Analysis on IT trends and competitive strategies, with emphasis on micro processors, computer systems and networks. Based on latest news, backed up with real data, this site intends to provide a true and realtime picture of the fast changing IT landscape. This journal strives to be accurate on facts and sharp on criticisms. You may email your opinion to sharikou@yahoo.com or post comments here, be cool and intelligent.
Freelance journalist on IT matters. Some of my writings have been published on online IT journals. Any original content on this journal is Copyrighted, but it's free for non-commercial use. Any Trademarks used on this site belong to their respective owners. Some of the pictures are links. If there is any issue with the content of this site, please email sharikou@yahoo.com .
I previously projected that once K10 is out, all Intel Core 2 Quad, Core 2 and AMD K8 chips will be sold in a narrow price range of $60 to $120. Now, it's about two months before the arrival of K10, and you can get a Core 2 Quad 6600 + MB at Frys for a total of $300.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 7/04/2007 07:46:00 AM
74 Comments:
What you get from Intel may be 2.8x
But what you get from AMD is 0x
2.8 >> 0
Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing?
Can someone also tell Ph(ake)d that people have known the price drop was coming for months.
Can someone ALSO inform his illustrious fanboi liar that Intel is dropping prices to prepare for its new products coming Q3 & Q4?
Can someone ALSO inform his illustrious fanboi liar that Intel is dropping prices to prepare for its new products coming Q3 & Q4?
Or the fact that Intel is releasing a faster 'Extreme' quad core (QX6850) and and a Q6700 to take the place of the Q6600 now? They obviously can't sell a Q6600 and Q6700 at the same price.
They're cheap to make so they easily afford to price them at this level and make profit.
AMD will be forced to sell it's quads at low low prices ensuring AMD's BK in 2Q'08.
AMD has brazenly stolen other companies intellectual property and is now being sued for these crimes:-
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=4078
This comment has been removed by the author.
First, the fire sale of Core2s will make all X2s tough sale. Intel solutions are far more attrative when priced competitively---Intel solutions always come with good enough graphics, sufficient for Vista. Expect AMD to be seriously wounded in this first round.
Then, once the Core2 are cleared, come the Penryns with crushing performance advantage. This second blow may prove fatal to AMD. Don't be fooled by AMD's profit numbers, its cash flow that matters. To stay competitive, AMD has to spend a lot of cash on new FAB technology. Intel on the other hand, has no problems and will have four all new 45nm fabs by producing cips next year...
Good deal indeed. Intel is truly flooding the market.
AMD FTW!!! *laughs*
*Read the Update*
Ars Technica.com
Sorry, I should have been more specific, it relates to the 20% and 50% claims.
This comment has been removed by the author.
What a bunch of plumpers from intelhell!!! But not all is bad news...Read & try to comprehend before throwing out unproven facts just to repute.
What a bunch of plumpers from intelhell!!! But not all is bad news...Read & try to comprehend before throwing out unproven facts just to repute.
You mean compared with the "facts" that you, oneexpert, Penix etc. post?
Intel's plan to deny AMD any profit has worked brilliantly. One year ago the X2 3800+ was $300. Now you can buy the same CPU for a meagre $66.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Intel market shares grows amid AMD pricing crash
We saw those Athlon 64 X2 3600 at $59 which Hector Ruiz at AMD touted as a way to take 30% market share at all costs and the zillions of $30 Semprons flooding the 3rd world markets. Did they help AMD gain unit share? Hector Ruiz and Co. thought Yes. The reality is No.
These are the newest Mercury Research stats: AMD overall unit share 18.7%, Intel 80,5%; AMD revenue share 11%, Intel 80.5%; Intel did gain unit and revenue share in all processor product segments. Santa Rosa should push Intel's mobile share throughout 2007.
Going forward, with Intel's massive price cut and Apple alliance, expect its unit share to rocket.
INTEL's manufacturing might is starting to show.
65nm quadcore is being pushed into the mainstream. Yields for must be high and Penrym is ramping. Time to put the 65nm into celeron.
AMD can't even ship their first 65nm native quadcore into server and INTEL already is pushing quadcore into mainstream and celeron soon.
AMD BK in 2008.
oneexpert,
You are a very warped individual. Intel drops prices usually once a quarter. Sometimes 3 times a year, but usually once a quarter. Since Intel has owned the CPU market for the past 11 months (since the release of C2D), they have had a total of 5 price drops since then.
Since then Intel has taken back nearly 60% of the market it lost to AMD earlier.
So, in your fucked up head, explain how Intel has been beating AMD silly the past 11 months, still had price drops, but yet you quite stupidly claim that Intel only drops prices when they are losing market share to AMD.
You really need to be hit by the clue bat.
Remember, Barcelona isn't out yet. And won't be for quite a while.
PAPER LAUNCH! Go AMD! WOOT!
I LOVE how you fanbois keep brinign up Intel's "antique" CPU... that is handing AMD's latest and greatest its ass.
It must suck to watch your precious "high tech" processor lose marketshare, and mind share to an antique, that wins benchmark after benchmark.
Don't let those facts stand in your way.
PS: The current generation of AMD CPUs contain more erratum than the Intel C2D line does.
PS: You are still a fucktard.
Giant said...
Intel's plan to deny AMD any profit has worked brilliantly.
So even Intelers are admiting to Intel's monopoly.
One of the primary strategies of a company is to maximize their OWN profits... NOT 'plan' to deny their competitors from profit.
Proving this, as AMD should be able to, will allow them to win the law suite.
Intel does plan on maximizing it's profits. If AMD is destroyed in that process, so be it. It's all competition.
I hadn't been paying attention to Intel price curts recently as I was going to look after the next reduction at the end of July but it does seem that the prices have been drifting down on the low to mid range parts, which is good news.
The real top end still seems to be stuck at very high prices though so there is a huge gap, maybe the online retailer I looked at is just hoping someobody will buy them so they will not make a loss, or is the price for the QX and X processors still high everywhere?
For the desktop I still think quadcore is not needed yet, whether it be AMD or Intel, at least for what I use PC's for .. maybe 2H08 I'll jump up from my Conroe ..
Quarterly eanings reports out soon, should make interesting reading.
The real top end still seems to be stuck at very high prices though so there is a huge gap, maybe the online retailer I looked at is just hoping someobody will buy them so they will not make a loss, or is the price for the QX and X processors still high everywhere?
All the quad core CPUs are priced high. The Q6600 is at $535, the QX6700 at $999 and the QX6800 at $1199.
Come July 22 the Q6600 drops to $266, the Q6700 is at $535 and the extreme edition remains unchanged.
jeach!
"So even Intelers are admiting to Intel's monopoly."
This is not monopoly, it is plain old competition. Too bad AMD seems not to be good at competing.
Btw, didn't QX6850 have the price of $999?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Intel price list:-
http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/processor_price_list.pdf
We can't put any of those those Intel Quads into any of our quad socket Opteron servers!
I'm not going to buy all new hardware just for a Intel Quad core solution which were all waiting to settle, woodcrest? Penryn? FBram?, on again off again gezz!
I'll wait for AMD's Barcelona's fully tested quads thanks! for my seamless CPU upgrade so are many thousands of Opteron server owners.!
Anyway My Opteron dual core quad socket kills anything that I can throw at it.
Think servers boys not toys! thats where the money is!.
paul
"We can't put any of those those Intel Quads into any of our quad socket Opteron servers!"
It didn't seem to stop you from buying all new machines less than a year ago when you went with DDR2 Opterons even though they didn't offer any performance benefit over their DDR1 models.
"Anyway My Opteron dual core quad socket kills anything that I can throw at it."
I know at least one application that would run faster clock-to-clock on single quadcore Intel. You can find that application here.
Think servers boys not toys! thats where the money is!.
That's why Intel has taken back significant amounts of server market share from AMD. AMD's market share has crashed.Performance is far lower than what Xeon offers.
Giant is right on the money (no pun intended) AMD has lost almost 10% of the market back to Intel in the server world in the past year.
Ouch.
Oh yeah and AMD gets bitch slapped for what the Ziff thinks is unethical benchmarking: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40792
I love this quote:
the benchmarks clearly leave out faster-performing Intel parts and base their numbers on 2.6GHz Barcelona chips, a performance grade that won't even be released upon initial launch - the fastest Barcelona will launch at 2.0GHz in September, Ou says, meaning that "AMD is deliberately leaving out Intel’s best scores, leaving out Intel’s best products that shipped months ago, and putting in theoretical Barcelona scores for products that don’t even have a ship date."
Anyway My Opteron dual core quad socket kills anything that I can throw at it.
And my Xeon quad core, dual socket kills everything I throw at it, including dual core quad socket Opteron systems.
It must really suck that AMD's latest and greatest in four physical processors gets it's ass kicked by Intel's "antiques" that supposedly only get 2.5-2.8x performance with quad core...
Oh yeah and AMD gets bitch slapped for what the Ziff thinks is unethical benchmarking: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40792
I love this quote:
the benchmarks clearly leave out
ZDnet loves old graphs
ZDNet blogmasters go off on AMD today for some SPEC graphs that are just misleading. The graphs are dated 4/02. Shouldn't this have been a story over 3 months ago? It is pretty simple to look at this page
http://multicore.amd.com/us-en/AMD-Multi-Core/Products/Barcelona/Performance.aspx
and see that those graphs are quite old. It destroys pretty much every point in the rant. I guess on a slow news day this is what you get.
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=8004&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Pezal, once again your fucking lame fanboi side is showing.
Using an AMD fanboi web site to prove much of anything is well, like using Ph(ake)d for a non-biased news source.
I do find this comment hilarious.
"Cheap? Remember, an Intel quad core is not true quad core: you get 2.5-2.8x the performance in multi-tasking, instead of 4x."
If the measure of whether a cpu is a true quad core is performance over a single core being exactly 4 I'll be most of AMD's chips won't be true quad cores either
My point is that my investment is in Opteron hardware.. that investment made when Intel's offerring was terrible.. I'm happy with my investment because it has caused me no problems and has not hindered any application deployment from Terminal services to GIS etc and now has a upward upgrade path without huge investment.. Thats what I like
performance is an issue second to reliability, scalability, longevity
cheers
Oh yes I will implement quad Intel workstations into our GIS dept!
@Paul
That does seem like a reasonable point of view.
Personally I just don't like the people around here that are so grown into only buying this or that company with very flaky arguments for it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim Cramer lashes out at Ruiz. It's really funny. For a change, he is right on money for the first time. Here is what he has to say:
It takes years of hard work and incompetence to make into onto the "CEO Wall of Shame," Cramer said.
The third addition is Advanced Micro Devices' Hector Ruiz. "AMD can't compete with Intel. It can't compete with Nvidia. It has too many plants and too many people -- and Ruiz has got to go.
Hector Ruiz couldn't care less about AMD. He probably runs C2D systems at his house.
He made a cool $16m last year and is set for life. He'll just stay at AMD until BK and then retire.
This comment has been removed by the author.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070706/tc_pcworld/134216
That's quite a story, Enrique. I like stories. I like stories about pinatas. In fact, I like everything you have to say.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey rathor, the only one sounding dumb is you, how about we edit your post a little, since there were 0 facts involved in it:
@AMDl fans: FUCK OFF!!!! I'm sick and tired of all your crap and shit! Get the FUCK out from Sharikou's blog! You don't deserve any respect from Intel fans & even the other users who don't care about fanboyism ! You ALL are fucked up by AMD's sick brain ! This are my FINAL words to ALL AMD fanbois: AMD means shit and cannot even see the truth about itself... Start flaming poor "amd" mofos 'cause I don't even care about YOU. Poor little bastards.
PS: I don't care about you're going to wrote about my post. Ignore mode is the best.
Fact: Core 2 CPU's are selling like crazy all around the entire world. People love Core 2 processors :) Every OEM of mine has core 2 CPUs (no less than 500) and they are very happy about it...
"Hey rathor, the only one sounding dumb is you, how about we edit your post a little, since there were 0 facts involved in it"
0 facts ? I doubt. Who cares about what you think? You intel fanboysm means shit to me. You only try to deny the real fact about K10 CPU: K10 means real power that intel can only dream about it. Only dream get it? We'll see that sooooooon.
What facts are you taking about rathor you idiot.......last time i checked there are no real benchmarks and no real facts out there. You can only get estimates and slideshows from AMD about k10.....go fit that in your AM2 motherboard.....
OK Rathor, since you know so much about the K10, why don't you invite everyone who reads this blog over to watch your 2.6Ghz K10 system crush those 'evil' Intel systems that are apparently the cause of all your problems in life. Hey I'll bring beer!
Oh wait... you don't have a 2.6Ghz K10? OK, I'm reasonable, how about a 2.0Ghz K10. Oh wait... you won't even be able to buy one of those for 2 more months. Well maybe we can go to a reputable review site that has a full suite of numbers showing that 2.0Ghz K10 in action! How about a non-fanboyish place like... amdzone! Oh wait, they don't have anything other than some theoretical projections of what an unannounced K10 might do.
So how do you know all these 'facts' about how wonderful K10 is without having one to benchmark or even being able to show me where to find benchmarks? Do you know something that even Sharikou does not know?
And while we're here, what is this mystical 'truth' about Intel? I mean, if you are so smart, why don't you tell us what the 'truth' actually is?
This comment has been removed by the author.
All AMD CPUs are all junk, 6000+ will sell for just $170. Say goodbye to any hope of AMD returning to profitability: http://crn.com/white-box/200900540?cid=ChannelWebBreakingNews
AMD BK Q2'08.
Dream on pumpers/plumpers
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/
0,1895,2155516,00.asp
Who cares? 7.5m is a tiny amount of money when compared with companies that makes billions in profit (like Intel) every quarter.
Oh, well, what I can say... We'll see soon who has been right and who don't. Time will tell. One thing I know for sure: I have sold my C2D yesterday and bought back my X2, and I'm very happy about it. And you know why: there's no major difference between C2D oc. to 2.89 and X2 oc. 2.43 in real life performance. The only 2 differences are when you encode/decode movies (+20% for Intel) and in games (+10% in Intel's favour)... But, remember: C2D was oc. to 2.89 and X2 to 2.43. So, who cares about C2D? This is the real truth.
Oh, well, what I can say... We'll see soon who has been right and who don't.
THere is nothing to say because there is no information to announce there is no we shall see all your doing is throwing out useless garbage with your stupidity.
I have sold my C2D yesterday and bought back my X2, and I'm very happy about it. And you know why: there's no major difference between C2D oc. to 2.89 and X2 oc. 2.43 in real life performance.
Ahhh yes a sucker is truly born every minute......thank you reaffirming my belief in that saying.........
What else do you have rathor cuz i have alot of junk....i mean priceless things i want to get rid..i mean sell to u........
AMD have removed those false benchmarks from their site and replaced it with this marketing speech:-
For some, there is simply no substitute for pure performance. Enterprise workloads have become heavier and more complex than ever before, and modern applications in virtualized environments can demand the most from x86 processor designs.
‘‘Barcelona’’ processors have been designed to take enterprises to the next level of performance. A powerful combination of next-generation innovations and AMD64 technology with Direct Connect Architecture leaves enterprises in control.
Each of the four computing cores, for instance, now boasts an upgraded 128-bit unit for floating point math. With twice as many cores and twice the width for instruction execution, ‘‘Barcelona’’ processors can offer up to four times the floating-point math capabilities of Second-Generation AMD Opteron processors. For High-Performance Computing and technical application customers that can translate into blazing performance.
The ‘‘Barcelona’’ story continues with its upgraded cache architecture. An L2 cache is dedicated to each core, rather than shared among cores, to help improve performance on “heavy duty” enterprise applications like databases and virtualized environments. "Barcelona" also has a shared L3 cache for the first time in AMD64 processors. This additional layer of cache can speed access to commonly-used data and provide high-speed memory for large datasets.
@13ringinheat: you're a worthless piece of shit, brain washed, an idiot and a true imbecil who lives on Earth. You don't even deserve respect.
And yes, C2D proves another thing: it's not even a processor it's a piece of junk maded in a hurry by some stupid engineers. You call this a CPU? Oh, man I saw what C2D can do: nothing! Ho ho ho, stupid Intel fan.
Rathor: And yes, C2D proves another thing: it's not even a processor it's a piece of junk maded in a hurry by some stupid engineers. You call this a CPU? Oh, man I saw what C2D can do: nothing! Ho ho ho, stupid Intel fan.
Wow your stupidity knows no bounds.....that piece of junk "maded" processor wipes the floor with anything AMD can produce...doesnt go to say much about AMD's product then does it.........
Dumb asses like you are not even worth my time dont you have some air to buy sucker....
@13ringinheat = zero
You must be one frustrated kid who lives in a cave eating through a tube.
Yes, C2D frags all AMD CPUs. AMD is done for. Rathor is just a frustrated little AMD fanboy.
AMD BK Q2'08.
@giant:
One question for you: why a company doomed as AMD pump 7.5m in another company (Transmeta) ? What's the deal?
Duh, they have to bring down as many companies as they can with them! Poor ATI.
Indeed. AMD buying Ati has left Ati in a very tight spot. All their HD2x00 GPUs are behind Nvidia. They're losing sales to Nvidia because of this.
Before the merger with AMD Ati had a large chipset deal with Intel worth over $100m a quarter, this was a very important source of revenue and profit for Ati. Now with slowing GPU sales, and that large chipset deal with Intel gone, Ati is in serious trouble.
@Giant: yes and no! As I AMD fan I cannot agree 100% with AMD policy, but nor Intel or AMD is perfect. Intel has the cash and fabs and AMD has only a small pile of cash and 2 little fabs. But, hey, you must admire the small company who tries to beat Intel on every front. That's why I ADMIRE AMD. IT tries everything to survive the storm, the century, etc... AMD has now get the chance to prove that one small company can beat the giant, like the legend. I love AMD and nobody can make me change this... So, peace to ALL.
Rathor: You must be one frustrated kid who lives in a cave eating through a tube.
Better than being the dumb ass who sold a 2.9 C2D for a 2.4 X2 because according to you there is no difference in performance when the whole world says otherwise.....guess who is living in a cave.......
Dont you have some lint to buy what are you doing posting here???
You are the definition of a sucker born every minute as well as an ignorant fanboi who cant find his ass with both hands even if he tried.......quite the achievement....
13ringinheat said...
Better than being the dumb ass who sold a 2.9 C2D for a 2.4 X2 because according to you there is no difference in performance when the whole world says otherwise
13ringinheat is correct in this case. There is a huge difference between a 2.9 C2D and a 2.4 X2. The C2D will beat the X2 by a small margin in nearly all benchmarks, but the X2 will destroy the C2D in real world performance.
Ahhh penix with the wise words......please list the "real world benchmarks" X2 beats a C2d 2.93ghz at.....
Give me a list of apps in gaming....video editing....mp3 conversion and photo editing software that X2 beats the C2D at.....with links from atleast two different websites to prove your point........The highest clocked x2 at 3.0ghz has trouble keeping up with a C2d 2.67 left alone beating a 2.93ghz......
Talking out of your ass is hazardous to your health.........
Penix
I too would like you point me to a review that has a comparison between an Intel Core 2 Duo at 2.9GHz and an AMD X2 at 2.4GHz so that I could see this "small margin".
Two reviews that have a core2 @ 2.93 and an X2 @ 2.4 :-
from Tomshardware
from Anandtech
There sure do seem to be some noticeable differences :)
Another interesting bit of info I found was from . Apparently 205 of the top 500 are using Woodcrests.
In Nov 2006
A total of 261 systems (52.2 percent) are now using Intel processors, which is down from 333 (66.6 percent) one year ago.
The AMD Opteron family passed the IBM Power processors and is now the second most common processor family with 113 systems (22.6 percent) up from 55 systems (11 percent) one year ago.
Dual core processors are becoming widespread. Already 75 systems use Opteron dual core processors and an impressive 31 systems use the new Intel Woodcrest dual core chips.
in June 2006
The AMD Opteron family, which passed the IBM Power processors six month ago, remained the second most common processor family with 105 systems (21 percent) down from 113 systems (22.6 percent) six month ago.
Dual core processors are the dominant chip architecture. The most impressive growth showed the number of systems using the Intel Woodcrest dual core chips which grew in six month from 31 to 205.
A total of 289 systems (57.8 percent) are now using Intel processors. This is slightly up from six month ago (261 systems, 52.5 percent) and a represents a typical fraction recently seen for Intel chips in the TOP500.
Another 90 systems use Opteron dual core processors up from 75 six month ago.
Sorry about that but I fudged up the URL, the info was from http://www.top500.org/
Nice job slack but i dont think the AMD fanboi's are ready to snap out of their delusions or drugs yet......
yo AMD fanboys.. I really am impressed that AMD domintate the list. Pss did you know that GM until very recently was the largest auto manufacture. Too bad they like AMD are doomed to failure, BK and eventual death. It ain't if its only when.
Look at AMD today; lying about benchmarks, have to post simulated benchmarks of their Barcelona against yesterdays Xeon, and they couldn't even have the balls to compare it against the fastest one. Why didn't the compare their 2.0 against the fastest current offering or better yet the 2.6 against the upcoming 3.2 Penrym or something? Why because it would lose.
AMD is finished. Just go do some research. Go figure how much INTEL has spent over the past 10 years in manufacturing, R&D and compare that to AMD. Now look at the profit and loss.
Any ? AMD fanbois
Why is it when Intel wins benchmarks, they don't really matter, as its "the real world" where it counts, but when AMD wins benchmarks, its the word of God?
slack_comp_user you can't post links to those sites. They are clearly paid Intel pumpers! You need to use an unbiased source like... the genius oneexpert, or AMDZONE!
rathor
"AMD has now get the chance to prove that one small company can beat the giant, like the legend."
AMD had the chance when P4 was only Intel product that mattered. In fact then AMD really was beating Intel quite a bit back then. Problem is that the Giant has awaken now and doesn't let such small creatures do much to it any more.
slack_comp_user
"Another 90 systems use Opteron dual core processors up from 75 six month ago."
Yes, but when you also take into account the single core Opterons then total number of machines using Opteron chips actually fell.
Aye, AMD went from 113 to 105 systems
Great post. Good deals starts here catalogspot.com
Fantastic web site. Lots of helpful info here. I’m sending it to several pals ans additionally sharing in delicious. gearbestcoupons.xyz
Post a Comment
<< Home