AMD's denying move made 96% of Intel CPUs unwanted
As I analysed previously, AMD must deny Intel's oppurtunity to dump legacy CPUs (Netburst and Core Duo) . It's easy, just price the X2 3800+ at about $150 and sell a $50 Sempron. After that, 96% of Intel's CPUs will be unwanted.
Two days ago, I wrote that Intel top sellers on newegg.com has been reduced from 3 to 1, with a crappy Pentium 4 remaining. As expected, as of today, all top five sellers at newegg.com are AMD CPUs.
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2000MHz HT Socket 939 Dual Core Processor - Retail $154.00
- AMD Athlon 64 3400+ 1600MHz HT Socket 754 Processor - OEM $99.00
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2000MHz HT Socket 939 Dual Core Processor - Retail $219.00
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2000MHz HT Socket AM2 Dual Core Processor - Retail $195.00
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2000MHz HT Socket AM2 Dual Core Processor - Retail $159.00
Intel has run out of ammo. Even if Intel sells Pentium XE 965 at $75, it won't help. X2 3800+ is better if you can consider total cost of ownership.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 7/30/2006 12:18:00 PM
50 Comments:
It does not prove anything, but miserable C2D availablity for next 4 months gives AMD a chance to expand marketshare. The question is price, how much money AMD can make doing 150$ X2 3800+? On 300$ level the margin was great but now? Second - I don't know how good is Chartered and Fab36 but larger X2 die requires more capacity and costs more, so every X2 sold instead of single core means less money...
how much money AMD can make doing 150$ X2 3800+?
The gross profit from an $150 X2 3800+ is $110.
AMD, will never manage to drive Intel out of business by selling lower priced, or shoud I say better perf/$ CPU's. The only way they can beat Intel is by outgrowing them, and that means building more fabs wich are eficient as posible. And that means they can lower their CPU prices so much, and try to maximize their profits.
Intel's Core 2 Duo will only be built at 40% capacity in the 1st quarter 2007, for now is's 5% of all production capabilities, and this means Intel tries to use Core 2 to position itself as a market leader in performance and hurt AMD's image, and not to sustain its business from C2D sales.
Most (read 99+%) of Intel's CPU's on the market to date are still power hungry, hot and ineficient old netburt based.
I's to bad that AMD doesn't have a direct competitor to Conroe, for now. Intel using its huge financial resources managed to accelerate it's manufacturing technology to 65nm to create a time windows of aroung a half a year in wich it could beat AMD performance wise on the high end. But this is only superficial, a thing that gets Intel fanboys excited, AMD knows there's more than one way to skin a cat, and now It's again changing the rules of the game with is's 4x4.
Btw Crysis, you know, by far the most anticipated game for PC, is highly multitheaded, and not only that the producers declared in the latests interview on Gamespot that it gains aroung 10%-15% performance "per thread" when runing in 64 bit instead of 32. I think this will clearly show where the true power is and where the next gen games are going :D. This will open some eyes and I don't think true gamers will want power for the games of the past ...
Crysis, you know, by far the most anticipated game for PC, is highly multitheaded
AMD is working with Crytek to make Crysis better on 4x4. I bet there will be scenes only playable on 4x4. Making all Conroes unsuitable.
"Most (read 99+%) of Intel's CPU's on the market to date are still power hungry, hot and ineficient old netburt based."
You must be from getting your info from Sharikou... Core(mobile) is power hungry? Or does Intel's mobile market consist of <1% of Intel's CPU's?
"to create a time windows of aroung a half a year in wich it could beat AMD performance wise on the high end"
So AMD will be SHIPPPING a chip which beats Core2 at end of the year? Last I heard they would only be demo'ing it (K8L) and I had not seen any results yet...
"Btw Crysis, you know, by far the most anticipated game for PC, is highly multitheaded"
So being highly multithreaded will not take advantage of quad core? Only 4x4? AMD themselves have said 4x4 is targeted at enthusiast segment (that doesn't sound mainstream to me). For the average Joe who buys an entire computer for <$700, 4x4 is an option? Keeping in mind hard drive, memory, graphics card all tend to cost some money too.
"AMD is working with Crytek to make Crysis better on 4x4. I bet there will be scenes only playable on 4x4. Making all Conroes unsuitable."
Yeah, I'm sure Crytek is intentionally trying to prevent sales to the other 75% of the market...makes good business sense to me. (Maybe AMD can acquire them and package the game in a platform)
"AMD, will never manage to drive Intel out of business by selling lower priced, or shoud I say better perf/$ CPU's."
Isn't that exactly how Intel's x86 drove other processor makers out of business? Up until P-II, x86 processors weren't able to compete with other RISC processors in terms of performance.
Anyway... here's why I think AMD's "denying move" (ie. price cuts) will give Intel trouble even with latter's new chips:
1) If you look at the pricing at Mwave or Newegg, AMD's X2 4600+ is priced below Intel's E6300. Knowing that X2 4600+ performs better than E6300 on almost every benchmark from the (Intel-favoring) AnandTech tests, one can hardly justify to favorite Core 2 Duo.
2) While the fastest Core 2 Duo is about 5-25% faster than the fastest Athlon64 X2, few computer buyers will go for or near that high-end mark: Newegg's top 5 sellers are all in 3800+/4200+ range. Which Core 2 Duo can compete with these on performance/price?
3) Then there's the moot issue of overclocking. First, few people ever overclocks. Even if you could OC a E6300 stably to E6600, you can as well (or better) OC an X2 3800+ to X2 4600+. Again, Core 2 Duo stands at no advantage here.
4) AMD's motherboards are cheaper. Many people with a 2-year-old 939 MB (if they were smart to have bought AMD instead of Intel) can update its bios and drop-in an X2 and it will work.
5) What is different with AMD now is that it is an independent company. It doesn't rely Intel on its bus technology, nor its memory subsystem or socket, nor its ISA extensions, and (within a year or two) not even the graphics interface. Furthermore, the bigger foe is now under multiple investigations on its illegal use of monopoly power. In other words, the two companies can innovate freely now, and the winner is who can offer better performance/price product.
Still, we as end users all salute Intel's Core 2 Duo, even though it's too late and too much hyped. Without Conroe, AMD wouldn't have lowered the prices of its X2 that much and that quickly.
"So being highly multithreaded will not take advantage of quad core?"
Yes it will, but I also thing the FSB will hold of any spectacular performance gains (If not killing it). In situations where is a lot of memory presure and especialy a lot of non sequencial access (read games) Inte's quad core might be severily crippled and AMD will shine (onchip mem controler. HT link). Itel might need a proc with 16Mb o cache to be able to squize good perf from a quad core on FSB. Anything less than that and the cores might be bandwhith starved by an over pressured memory controler wich can't serve as many requests at once.
"Yeah, I'm sure Crytek is intentionally trying to prevent sales to the other 75% of the market...makes good business sense to me."
No they are not. Their just making a game wich they optimize for the latest technlogy. I don't thing they will optimize it alot more for AMD than for Intel or viceversa (or should I say: they will try to optimize it for both), but Intels performarce in 64 bit kinda' sucks atm, and not to forget they have previouss experiance with AMD64.
"Yeah, I'm sure Crytek is intentionally trying to prevent sales to the other 75% of the market..."
This remark, I believe, is flawed.
Crytek doesn't give up 75% of the market when it optimizes for 4x4. That's because it didn't have the 75% of market anyway.
Those who are sane enough to spend $1000+ on a PC in order to play a $50 game are called no less the enthusiasts. Those are NEVER the 75% that these game developers are competing for.
Game developers want differentiation (exactly as AMD has phrased). Higher details, better AI, and more effects. If 4x4 comes out to be a performer, one that offers quad-core performance on dual-core technology, and 8 on 4, it's a differentiation that the game developers ought to aim at.
"No they are not. Their just making a game wich they optimize for the latest technlogy."
Is there anything in the article suggesting they are optimizing for 4x4 or just multithreading and 64 bit in general?
Didn't the benchmarks on Core2 show a similar if not better 64 bit performance than the K8 architecture - I thought the major difference was that the delta between 32bit and 64bit was greater for AMD, but I though in terms of absolute performance the Core2 was as good or better. Am I mistaken? (If so my apologies, and please point me to a link where I can learn more - Thanks)
Sahrikou: Just a question - if only 4% of Intel CPU's are wanted now due to pricing, should we expect AMD's market share to be >90% if they can supply enough chips.
Or AMD will just get market share to the point where they are capacity constrained (can't produce enough CPU's)?
If this is truly the case I find it odd that AMD is bringing chipset production in house and not continuing to outsource it (to TSMC which is not constrained) and then focus all of their production on CPU's which they will sell out if there is a 96% market for them. As margin on CPU's are far better than chipsets why not maximize production of CPU's and use pre-exiting ATI foundry relationships to produce chipsets?
Oh wait this 4% is desktop only, and your 4% calculation is only based on Conroe...that would change the numbers a bit I guess.
if only 4% of Intel CPU's are wanted now due to pricing, should we expect AMD's market share to be >90%
AMD's market share will be solely constrained by its capacity. You will see Intel inventory keeps piling up and AMD selling every chip it makes.
The solution I proposed to Intel was to ramp down to keep price steady. But Intel retards keep making huge pile of crap nobody wants. So you will see Intel selling less units and drasticlly lower prices--leading to massive operating losses and BK in 5 to 7 Qs.
"AMD's market share will be solely constrained by its capacity. "
Then why are they going to start making chipset/GPU's in F36 next year?
Then why are they going to start making chipset/GPU's in F36 next year?
FAB36+FAB30+Chartered capacity will be more than 100% of world's CPU need.
"FAB36+FAB30+Chartered capacity will be more than 100% of world's CPU need."
No offense, but you must be high. F30 + ~20% of F36 (or is F36 ramped even more?)is now supplying ~23% of the world's supply right now.
Now you need to allocate part of F36 productuion to GPU's (which AMD said they were going to do) and start to take some of F30 production off line in mid-end 2007 to start the 300mm conversion of the fab.
Add on that continued migration to dual core and oh, didn;t you say they were going to start producing quad core in H1'07 too? And isn't K8L rumored to have some L3 cache too (bigger die size)?
Please explain how you get >100% (has to be greater than 100% or they couldn't produce GPU/chipsets too)
Don't say you've already done that because you previously stated F30+F36 could produce HALF the world's supply - now you are saying it can do 100% AND also start to supply GPU/chipsets.
You are basically stating there is no need to build a Fab in NY! And before you say more chipsets/GPU the conversion from a 200mm (90nm) -> 300mm (65nm) by 2008 should be able to take care of that.
Your initial data is flawed. I checked the link to newegg, and it is not the most popular, but the FEATURED deal of the day/week whatever. Also, the AMD/Intel chips were equal in number.
I'd like to know what your Ph.D is in "Dr." Sharikou. I've never seen mention of that.
Personally, I just keep coming back here to have a chuckle everyday at your rantings.....
Your initial data is flawed
Intel fanboys have low IQ.
Dude, follow the link in my post, look at the lower left corner, Top 5 sellers...
Did you notice all of the advertising was AMD, I think the link you should have posted to was...
Most popular.
I am not trying to bash, but it is actually NewEgg's link, if they were the top sellers they would also be the most popular.
I am not trying to bash, but it is actually NewEgg's link, if they were the top sellers they would also be the most popular.
Newegg.com's top seller list is updated at least daily. Before Intel's price slash, AMD took 3 spots in the top 5, after Intel introduced the PD 805 and slashed prices on Pentium D, AMD was pushed out, Intel took 3 spots. After AMD's price slash, it took all top 5. This is as expected. Only idiots would pay more to buy Intel's Netburst crap.
"I am not trying to bash, but it is actually NewEgg's link, if they were the top sellers they would also be the most popular."
Wrong. If you look at the page you linked, half of them are open box. Now tell me, how can open-box processors be as popular as new ones at sites like Newegg? Doesn't that mean 50% of the processors they sold were then returned?
It's clear then the "most popular" link at Newegg is for advertisement, but not for fact. They are popular because they could be a good deal to many customers. The top-sellers, on the other hand, are just ... top-sellers!
Intel fanboys have low IQ.
Dude, follow the link in my post, look at the lower left corner, Top 5 sellers...
fanboys in general have low IQ. You're the best prove for this thesis.
Then there's the moot issue of overclocking. First, few people ever overclocks. Even if you could OC a E6300 stably to E6600, you can as well (or better) OC an X2 3800+ to X2 4600+. Again, Core 2 Duo stands at no advantage here
I know quitea a few people who have e6300 and every single one of them has OC'd their CPU because it would be quite stupid to run that on it's default settings. All of them got around 2.8-3GHz with their CPU's with default inbox cooling. If you want to say you can OC 3800+ from 2 to >3GHz I would really want to know where you get your CPU's :)
It is a known fact that Core2 OC's way better than K8 so I would say that when you OC, K8 can't get anywhere near it.
Of cource I agree that not everyone OC's their PC.
but Intels performarce in 64 bit kinda' sucks atm
If you say that getting 10% boost instead of 16% is sucking then maybe you are right.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-64bit_7.html
It is a fact that in general, Core2 is still faster under 64bit, only in very few scenarios K8 has the lead.
" Anonymous said...
"No they are not. Their just making a game wich they optimize for the latest technlogy."
Is there anything in the article suggesting they are optimizing for 4x4 or just multithreading and 64 bit in general?
Didn't the benchmarks on Core2 show a similar if not better 64 bit performance than the K8 architecture - I thought the major difference was that the delta between 32bit and 64bit was greater for AMD, but I though in terms of absolute performance the Core2 was as good or better. Am I mistaken? (If so my apologies, and please point"
In most benchmarks AMD gets a lead of like.. 10-15% performance boost in 64 bit than 32 bit
while conroe gets only 6% average boost.. only very SS1-SS2-SS3 instruction based stuff gets a huge boost ( 40% to 200% )
here is the "top seller" list for Tiger direct (check other sources sharikou!!!)
1.
Intel Pentium D 840 3.2GHz /
2.
AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 2.60GHz
3.
AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 64-bit 2
4.
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0GH
5.
AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 2.80GHz
6.
Intel Pentium D 940 3.20GHz
7.
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ / 512KB
8.
Intel Pentium D 820 2.80GHz
9.
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ / 512KB
10.
Intel Celeron D 340 2.93GHz
notice the top seller is the Pentium D, however, the AMDs are coming our pretty strong..7 out of the stop 10 slleres are AMDs...
Edward said...
"If you look at the page you linked, half of them are open box. Now tell me, how can open-box processors be as popular as new ones at sites like Newegg?"
You are right, I'm sorry about that it was an oversight.
"nosredna ekim said..."
....
The first link is not actually the "top seller"
it just tells you the current offer of the day.
it clearly says "FEACTURED"
that means its like a "pimp a product"
for adverticing.
so the real topseller of today Monday 31 of July was a P4, the rest were AMD's
(and celerons D )
"The gross profit from an $150 X2 3800+ is $110."
Any chance you can qualify this statement? I have friend at AMD who said gross profit margin is more like $60. Quite a difference from what you stated.
"The solution I proposed to Intel was to ramp down to keep price steady. But Intel retards keep making huge pile of crap nobody wants. So you will see Intel selling less units and drastically lower prices--leading to massive operating losses and BK in 5 to 7 Qs."
Dr. Sharikou... when you propose things to Intel, are you talking with someone inside the company? And if so are they able to keep a straight face when you suggest they stop manufacturing things for a while?
As far as which chips are the most popular selling right now I find it rather interesting that everyone seems to cite newegg.com as the pre-eminent source of global chip demand. Seriously folks... new egg isn't an OEM... they're a channel vendor. While they may be a large vendor in the channel they clearly don't hold the majority stake of chips sales. Considering they update multiple times per day with inconsistent results, I'm going to have to do that wise thing and remind everyone to just wait until Q'3 and Q'4 financials come in to see who has what market share. Ya'll are trying to be Monday morning quarterbacks and you're unfortunately doing so incorrectly but doing it on the Monday BEFORE the game.
"I know quitea a few people who have e6300 and every single one of them has OC'd their CPU because it would be quite stupid to run that on it's default settings. All of them got around 2.8-3GHz with their CPU's with default inbox cooling. If you want to say you can OC 3800+ from 2 to >3GHz I would really want to know where you get your CPU's :)"
I'd be surprised to see ALL or MOST E6300 OC'd from 1.86Ghz to 2.8Ghz under air and stock voltage. Common sense would forbid such things, otherwise Intel's binning has big problem.
Well, if you were talking about OC with special cooling, special memory, special MB or voltage control etc., then that proves my point that such population is minuscular. It's not "not everyone OC's his PC," but "almost everyone doesn't OC his PC."
"Yes it will, but I also thing the FSB will hold of any spectacular performance gains (If not killing it). In situations where is a lot of memory presure and especialy a lot of non sequencial access (read games) Inte's quad core might be severily crippled"
Isn't this the typical "he-said/she-said" argument? How do you know Intel quad-core will suck at performance? Last I checked, Conroe kicks FX62 arse at gaming (even more so if you make the game CPU-bound and not GPU-bound). And it does that at the measly 1066 FSB. Andandtech has shown that the Conroe FSB easily scales to 1600 (http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2797&p=3 search for 400x10). So there is no reason to believe that at FSB 1600, Conroe x 2 won't kick FX62x2's arse.
Let the two systems come out, and we'll see what happens. With large shared cache intel has reduced the bus traffic, and with intelligent prefetchers, it has compensated for the latency. It may or may not scale to quad core. But from the types of arguments you make, you definitely do not seem to be an expert in computer architecture. From your perspective, all that matters is HT and integrated memory controller. BTW, did you know that Intel had integrated the memory controller in the past, but then they later ditched it because they placed bet on the wrong type of memory (not because they couldn't integrate it).
In fact, from what I hear, when Intel moves to CSI, they will not enable CSI and integrated MCH on desktop chips (even though the silicon would have it) simply because they don't need to. They will reserve it only for high-end servers, where it actually make any difference.
Yell all you want, but at least evidance today points to the fact that UP and DP set ups are not bandwidth starved, and Intel's quad-core will essentially be DP (since two core share the cache).
As it seems those top5 CPU's change quite often. At the moment there were two P4's in the list.
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/4017/top5je8.png
Too bad newegg doesn't have statistics for entire week.
I'm sorry but how dumb are you? Look down on the left corner.. You clearly see top 5 sellers 1:amd, 2:amd, 3:amd.....
At the moment there were two P4's in the list.
Actually, before AMD made the massive cut, Intel had three in the top 5. There were pentium D 930, Pentium D 805 and one single core Pentium 4. AMD's top seller were reduced to single core 3200 and 3500.
However, after AMD's massive cut, as you can see, all top five sellers are AMD.
It makes sense. When you can buy a X2 3800+ that frags a Pentium XE 965, why pay $100 for a crappy Pentium D 805?
It makes sense. When you can buy a X2 3800+ that frags a Pentium XE 965, why pay $100 for a crappy Pentium D 805?
That is depending on one's need and money availiable. For some people that $60 price difference matters.
For example I don't play games, I play around with software ray tracers. The ones I have only need massive SSE2 power. Memory throughput and latency is not really important as you know in advance of what memory you need and usually there is >95% L1 cache hits, not to mention L2 hits.
That's why I bougth 920. I did plan to get 2x265 system but at that time I didn't have the money and for my needs that awful P4 actually had more bang for the buck than x2 3800+.
Some time ago I had the opportunity to test the ray tracer on a Core2 and I saw >2x speedup from the P4. Most of that came from the doubling of SSE unit speed and bigger caches also helped a bit.
I'm not 100% sure about the speed difference against K8 but I think Core2 beat it clock-to-clock around 70-90% in single core. I saw the results of 2P Opteron system too but they didn't scale nearly as well to dual CPU as on Conroe, there Core2 beat it ny ~120%, probably the NUMA architecture messed things up a bit.
Of cource as there are not many applications where >90% of instructions are executed in SIMD units so that micro-bench doesn't really matter for the majority of others but it did for me and hopefully you now see that in some cases even P4 might make sense.
Unfortunately most commercial ray tracers do not use SIMD units and don't have nearly as good optimizations so it's not exactly simple to test it.
Btw, does anyone know the memory latency of 2P Opteron when one CPU accesses the memory of the other CPU over the crossbar switch?
under air and stock voltage
Where did I say stock voltage? They surely did increase the voltage but nothing too much.
. It's not "not everyone OC's his PC," but "almost everyone doesn't OC his PC."
When talking about the global market I couldn't agree more. Also it is worth wondering if there are more OC'ers or people who buy >$500 CPU's or perhaps even 2P machines.
"However, after AMD's massive cut, as you can see, all top five sellers are AMD."
Yup! Those include one of my order, too! Who else but AMD-based PC owners can do that, to spend just $200 and one CPU change to upgrade to a decent dual-core, after enjoying top-of-the-line performance for 2 years!
I'm SOOOO happy that I'm not an Intel-favoring enthusiast, that I can save $$$ and time for the more important members of my family. ;-)
"It makes sense. When you can buy a X2 3800+ that frags a Pentium XE 965, why pay $100 for a crappy Pentium D 805?"
For a lack of better word, I have to call you a liar. XE 965 consistently outperforms 3800+, mostly outperforms 4200+ and 4600+, and sometimes even outperforms 5000+ (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795). Even in gaming, XE outperforms 3800+ on half of the tests. And the other crappy AMD CPUs do not outperform it significantly. So now that we all agree that the doctor is lying, let us answer the other questions.
People will buy 805 because:
1. It is cheap
2. It overclocks tremendously
3. It is Pentium, a brand name that most developing markets love to flaunt
4. It is good enough for browsing web.
What part is not so obvious??
"Yup! Those include one of my order, too! Who else but AMD-based PC owners can do that, to spend just $200 and one CPU change to upgrade to a decent dual-core, after enjoying top-of-the-line performance for 2 years!"
You gus are soooooooooooooooo obviously owned! You like to point out that 90% people do not overclock, but you happily forget that probably 85% do not build their machines. They buy those from Dell or Gateway or whoever. And when time comes to upgrade, they throw it away, and buy a new one. No one wants to buy a CPU, open the machine, and plug in the new CPU. Heck, 70% users cannot reinstall windows. Do you think they care about if their mobo is going to be compatible with a new processor two years down the line?
People will buy 805 because:
1. It is cheap
2. It overclocks tremendously
3. It is Pentium, a brand name that most developing markets love to flaunt
4. It is good enough for browsing web.
This blog has found by clear and convincing evidence that Anand is a paid Intel pumper and his stuff totally lacks credibility.
1. Total cost of running Pentium D 805 is much higher than X2 3800+ if you consider the liquid cooling you need and the extra electricity cost.
2. OC Pentium D 805 will push power to 500 watts.
3. Pentium is a brand even Intel is shamed of.
4. Pentium D is not stable enough for web browsing. Toms stress tests showed that you need to change motherboard frequently
This blog has found by clear and convincing evidence that Anand is a paid Intel pumper and his stuff totally lacks credibility.
Baseless accusations can hardly be called proofs. I would take Anand's word over yours any day, simply because he has numbers to show, and those numbers are consistent with what numerous other web sites are showing.
1. Total cost of running Pentium D 805 is much higher than X2 3800+ if you consider the liquid cooling you need and the extra electricity cost.
Any references here? Or is this your usaul "take my word for it. I have a PhD?"
2. OC Pentium D 805 will push power to 500 watts.
Again, any numbers/references? Which power? At what overclock?
3. Pentium is a brand even Intel is shamed of.
Wrong and a blatant lie. Here is what Otellini said in analyst session "In particular, we find this an intriguing opportunity in emerging markets, where Pentium is quite well known but as a percent of the overall sales, because of price points of systems, it has not been the predominant line item in the Intel lineup. By having new systems, new CPU price points, we enable new system price points for Pentium in these markets, and we think that is an advantage to us." This is from a link that you yourself provided a few days ago. Intel plans to keep on using the Pentium brand for a long time. In fact, it is a clever move. People usually compare Pentium with Athelon. When Pentium is dirt cheap, Athelon cannot be priced higher. However, Core 2 is a new kid, which everyone knows is vastly superior to Athelon, so it can be priced anywhere.
4. Pentium D is not stable enough for web browsing. Toms stress tests showed that you need to change motherboard frequently
Any links? At what frequency is it not stable? I have an engineering sample of 90 nm Prescott, and it is still stable.
If anybodys credibility should be questioned, it should be yours.
Are you still trying to claim an X2 3800+ is quicker than a P4 EE? It may be in SOME tests, but certainly not the MAJORITY of tests, so stop sprouting BS.
"AMD is working with Crytek to make Crysis better on 4x4. I bet there will be scenes only playable on 4x4. Making all Conroes unsuitable."
Bullshit. I bet there won't be. Game developers always cater for the masses, they are shooting themselves in the foot if they make scenes only playable on quad core or 4x4 systems, because they will be alienating 99% of the gaming community.
Here is what Otellini said in analyst session "In particular, we find this an intriguing opportunity in emerging markets, where Pentium is quite well known
Dude, Paul O was saying what I said a long time ago. See this article (search for 3rd world)
" Anonymous said...
"It makes sense. When you can buy a X2 3800+ that frags a Pentium XE 965, why pay $100 for a crappy Pentium D 805?"
For a lack of better word, I have to call you a liar. XE 965 consistently outperforms 3800+, mostly outperforms 4200+ and 4600+, and sometimes even outperforms 5000+ (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795). Even in gaming, XE outperforms 3800+ on half of the tests. And the other crappy AMD CPUs do not outperform it significantly. So now that we all agree that the doctor is lying, let us answer the other questions.
People will buy 805 because:
1. It is cheap
2. It overclocks tremendously
3. It is Pentium, a brand name that most developing markets love to flaunt
4. It is good enough for browsing web.
What part is not so obvious?? "
let me fix your list
1.- It needs a holy shit assed power supply, because when it reaches 40% overclock, it starts to suck more energy than a Diesel based Russian Pick up during the Berlin control...
2.- you need a preety powerful cooling solution.
3.- it still eats energy like a monster ( according to toms's guide, it can suck up to 300 watts solely by the cpu.. )
do the math, you still LOSE.
holy shit assed power supply,
No problemo, third world countries have an abundance of cow shit to burn.
Crank up the cow patties and turn them into eletricity.
What are you a moron. You think 3rd world countries are worried about overclocking or running games? They need a cheap, reliable hardened PC avaliable by the 100's of millions.
Something AMd can't do if they can't even supply the premium line..
They "AMD" need another 3 factories to compete..
Jokes on AMD
4. Pentium D is not stable enough for web browsing. Toms stress tests showed that you need to change motherboard frequently
Any links? At what frequency is it not stable? I have an engineering sample of 90 nm Prescott, and it is still stable.
I cannot find the link now but there was a video that I saw where they tried to benchmark a Pentium D cpu. After starting the benchmarks for a short while the computer would just crash and the motherboard had to be replaced. They replaced quite a few boards too from different manufacturers and in the end they just gave up that time.
" Anonymous said...
holy shit assed power supply,
No problemo, third world countries have an abundance of cow shit to burn.
Crank up the cow patties and turn them into eletricity.
What are you a moron. You think 3rd world countries are worried about overclocking or running games? They need a cheap, reliable hardened PC avaliable by the 100's of millions.
Something AMd can't do if they can't even supply the premium line..
They "AMD" need another 3 factories to compete..
Jokes on AMD "
Holy shit Kid, companies outside the US and Europe are 5X to 20X times MORE EXPENSIVE IN ELECTRICITY BILL than US and similars.
maybe because we sell all our cow shit to your "countries" so you can overclock happily, have Airconditioned 100% on all the time, and keep all lights turned on like a christmas three 24/7/364 ?
Some people seem to LOVE P4EE or P-D very much. Oh well, just go buy it, and see it become obsolete a year later.
Okay, so you say, don't they perform better today than AMD's X2 3800+? Following AnandTech's links, except some SysMark and DivX benchmarks (which are traditionally Intel-favoring), ALL P-D below 940 are slower than X2 3800+. Keep in mind that X2 consumes MUCH less power than P-D, and X2 3800+ is priced 75% of P-D 940 (www.priceline.com).
I mean if you really want the 'Pentium' brand, go ahead. Nobody can stop you, but to be frank I'll just call moron on your back. If you buy an AM2 X2 3800+ today, OTOH, you can easily upgrade it to quad-core with top-of-the-line performance through the end of 2008. What will your P-D look like, compared to K8L (which I assume will be on-par with Core 2 Quad)? Heat emitting web-browser and noisy DVD player?
Go, go ahead to waste your money on it!
sorry I should've have said www.pricewatch.com in my last comment.
priceline is something totally different... ;-p
Retailers not happy with Intel channel stuffing tactics and it looks like they are not paying rebates in a timely fashion!!!!
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/business/2006/August/business_August28.xml§ion=business
Sharikou: Just curious, you felt the compeling need to write a 2nd blog when Newegg Top5 changed from 4/5 AMD chips to 5/5 AMD chips and say "as epexcted".
Any plans to start another article now that AMD has fallen to 3/5 top chips or was this as everything else is, expected and predicted by you?
Or do you only post information when it shows a trend in AMD's direction?
Also amazing that one of those is a P4D as all of those Celeron cuts must be completely undermining P4D sales...
I eagerly await a new blog article with this updated information and your new analysis of it (or will you wait until the data conveniently tunrs in AMD's direction?)
"In most benchmarks AMD gets a lead of like.. 10-15% performance boost in 64 bit than 32 bit
while conroe gets only 6% average boost.. only very SS1-SS2-SS3 instruction based stuff gets a huge boost ( 40% to 200% )"
Actually you are another person who didn't read the article (and probably just read the dumbass Inquirer interpertation)
XBit said AMD got a 10-15% performance boost over AMD 32 bit performance, while Intel got a 6% boost over INTEL 32 bit performance.
See the issue with your conclusion yet? 2 different baselines were used to caculate the improvement. If you just look at the data in the graphs between you'll see Intel64bit performance was better than AMD 64 bit in all but one of the 64bit benchmarks.
XBits conclusion was AMD gets a higher jump moving from 32-64bit than Intel, but as Intel is starting at a higher 32bit baseline performance level, it still ouperforms on 64 bit on an absoulte scale.
Thus the difference is the lead of Intel over AMD is less on 64 bit than 32, but it is still a lead! Look at the graphs in the articel if you don;t believe me.
Any plans to start another article now that AMD has fallen to 3/5 top chips or was this as everything else is, expected and predicted by you?
Actually, Indeed, I thought Intel execs after seeing this blog, will slash their price some more to gain back some mkt share. It happened. Intel slashes P4D 940 prices, and there are morons who bought it because of a $10 difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home