who's perfect world? In a perfect world, the FX-62's price would match it's performance counterpart, not cost another $300.

What extra will the FX-64 bring? And how much will it be?

He is either misintrepeting the datd or has not seen all the benchmark data yet. There is scant data on the E6300 but it does indeed out perform a 4000+ , matching or exceeding ar 4200+ in most all benchmarks:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=12
Page 12 paints a good picture but if you step back to page 10 you see the E6300 loss even to the X2 3800. If you go throw all the benchmarks you'll see its a very upcommen CPU and at time scores high on one test and then falls far short on others. My biggest problem with the E6300 is its Nero score, I love Nero, and the X2 3800+ wins that benchmark. The mozilla WME test shows E6300 having an less than even performance with the X2 4200+ and Office XP bench has the X2 3800+ dead even with the E6300. I in good faith can not give a better rating then a X2 4000+.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=10

The great thing about this vast difference in the E6300 to the X6800 is the massive performance differance gained by a little over 1Ghz. The Core 2 duo at 4Ghz should be a massive CPU.

Read this review of the E6300: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html

Beats the X2 3800+ in all benchmarks in their testing, and they were able to overclock the E6300 to 2.9ghz on air.

 

[The_Abyss]

The E6300 is equal to in my opinion a X2 4000+

An X2 what?

In a perfect world we would match the FX-62 against the E6600 but the FX-62 is being replace by the FX-64 in under a month.

Who's perfect world? In a perfect world, the FX-62's price would match it's performance counterpart, not cost another $300.

What extra will the FX-64 bring? And how much will it be?
True but as of yet no released CPU matches the FX-62. Come on if your going to flame dont leave an easy opening.

I'm not flaming.

If you bothered to read what I actually wrote, I was raising a question over that on earth is an X2 4000+? I haven't seen any for sale.

Obviously you wanted to start an argument over released and non-released CPUs. Many Core 2's are available at the time I wrote and oh - look at the date now a few hours later. Now they're all released. Unlike the FX-64, which doesn't even have an y numbers released for it.

The FX-64 will outperform the current top CPU the FX-62 and by how much I have no ideal. The price of the FX-64 will be higher than an equal performance Intel Core 2 duo

Not exactly the strongest foundation on which to base a debate.

but The FX will give added value as it will work in the upcomming 4X4 mobo.

Please clarify your understanding of the word value. I'm not sure it is consistent with the rest of the population.

 

[elbert]

The E6300 is equal to in my opinion a X2 4000+

An X2 what?

In a perfect world we would match the FX-62 against the E6600 but the FX-62 is being replace by the FX-64 in under a month.

Who's perfect world? In a perfect world, the FX-62's price would match it's performance counterpart, not cost another $300.

What extra will the FX-64 bring? And how much will it be?

He is either misintrepeting the datd or has not seen all the benchmark data yet. There is scant data on the E6300 but it does indeed out perform a 4000+ , matching or exceeding ar 4200+ in most all benchmarks:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=12
Page 12 paints a good picture but if you step back to page 10 you see the E6300 loss even to the X2 3800. If you go throw all the benchmarks you'll see its a very upcommen CPU and at time scores high on one test and then falls far short on others. My biggest problem with the E6300 is its Nero score, I love Nero, and the X2 3800+ wins that benchmark. The mozilla WME test shows E6300 having an less than even performance with the X2 4200+ and Office XP bench has the X2 3800+ dead even with the E6300. I in good faith can not give a better rating then a X2 4000+.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=10

The great thing about this vast difference in the E6300 to the X6800 is the massive performance differance gained by a little over 1Ghz. The Core 2 duo at 4Ghz should be a massive CPU.

Read this review of the E6300: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html

Beats the X2 3800+ in all benchmarks in their testing, and they were able to overclock the E6300 to 2.9ghz on air.
Thats so cool but in no way disputes my X2 4000+ rating on the E6300. Please note sciencemarks 2.0 a win for the X2 3800+ in the none OC'ed versions.

 

[elbert]

The E6300 is equal to in my opinion a X2 4000+

An X2 what?

In a perfect world we would match the FX-62 against the E6600 but the FX-62 is being replace by the FX-64 in under a month.

Who's perfect world? In a perfect world, the FX-62's price would match it's performance counterpart, not cost another $300.

What extra will the FX-64 bring? And how much will it be?
True but as of yet no released CPU matches the FX-62. Come on if your going to flame dont leave an easy opening.

I'm not flaming.

If you bothered to read what I actually wrote, I was raising a question over that on earth is an X2 4000+? I haven't seen any for sale.

Obviously you wanted to start an argument over released and non-released CPUs. Many Core 2's are available at the time I wrote and oh - look at the date now a few hours later. Now they're all released. Unlike the FX-64, which doesn't even have an y numbers released for it.

The FX-64 will outperform the current top CPU the FX-62 and by how much I have no ideal. The price of the FX-64 will be higher than an equal performance Intel Core 2 duo

Not exactly the strongest foundation on which to base a debate.

but The FX will give added value as it will work in the upcomming 4X4 mobo.

Please clarify your understanding of the word value. I'm not sure it is consistent with the rest of the population.

An X2 what?

I wasn't really replying to the your question on the X2 just he FX price compare. The X2 4000+ is 1 number placed in a rating system used by AMD and while you want see one sold by AMD that wouldn't mean Intel couldn't have a CPU that rates that performance. The fact is the X2 3800+ to the X2 5000+ is not based on the Ghz but more a rating as to the performance compared to an Intel P4 CPU Ghz.

Obviously I was stating that the Core 2 duo release date had not been as of yet so it truly had little meaning to what you wrote. The debate was why didnt AMD lower the price of the FX-62 and the fact its little time till its replace.

Please clarify your understanding of the word value. I'm not sure it is consistent with the rest of the population.

Value as to the 4X4 extending the useful life of the FX line of processor due to simple plugin in a extra future FX at a cheaper price and receiving about a 80% boast in performance. Is value clarified for you?

 

[The_Abyss]

Nope.

Value to me isn't buying another $800 CPU based on what will then be yesterday's technology and a new motherboard to get some extra performance. Probably need a new PSU as well, heatsink and fans. Upwards of $1,000.

80% seems a big promise over the increases seen going from single to dual core. I don't recall seeing any benchmarks that have proved this other than some marketing speak to date.

 

[elbert]

Nope.

Value to me isn't buying another $800 CPU based on what will then be yesterday's technology and a new motherboard to get some extra performance. Probably need a new PSU as well, heatsink and fans. Upwards of $1,000.

80% seems a big promise over the increases seen going from single to dual core. I don't recall seeing any benchmarks that have proved this other than some marketing speak to date.

Ok just buy another system in about a year for around $1500 at about the same performance as 2 FX CPU's then say value.

Lets see UT3 i think got a 40% increase from a patch so thats about lowest you'll see. Multithreading will not give 2 time the performance but a 80% increase is on average about correct for all business servers. Will the 80% be true for the 4X4? Its the same technology so more than likly. Games dont run on servers but games are more highly optimized than any program as performance can make or break a game.

Currently no games but Ut3 is multithreaded and only uses 1 core. When a game multithreaded from the ground up comes run it on current CPU's and then see the gain. Current dual cores may as well be single cores to games. The move from single to dual core didnt give much performance because in single core CPU's, at the time, they were using all the space for performance. Dual cores had to see a reductions in Ghz for all the extra design space needed. When using 2 CPU's each CPU can run at its top speed in Ghz and in theory gives twice the performance but truly only gives about 80% due to multithreading over head.

 

[Parrot]

Well, it seems that AMD's price cuts in response to Conroe are in line with what i had speculated in other threads, and are now competitive with Intel's offerings. (Source: Daily Tech)
$282 for an X2 5000+ coupled with cheaper mainboards, make it definitely a viable alternative to an E6600.
The 3800+ is now 150$, and very interesting are also the energy efficient versions.
FX-62 is now at 799$, though it does not seem (to me) to have a real market, unless 4x4 delivers sensible perfomance on common applications AND they manage to lock the platform on FX only CPUs; otherwise, i can see a pair of 5000+ getting in the case of many enthusiasts..
The price war is heating up, and it has never been a better moment to upgrade your CPU.

Here is the official price list: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html :lol:

 

[elbert]

Well, it seems that AMD's price cuts in response to Conroe are in line with what i had speculated in other threads, and are now competitive with Intel's offerings. (Source: Daily Tech)
$282 for an X2 5000+ coupled with cheaper mainboards, make it definitely a viable alternative to an E6600.
The 3800+ is now 150$, and very interesting are also the energy efficient versions.
FX-62 is now at 799$, though it does not seem (to me) to have a real market, unless 4x4 delivers sensible perfomance on common applications AND they manage to lock the platform on FX only CPUs; otherwise, i can see a pair of 5000+ getting in the case of many enthusiasts..
The price war is heating up, and it has never been a better moment to upgrade your CPU.

Here is the official price list: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html :lol:
This list price is for direct AMD customers and requires buying a 1000-unit for those prices and all Intel prices lists are the same so both will have up to a 20% markup. Early buyers of both CPU's may see even higher prices as some retailers may go as high as 30% to recover from old stock costs.