BF2S Forums AMD vs. INTEL Poll/Topic

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

dankassasin42o wrote:

From a computer Techs point of view.
  AMD FTW!!!!!!
Intel aint shit.

If intel is so shit then why did they release a new cpu that outperforms amd top cpu for 1/3 of the price?

fon|sl4y3r wrote:

Its Intels strike now, but the AMD empire will strike back, harder and faster than you expect.

Unfortunately AMD won't have an architectural update of the Athlon 64 X2 until sometime in 2007 or 2008, thus its only response to Intel's Core 2 lineup today is to also reduce pricing. Shortly before today's launch AMD informed us that more aggressive price cuts for the Athlon 64 X2 line were coming in July, but we couldn't get any more specific information. The best numbers we've got are those that were leaked shortly after Computex, which may end up being higher than what AMD is now thinking of doing:

CPU Clock Speed  L2 Cache  Projected Price
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+  2.6GHz 512KBx2 $403
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+  2.4GHz 512KBx2 $301
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+  2.2GHz 512KBx2 $240
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+  2.0GHz 512KBx2 $169


In order to keep prices competitive, AMD is also killing off its Athlon 64 X2s with a 1MB L2 cache. By only shipping 512KB parts (except for the limited quantities of FX processors that are sold), AMD can produce more CPUs per wafer and thus help increase supply and offer lower prices.

Below we've compared both AMD and Intel's proposed price cuts, and as you can see, AMD needs to do a lot more in order to remain competitive.

CPU Clock Speed  L2 Cache  Price
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 4MB $999
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz 4MB $530
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+  2.6GHz 512KBx2 $403*
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600  2.40GHz 4MB $316
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+  2.4GHz 512KBx2 $301*
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+  2.2GHz 512KBx2 $240*
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400  2.13GHz 2MB $224
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300  1.86GHz 2MB $183
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+  2.0GHz 512KBx2 $169*
Intel Pentium D 945  3.40GHz 2MBx2 $163
Intel Pentium D 915  2.80GHz 2MBx2 $133
Intel Pentium D 820  2.80GHz 1MBx2 $113
Intel Pentium D 805  2.66GHz 1MBx2 $93


*Note: The AMD prices are still rumored. We're waiting for final confirmation from AMD for accuracy.



Based on these prices, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4600+ would have to beat Intel's E6600, the 4200+ would have to beat the E6400 and the X2 3800+ would have to be somewhere in between the performance of a Pentium D 940/945 and an E6300.

We're getting the impression that AMD may be cutting prices more than what we've seen here, but we have no idea to what degree yet. By the end of this year AMD will also offer higher clock speeds as well as its new 4x4 platform (dual socket, dual core desktop Athlon 64 FX motherboards), but that's all we can expect for the foreseeable future.

Last edited by ShotYourSix (2006-07-20 00:04:41)

[FB]Eraser wrote:

I had an AMD in my rig. Then it was time to upgrade, so I bought a new board with Intel socket 775 an switched to a P4 processor. Mmmhhh... in the meanwihile I have to say, that I can't see a big advantage for Intel. Both were running without probs. I vote for AMD, because you get more processor for the money...

Bit-tech.net wrote:

Final Thoughts...
So then, it turns out that the performance numbers that we ran on the Intel-built Core 2 Duo E6700 system are as good as they looked the first time around. The performance capabilities of Intel's Core architecture are now clearer than ever. There wasn't a single test where the Core 2 Extreme X6800 fell behind AMD's current flagship processor - the Athlon 64 FX-62. Arguably though, the more intriguing processors are the lower-end Core 2 Duos, namely the E6600 and the E6400.

There are many occasions where the Core 2 Duo E6600 is hot on the heels of the Athlon 64 FX-62, and in many cases Intel's slowest 4MB L2 cache Core 2 Duo outperforms AMD's flagship chip for roughly 1/3 of the price. On the other hand, there are many occasions where the Core 2 Duo E6400 puts in strong performances against the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ and X2 4600+ processors. In many situations, it came out on top of the X2 5000+ while costing considerably less than AMD's Athlon 64 X2 3800+.

fon|sl4y3r wrote:

Those rumors go around in the scence, but AMD hasnt confirmed any price cuts. But Im also shure they will drop the prices.

Last edited by ShotYourSix (2006-07-20 00:30:54)

[FB]Eraser wrote:

ShotYourSix wrote:

[FB]Eraser wrote:

I had an AMD in my rig. Then it was time to upgrade, so I bought a new board with Intel socket 775 an switched to a P4 processor. Mmmhhh... in the meanwihile I have to say, that I can't see a big advantage for Intel. Both were running without probs. I vote for AMD, because you get more processor for the money...

here we go again......someone falling back on the old paradigm.  Everything that was true 3 weeks ago has been thrown out the window as of now.  I suppose many will take months for this info to seep into your brains.  Good god, go out and read some tech sites people, any one will do, as they all seem to be very much in agreement on the new intel offerings.  I suppose people are just stubborn and cannot handle a change easily.

What's your problem? Holding some Intel shares?

I have used AMD for years and this is my first Intel. I don't spend hours reading tech news, I just want to try an Intel, because some friends, working as IC managers told me, I should try one. That's all.

I use it for about 6 month and at the moment I'm satisfied. But not more as with the AMD. You can read good and bad about both. Fact is, that yout get the same performance for less money with an AMD. For me it's important, that it runs stabile and both are doing.

ShotYourSix wrote:

fon|sl4y3r wrote:

Those rumors go around in the scence, but AMD hasnt confirmed any price cuts. But Im also shure they will drop the prices.

You bet your ass they will....

Here in Switzerland they allready have dropped the prices of all series. Big war with distributers and resellers now, because they have to sell their stock now for zero net revenue...

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

jimmanycricket wrote:

amd fx 62 ftw, nothing comes close to this chip. End of story.
intel just go for the clock speed and dont care about the archetechture.

nothing comes close? intels 300usd cpu beats it in nearly every benchmark. go read the first few posts

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

i heard AMD is opening another fab in new york... AMD really needs to go to 300mm wafers and 65nm technology fast.