Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

AMD Slashing Prices Still Not Enough? 159

PeterN writes to tell us that after hearing the announcement that AMD was slashing prices on their processors by 47%, TG Daily looked a bit deeper and found that it still might not be enough. From the article: "For AMD's planned price drop for its dual-core processors to enable the company to regain its aggressive price/performance competitive position against Intel as it has promised, the company would have to reduce its existing Athlon 64 X2 and Athlon FX prices by between 38% and 56% for its various models, with cuts averaging about 51%. This estimate is based on a comprehensive price/performance review of Intel's soon-to-be-released Core 2 Extreme and Core 2 Duo processors, along with its existing Pentium D dual-core line, pitted against AMD's FX-62, FX-60, and Athlon 64 X2 processors in Tom's Hardware Guide tests."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Slashing Prices Still Not Enough?

Comments Filter:
  • gamers beware. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Library Spoff (582122) on Monday July 24, 2006 @07:33AM (#15768462) Journal
    If you're thinking of buying an AMD64 X2 for gaming and intend to put the chip in a motherboard with the Nvidia N4 chipset beware...
    Myself and several others have had problems with both Battlefield 2 and Source games (CS:S, day of defeat etc)

    Very annoying.

    Now i'll get lot's of replies from folks with this setup telling me otherwise....

    • Re:gamers beware. (Score:5, Informative)

      by thegamerformelyknown (868463) on Monday July 24, 2006 @07:44AM (#15768479) Homepage
      I play CS:S with no problems at all, and I have a Nf4 and a AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+. However, I did have problems playing CS 1.6 online, the game would go too fast, then lag to "catch up". To fix this, I simply had to install the AMD drivers and all my problems were solved :) So have you installed the CPU drivers?
      • Re:gamers beware. (Score:4, Informative)

        by ozbird (127571) on Monday July 24, 2006 @08:33AM (#15768652)
        This sounds like the fix:
        AMD Dual-Core Optimizer [amd.com] - The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer can help improve some PC gaming video performance by compensating for those applications that bypass the Windows API for timing by directly using the RDTSC (Read Time Stamp Counter) instruction. Applications that rely on RDTSC do not benefit from the logic in the operating system to properly account for the affect of power management mechanisms on the rate at which a processor core's Time Stamp Counter (TSC) is incremented. The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer helps to correct the resulting video performance effects or other incorrect timing effects that these applications may experience on dual-core or multiple processor systems.
        Disabling Cool 'n' Quiet and/or power management may also work.
        (I've got an Athlon64 3500+; without CNQ it runs cooler and quieter than the Athlon XP it replaced, so I leave it turned off.)
      • Yeah i've installed *all* the drivers - even tried different partitions with Xp & beta drivers etc etc...
        do you have an nvidia Graphics card as well? i've an Asus board/64 X2 3800+/Nvidia 7600 card.

        there are other people on the anandtech/steam/BF2 forums with the same problem.
        • I've had no real problems with my system and gaming. The only problem I've had lately has been since I loaded the latest nvidia drivers. Sometimes not everything loads at boottime and I have to log back in again. Other than that it has performed like a champ.

          Epox NF4+Ultra, NVidia 7800GT, AMD X2 3800+, 2 gb ram, Win XP sp2 + latest drivers
      • CPU drivers?

        I have an NF2 with an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ and an nVidia 6200. It plays CS with no problems at all too. I just bought an AM2 and its having some strange timing issues with Linux. Not exactly sure what's causing it, but I think it might be a bug in KDE..
    • If you're thinking of buying an AMD64 X2 for gaming and intend to put the chip in a motherboard with the Nvidia N4 chipset beware... Myself and several others have had problems with both Battlefield 2 and Source games (CS:S, day of defeat etc)

      Seconded. I can't comment about the N4 chipset, but there certainly are issues with ming and the X2 line (I know that the X2s weren't 'meant' for gaming, but they do pretty well). The issues tend to fall into two categories: those that can't handle a 64-bit processo

    • Two things to try (Score:3, Informative)

      by everphilski (877346)
      The first has been mentioned, the most recent Dual Core Processor Driver from AMD's web site [amd.com].

      The second (if that does not work) is to explicitly bind your game to a single core. Start the game and right away hit control-alt-delete. Select the game in the "processes" tab, right-click and select "set affinity" and check only 1 processor.

      I too have an x2, nVidia video card and nVidia chipset. I had problems with Everquest2 until I installed the first, and regular Everquest until I did the second (every tim
    • There is a fix on AMD's own website for the weirdness with dual core chips and Battlefield 2 and, I'm assuming, other games as well. The hotfix from Microsoft does nothing but the AMD patch fixes everything.

      I *believe* the Dual Core optimizer patch from AMD works the magic but I could be wrong. It's one of those things that plagued me and my friends for months, and once I found the right patch and everyone applied it, I forgot all about it. I do remember the problem was caused by faulty ACPI/timing issues.
    • Now i'll get lot's of replies from folks with this setup telling me otherwise....

      Yes.

      Battlefield 2 is well known for having a ton of bugs, don't know about CS:S though.

      BTW, I have a 939 AMD64 X2 3800+ with a Nvidia Nforce4 motherboard that I bought 2 months ago and all my games run fine.

      Games I play: UT2004, Warcraft3, Oblivion, Call of Duty 2, FarCry, San Andreas, Guild Wars, Doom 3, Half Life 2, SimCity 4, Civ 4....all work fine on my AMD64 X2, I don't play Battlefield 2 or CS:S so I can't tell

  • by Roy van Rijn (919696) on Monday July 24, 2006 @07:37AM (#15768468) Homepage
    Am I reading the article wrong..? It seems to me AMD is doing a pretty fine job, most lines are black, and only a few processors have a better Intel equivelent.

    Anyway, I was looking at a 4800 X2, and it seems its still the best option to buy atm, cheaper then the Intel (?).

    Still I think AMD has a group of active followers and Intel-haters, they won't stop buying those chips soon. And only in the very high end systems Intel is much cheaper, but thats not what most people will buy.
    • Hardcore AMD fan right here. Been using their chips for years. Intel's new stock does interest me, and I do plan on paying out some hard earned cash to them for a device that has an 'Intel Inside', but when it comes down to building a machine myself, for myself or someone else, it's going to be run by an AMD engine, unless Intel can really, really wow me.

      AMD always seems to edge out superior performance, and last just a little bit longer than it's Intel bretheren. Plus, the 64-bit support was there when I
      • From what I understand the AMD processors are still the only cores which have been totally designed from scratch for the 64bit computing, the Core 2 duo and extreme processors are still a Pentium M updated and tweaked for performance with EM64-T extensions added. To me having a processor designed from scratch with a sole purpose is what entices me into buying a new processor. I am now using my Turion X2 based desktops and love them.
        • by MrFlibbs (945469) on Monday July 24, 2006 @08:25AM (#15768618)
          Your statement about AMD processors being "designed from scratch for the 64bit computing" is neither accurate nor meaningful. Internally, both AMD and Intel CPUs have used 64bit busses for a long time. (In fact, Intel just went to a 128-bit wide bus to the SIMD units to speed up SSE/2/3 instructions.) I have no idea at what point in their CPU design AMD decided to implement 64-bit registers and instructions, but I'm sure the CPU in which they debuted was based on an existing 32-bit design. Widening registers & ALUs and adding new instructions is non-trivial but pretty straightforward.

          Besides, even if one design adopted 64-bitness earlier in the process than the other, of what benefit is this? If this is advantageous, it should show up in improved performance on 64-bit benchmarks. Is this the case?

          • Internally the RISC ops have a "size" modifier that has been updated to have a 64-bit type. The actual organization of the ALU and other components is very similar between K7 and K8.

            To say K8 is a totally new processor, as you alluded to, is inaccurate.

            To say Core Duo 2 Two Deux is totally new is wrong too. It's similar to a wider PM with a huger cache [yes huger is a word!].

            Tom
          • Besides, even if one design adopted 64-bitness earlier in the process than the other, of what benefit is this? If this is advantageous, it should show up in improved performance on 64-bit benchmarks. Is this the case?

            As with all things of this type, it depends on the application and its data set. A straight port of a 32-bit app with a 32-bit data set to a 64-bit environment probably isn't going to gain you much. In fact, performance might even suffer, as 64-bit stuff tends to clog up the L2 cache more tha
        • I'm not even sure what your post is supposed to mean. The difference between x86 and x86-64 is roughly equivalent to the difference between the Pentium and the Pentium with MMX; there are some extra registers and some extra instructions designed to interact with these registers.

          Did you consider the Pentium !!! inferior because it was just a Pentium II with SSE added, rather than a CPU specifically designed for SSE?

    • Correction.

      Don't you mean a 486 DX2-66?

      *ducks and hides*
    • The problem for AMD is that even after slashing the prices, the new Intel Core 2 Duo (Conroe) CPUs still pretty much deliver better bang for the buck (although the Netburst P4 don't, but thank god they're finally about to go the way of the Dodo). AMD's advantage at the moment is mass availability, in that regard things are a bit murky for Conroe. My last few CPUs were all AMD, because for me, they represented the best balance in performance and price. However, I'm planning on building myself a new computer
    • Anyway, I was looking at a 4800 X2, and it seems its still the best option to buy atm, cheaper then the Intel (?).
      If I had the money, I would have gotten the X2 4800+, instead I bought the X2 3800+ (939) and I haven't been disapointed. My previous 5 pcs were all intel cpus, this is the first amd pc i've ever owned and I've definitely impressed.
  • by maybeHere (804258) on Monday July 24, 2006 @07:39AM (#15768471)
    I'm surprised there's nothing regarding that deal on Slashdot yet, as it appears to be as good as done.
  • 4%? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24, 2006 @07:40AM (#15768472)
    ... the announcement that AMD was slashing prices on their processors by 47% ...

    the company would have to reduce its existing Athlon 64 X2 and Athlon FX prices by between 38% and 56% for its various models, with cuts averaging about 51%

    OK, so they're saying that AMD missed the mark by 4%? And that this is worthy of writing an entire article about (a very short article by the way. Your welcome for the additional ad revenue :( Sheesh, welcome to journalism in the internet age.
    • Yeah. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Poromenos1 (830658) on Monday July 24, 2006 @07:44AM (#15768480) Homepage
      For example, the 4200+ model would have to be priced below $213, but is indicated to sell for $225.

      I'd buy one if it was $213, but $225 is just too damn expensive!
    • Sure AMD gets close to winning price/performance with this cut, and in some of the classes even succeeding. The problem however is that once they manage price/performance parity they still lose out badly in (power-use/performance)/price. So really, them cutting prices to remain in parity (on the low and mid end, they are way off on the high end) only makes the choice of a Conroe a no-brainer because you get the same price/performance with much less power use and heat.
    • by ranton (36917)
      the company would have to reduce its existing Athlon 64 X2 and Athlon FX prices by between 38% and 56% for its various models, with cuts averaging about 51%

      OK, so they're saying that AMD missed the mark by 4%? And that this is worthy of writing an entire article about (a very short article by the way. Your welcome for the additional ad revenue :(


      They havent met the 51% mark either. The 38% to 56% range is the price cuts that need to be made to different processors. Some processors have to be cut 38%, som
  • What about Opterons? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pieterh (196118) on Monday July 24, 2006 @07:43AM (#15768477) Homepage
    AMD have taken a large part of the market that Itanium was meant to take, the 64-bit multicore server market. It's a market that pays for commodity performance above all, and AMD seem to have become the dominant CPU supplier for high-end X86 systems like the HP ProLiant DL585. These are the kinds of server that run Wall Street.
    • AMD have taken a large part of the market that Itanium was meant to take, the 64-bit multicore server market. It's a market that pays for commodity performance above all, and AMD seem to have become the dominant CPU supplier for high-end X86 systems like the HP ProLiant DL585. These are the kinds of server that run Wall Street.

      Not really, because the no1 PC server manufacturer (Dell) doesnt ship AMD. So we're stuck buy Intel crap... And I'm sure many many other companies have a "all PCs are Dell" policy..
      • Uhm, Dell started shipping Opterons in May [theregister.co.uk], precisely because high-end users were demanding them, and buying their servers from HP.
        • 'Uhm, Dell started shipping Opterons in May, precisely because high-end users were demanding them, and buying their servers from HP.'

          That's what I call bad timing. Three months with AMD, that means Intel is pissed off, and now they have the second fastest chips only. And while Apple has record margins because of "extremely favorable component prices", Dell issues a profit warning. Just wondering if these are related.
          • "That's what I call bad timing. Three months with AMD, that means Intel is pissed off, and now they have the second fastest chips only. And while Apple has record margins because of "extremely favorable component prices", Dell issues a profit warning. Just wondering if these are related."

            Unlikely.
            The Opterons don't compete with the Core line at all. Intel hasn't released any server class chips from the Core family yet. Apple still sells G5s in it's server and PowerMac line because of that. We are talking s
            • The Opterons don't compete with the Core line at all. Intel hasn't released any server class chips from the Core family yet. Apple still sells G5s in it's server and PowerMac line because of that. We are talking servers not Desktops.

              The server part of the new CPUs, Woodcrest, was released before the Core2 and is available in e.g. 1950 and 2950 from Dell. Dell stated they would use the Opteron for 4 way servers, which is what makes most sense.... with Intel's new chip, AMD seem to be behind on the CPUs

        • They did? Please direct me to a Dell System with AMD processors in it? Any Dell division for any country. What? Can't find one?

          Well, might that be because they "have not" started shipping them yet?

          Read your own article please
          "After all, it's the customers and not investors that will be buying Dell's new four-chip Opteron server at year's end."

          There is plenty of time for Dell to scrap the entire idea.

        • Great. Now when are they going to support AMD in their Desktop and Workstation models.
  • Before and after (Score:5, Informative)

    by stupid_is (716292) on Monday July 24, 2006 @07:45AM (#15768482) Homepage
    Before the cuts [amd.com]

    After the cuts [amd.com]

    • No, that's not "before and after", that's "before and before".

      That's the exact same document, with the exact same date (July 24, 2006), just linked to from different sections of AMD's site, so the URL isn't exactly the same.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Whenever Intel slashes their prices it is trumpeted as a testament to their deep pockets and what joyous fact that is for everyone.

    When AMD slashes prices it's....bad???

    Sure it's tinfoil hat material, but I am starting to think this past year Intel didn't do the usual passing around of marketing money but have flooded the Net with cash to generate positive PR.

    And to think I use to be sickened by simple things like Intel's bogus marketing compiler generated SPEC scores...

    • When Intel slashed the prices of the Pentium 4/D series, there was a lot of negative speculation. It turned out that they were just flushing their inventory before the Core 2 was released, since the Pentia were horribly uncompetitive next to the newer Core series and any left unsold after the release of the Core 2 are likely to remain unsold (or be sold at a loss).

      The release of the Core 2 caught AMD in the same way that the Opteron caught Intel; they didn't have a competitive product. Their only optio

  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday July 24, 2006 @08:06AM (#15768557) Journal
    Back in the '90s, Cyrix introduced PR (Pentium Rating) numbers; their chips were slightly better clock-for-clock than Pentia (for integer ops, they weren't so good for floating point) and they marketed them based on the equivalent speed Pentium. When the Pentium II was released, these numbers started looking silly. A 233MHz Pentium II was a lot faster than a PR233 Cyrix part.

    The current crop of AMD parts are marketed with a similar scheme showing the speed of an equivalent Pentium 4. Intel have pretty much discontinued the P4 now, and an Athlon 4200 is definitely not twice the speed of a 2.1 GHz Core 2. Are these performance rating numbers going to make AMD look silly?

    • by imsabbel (611519) on Monday July 24, 2006 @08:22AM (#15768605)
      And certainly that 2.1GHZ conroe is sold as Core II 6600, which means intel is cheating, because its only as fast as an A64 5000.
      Do you get the point?
      Clockspeed is so yesterday. Just forget it.

      Its just a nametag. Live with it.
      • And certainly that 2.1GHZ conroe is sold as Core II 6600, which means intel is cheating, because its only as fast as an A64 5000.
        Do you get the point?
        Clockspeed is so yesterday. Just forget it.

        In a world where you were running true CISC chips and every instruction took at least one clock cycle, and most took several, clock speed was everything. Now you have superscalar instructions, dual cores, special optimizations for multimedia, 3D graphics, etc., and well, clock speed doesn't seem to mean much anymore

    • There is a difference, as with AMD those numbers aren't supposed to be an equivalent to Pentium Mhz. They are meant as a comparison to the original Athlon. An Athlon 64 3000 is about three times the speed of a classic Athlon 1000. Comparing the speed of Athlon and Pentium CPUs is much to complicated to be put into one number. The numbers are good for me as an AMD user because I know which speed improvent I will gain when I replace my Athlon 64 3200 with an Athlon 64 X2 4800. I don't like Intels labeling a
    • I was under the impression that the ratings are supposed to measure about how much faster the CPU is than the original Athlon.
    • Here's the thing about AMD's PR numbers for their Athlon CPU's: they are far more representative of true level of CPU performance than the old Cyrix PR numbers. If you note all the tests done by Tom's Hardware and Anandtech with the Athlon XP CPU some years ago, note that the Athlon XP 2400+ CPU running at a much lower CPU clock rate than the Northwood-core Intel Pentium 4 2.4 GHz CPU had almost the exact performance on speed test and real-time application programs. The reason is simple: AMD's CPU core proc
    • They're not based on a Pentium chip. The number rating is in relation to a 1 Ghz Duron (I belive it's Duron, but I might be wrong).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24, 2006 @08:14AM (#15768581)
    Have you checked Core 2 Duo compatible motherboard prices?

    They are around 200 euros. You can get a pretty good NForce4 board for 939 X2 for under 100 euros, and even AM2 boards are in 100-140 euro range.

    So total price, board+cpu, AMD still wins by a clear margin (price/performance), because intel chipsets are as overpriced as ever...
    • Give it 3-6 months when every manufactor has 15 different varieties of the Core 2 Duo motherboards for purchase. You will be able to pick then up for $50.

      • Maybe once VIA gets their budget chipset out.

        However, Intel will milk the mobo makers as long as 975X and P965 or whatever the new one was are the only chipsets validated for Core 2 Duo. Considering how late nVidia chipsets are, I expect personally to see high end boards go for 200-250e all the way until the new year, and that's the main reason why I personally can't recommend Core 2 Duo, unless your goal is to build the ultimate killer system ignoring the cost. You will be paying 50-100 euros premium for i
    • High mobo prices really hurt the Athlon in the early early days.

      But Intel hasn't even truly introed Core 2 Duo yet. When the chip is announced and available, prices will drop.

      Right now, these mobos are all in short support, so of course the prices are high.

      This point, although true, will be moot in under 6 weeks.

      Also, I wouldn't buy a 939 mobo right now. AMD is killing off 939 rapidly. AM2 is a smarter idea. You can buy a 939 mobo on fire sale, but better get it quick or you might find yourself unable to ge
      • Also, I wouldn't buy a 939 mobo right now. AMD is killing off 939 rapidly. AM2 is a smarter idea. You can buy a 939 mobo on fire sale, but better get it quick or you might find yourself unable to get an X2 chip for it.

        Depends on your planned usage pattern. If you don't plan on upgrading the CPU down the road (merely adding memory), then a 939 board is fine (just get PCIe).

        Over the last 10 years, I think I've only ever upgraded a single CPU... maybe. That's out of a few dozen systems that I've built.
        • First, I wrote that article right after I posted to another forum, where people have a tendency to buy parts and then wait for deals on other parts to complete the system, instead of buying them both at once. I posted a warning to there that if you didn't already have a 939 in hand or ordered/shipped, don't buy a 939 mobo because AMD is killing the 939s. If you buy a 939 mobo today and expect to buy a 939 chip tomorrow, you might find yourself unable to find a 939 chip worth having (only the low-end 939s wi
          • First, I wrote that article right after I posted to another forum, where people have a tendency to buy parts and then wait for deals on other parts to complete the system, instead of buying them both at once.

            Aye, I can understand that.

            Personally, I've become quite fond of motherboard bundles where the store puts together the CPU / RAM / MB for me for a few bucks, then fires it up to test it prior to shipping it. Less worries about finding a chip to go with a particular MB, I don't have to stay (as) cu
          • Hmmm... looking at the prices more closely. With the AM2 motherboards, I pay $10 more for the same board (Asus A8N-VM CSM vs Asus M2NPV-VM) but the 2GB of RAM price is a bit less (2GB of DDR400 is around $172, 2GB of DDR2 533 is only $137). Saves me $25 per system after the difference in cost between the two boards.

            Maybe I will go ahead and switch to the AM2 boards after all. At least for the X2 systems with 2GB of RAM (~$400). The 939 Athlon64s with only 1GB cost the same either way (~$250).
      • But Intel hasn't even truly introed Core 2 Duo yet. When the chip is announced and available, prices will drop.

        Err... the chip *is* announced, and will apparently be available as of the day after tomorrow.
        • Look up the meaning of "and" someday.

          If it becomes available in two days, then it isn't really announced and available, is it?
          • by julesh (229690)
            No, but prices don't drop overnight. It takes a few weeks for manufacturer price changes to filter through the supply lines to retailers. The chips have already started their way down that path; in fact, they're probably arriving with retailers as I write this. If a price change of motherboards was going to do so to, it would have to have already been announced by the manufacturers.
  • The top hobbyist end of the market isn't really a big deal. Splurging more than the cost of a console on a CPU that'll be out of date in two months isn't a rational decision to begin with, and dateless nerds with nothing better to spend their money on (hello!) will make their decisions based on the latest review in Game Wanker Monthly anyway, not on a few dollars price difference. What really matters to AMD and Intel is how they do in the bread-and-butter low and mid end consumer and server setups. Looki
  • When your processors are significantly slower than the opposition's, then no discount can be enough. These Intel processors appear to rock, and AMD may have to go back to being the budget basement choice unless they have something up their sleeves and soon. I'm neither an AMD nor Intel fan boy. My computer is now AMD, the previous was Intel. My next will probably be Intel by the looks of this.

    • by hey! (33014)
      When your processors are significantly slower than the opposition's, then no discount can be enough.

      Well, I dunno.

      That's probably true for the hobbyist market, but I'd guess the vast majority of processors go into machines that are never upgraded; therefore the concerns of the manufacturers are probably paramount.

      I have a friend in the auto industry who claims that engineers will sell their soul to save a nickel on a 30K$ automobile. Multiply that out by a lot of cars and it adds up. I imagine that it's t
    • by pla (258480)
      My computer is now AMD, the previous was Intel. My next will probably be Intel by the looks of this.

      Agreed - I just thank Zeus that we finally have a good ol' fashioned price war again - Both Intel and AMD have, for a year or two, just kept pushing prices up as though not in competition (which I suppose partially holds true - Intel didn't need to fight for business market share, and AMD didn't need to fight for the DIY'ers).

      However, although Core II Duo (stupid name aside) looks rather impressive, keep
      • Well... Quad cores + Xen + Linux/Windows dual OS setup + dualcore-optimized apps = fuck yes. I'm waiting for AM2 mainboard prices to go down, then I will finally rejoin the gaming world as booting into Windows does not mean booting out of Linux anymore. Having four cores would mean that even if I have Linux do something in the background (like emerging world) that might not mean a significant slowdown while I play something under Windows, provided that I set up everything so the OSes share as few resources
      • You've obviously never done any 3D rendering :-) For such application, CPU = more pretty in half the time. I have been holding off upgrading for over a year now because I've been waiting for a solution that gives me 4 cores for less then $700. Looks like I'm getting close...
      • Agreed - I just thank Zeus that we finally have a good ol' fashioned price war again - Both Intel and AMD have, for a year or two, just kept pushing prices up as though not in competition (which I suppose partially holds true - Intel didn't need to fight for business market share, and AMD didn't need to fight for the DIY'ers).

        I remember the good old days when the fastest damn CPU you could buy could not run latest flight simulators and the like decently.

        These days the CPU speed is fairly irrelevant. I went
    • When your processors are significantly slower than the opposition's, then no discount can be enough.

      How did Intel manage to stay in business the past couple years by selling more expensive, slower, hotter, power hungry CPUs?
  • by caudron (466327) on Monday July 24, 2006 @08:39AM (#15768678) Homepage
    The real news for many of us about the AMD price cuts is extremely cheap CPU upgrades for our 939 socket systems. I have an AMD 3800+ and 3400+. Both are 939 and both mobos allow me to move up to one of the spiffy new dual core chips. With the new price cuts, I can upgrade my system to a dual core chip--each seperate core faster than my current single core CPU---for the price of a cheap-to-average video card. And there are a lot of AMD 939 users out there.

    That's the real news, not AMD missing the pricemark by 4%.

    Tom Caudron
    http://tom.digitalelite.com/ [digitalelite.com]
  • by Lumpy (12016) on Monday July 24, 2006 @08:53AM (#15768775) Homepage
    I just built a New media center PC for the living room. I am testing the XP based MediaPortal project that is turning out to be far superior to Microsoft's XPMedia Center 2005 and it's running on less than $150.oo in parts. Old Celeron 1.8 and horribly old ATX/AGP motherboard bought together from newegg for less than $50.00.

    There is no reason at all to buy a new generation processor outside of extreme gaming or science. Hell I still edit video on a 3 year old 2.8 P4 and it works great.

    The processor industry is suffering from stagnation. the new stuff is not fast enough to entice someone to throw away their current PC and buy the new performance stuff. and 64 bit has ZERO attraction to consumers and most people as there is no benefit or erason to switch to the 64 bit processors (unless you rtun linux and are a tinkerer.)
    • For running todays consumer desktop applications any common desktop processor sold this century will do. That's true, it's been true for six years, and posting on Slashdot about it is getting old.

      Nevertheless, the processor industry is absolutely not stagnating - it's just that you aren't interested in what they're developing because you haven't gotten hooked by any killer app that requires high performance yet.

    • it's running on less than $150.oo in parts. Old Celeron 1.8 and horribly old ATX/AGP motherboard bought together from newegg for less than $50.00.

      Gee, why am I not amazed that cheap computer hardware is adequate for playing back century-old low-resolution television, using decades-old ineffecient lossy video codecs?

      Switch to HDTV, though, and you need a top-of-the-line CPU and fairly new GPU just to play H.264 encoded 1080 video. Editing and re-encoding is another matter all-together, taking many hours on

    • There is no reason at all to buy a new generation processor outside of extreme gaming or science.

      Except these 4 words: Processor support for virtualization.
  • Entirely depends on what you're looking for.

    AMD cannot compete with Conroe in pure performance and yeah, the price cuts aren't enough to make the purchase of a high-end AMD CPU a good deal.

    But, the price cuts have made the 3800+ and 4200+ really great options for those with slightly older CPUs looking for a cheap upgrade path. The low-end AMD X2 CPUS will provide a great deal of horsepower for a much lower cost than the Intel E6300.

    It's like a Cyrix that doesn't suck.

    The E6300 will still be faster, but I th
  • tIME to upgrade. I was planning on upgrading my athlonXP +2400 to a +2900. However if these price drops occur I think I am just going to upgrade with a whole new motherboard and cpu. It would only be $150 more. But get them while they are hot!
  • by MrShaggy (683273) <chris.andersonNO@SPAMhush.com> on Monday July 24, 2006 @09:49AM (#15769177) Journal
    See from what I can guess from it all is that I can remember when Intel was forced to drop its prices because of amd, and it was huge like that too. Not that Amd was any better, bu, If I am right, but they were at least half the price. Everybody went AMD, 90% for half the price, sounds good.
  • Marketing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by J-1000 (869558)
    AMD has done very little, marketing-wise, to strengthen its brand, which makes it very vulnerable to being marginalized when it starts being outperformed by the competition. Intel has their name everywhere and they have the little dun! dun! dun! dun! noise; they've also been a tough competitor even when AMD had the better performing chips. What does AMD have? A dull logo.
    • AMD doesn't spend millions on marketting like Intel does, they get geeks and word of mouth to do free marketing for them. I think AMD will always have that advantage in tech circles.
    • Here in NYC we have AMD advertisements on taxicabs. I think they're burning enough money on marketing. I'd rather see them spending their money on getting their 45 nm process working and manufacturable, because right now Intel's planning to move to 45 nm about 6 months (2nd Q 2007) after AMD first starts producing 65 nm chips (4th Q 2006).
  • A quick look at price watch confirms this. http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/ [pricewatch.com] It is interesting to see the Xeon dual-core chips going up.

    BTW. The grammar natzi that thinks I'm an illiterate AMD fanboy is right. I AM illiterate. Ignorance is bliss.

Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

We can predict everything, except the future.

Working...