Price Guide, June 2006: Processors

by Jarred Walton on 6/19/2006 4:45 AM EST


Back to Article

  • GTVic - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    The 930 is the same except for double the cache. Why is it so much cheaper???? Reply
  • Robberbaron12 - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    Intel are dumping the 65nm netburst processors as fast as possible, so thats why they are so cheap. The 90nm smithfields are now out of production all together except for the 805 (so I hear). I assume the 65nm netburst must be being shunted to the side to make room for all those Woodcrests and Conroes on the same production lines. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    I think Intel is probably about ready to halt all NetBurst production, and they have a ton of inventory to clear I would guess. Anyway, *all* of the Pentium D prices are quite nice. $140 for the 820 isn't bad either, as it will then get the faster FSB relative to the 805 for only $30 more. The 9xx series is good as well, but they all seem to OC into the 3.9-4.1 GHz range, so you might as well grab the cheapest one (930). Reply
  • eetnoyer - Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - link

    I doubt that Intel is "about ready" to stop producing netburst chips, considering that current predictions are for ~30% of shipments being C/M/W exiting the year. Unless, of course, they want to lose a bunch more market share. I'm more inclined to believe that they are flooding the market with cheap netburst chips in an attempt to hold unit share at any cost. Their gross margins for Q2 are going to be horrendous.

    By the way, would it be so hard to include clock speeds in these articles? The model numbers in many cases are almost meaningless to alot of people anymore, and will only get worse going forward. I'm pretty sure that the average reader here is more than capable of understanding the IPC differences.
  • bamacre - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    I don't agree that the Pentium 805 is the most interesting Intel cpu, even with it's low price. The 940, which runs cooler and uses less power, is simply awesome at roughly $75 cheaper than the X2 3800+, and running very close to it's speeds in gaming, and beating it in almost everything else. Easily, IMO, the best bang for your buck dual core cpu.
  • JarredWalton - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    I don't know... overclocked 920 at 4.0 GHz doesn't match an overclocked X2 3800+ at 2.6 GHz, so at least to me AMD X2 still comes out ahead in gaming performance. However, price is definitely in favor of Intel right now. I guess "most interesting" is all a matter of personal preference - for some people, FX-62 and Core 2 Extreme are probably the "most interesting". :) Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    I think single core will stick around, but all the 1024KB chips are going away. The question is whether Sempron chips are going to be different cores, or just Orleans with some of the L2 disabled. I wouldn't be surprised if AMD goes the disabled cache route. Reply
  • gerf - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    754 outlive 939? I remember some build reviews where 939 was only to be used because of "future upgrade choices." Ouch.

    What I wonder, is if my Averatec 6235's mobile A64 (754) can be swapped with a new Turion.
  • JarredWalton - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    Your best bet is to ask Averatec; there's a reasonable chance you will need a new BIOS version, but other than that it should be capable of supporting the Turion. Turion is also built using and 90 nm process where is the socket 754 Athlon 64 Mobile chips are 130 nm, so even at the same clock speed Turion should run cooler. Reply
  • gerf - Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - link

    Well, Averatec doesn't apparantly do bios updates. I'd have to check the chipset type, and find something more oem Reply
  • Calin - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    The only reason you could have to buy an Sempron (AM2) over an Athlon would be the lower power use (35W TDP for the new Semprons compared to the 65W TDP of the Athlons64 AM2 (or 89W of the X2 versions).
    Could there be an evaluation of the difference in power use between the same frequency Sempron and Athlon64 processors? Thanks
  • johnsonx - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    The low power Semprons aren't available yet, nor are the low power Athlons at the current time. Currently shipping Semprons and Athlons are all 65W TDP.

    Looking at the recent price lists, I'd make a bet that all the single-core Athlon64's are going away before long, with the possible exception of the highest performing parts. It's the same logic that applies to the 1Mb cache parts: single-core A64's cost AMD more to make than Semprons, yet AMD can't really charge more money for them because of their convoluted model numbering system.

    Having an Athlon64 3000+ that is clocked the same but has 4x the cache as a Sempron 3400+ just makes a mess of things.
  • mino - Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - link

    Well they are :)

    AFAIK pretty much any 90nm Sempron(doesn't matter which socket) is in the 20W-35W power consumption range.
  • Calin - Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - link

    I saw on offers Sempron (AM2) processors with TDP of 35W, compared to the Athlon64 (AM2 versions) with TDP of 65W and the dual cores (again AM2) with 89W TDP.
    I suppose the low voltage versions are not here yet, but the power rating in offers still remains
  • JarredWalton - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    You will also be able to get low power X2 and Athlon 64 chips in the near future. I will see about testing an Athlon 64 3000+ (AM2) compared to the Sempron 3400+ (AM2). My experience in the past is that AMD's TDP power numbers have been extremely conservative, so I would be surprised if Sempron chips are more than 5 Watts lower. That might matter for notebooks/laptops, but for desktops 5 W is basically meaningless -- you're looking at $5 (or less) for power costs over the course of an entire year, assuming the system is running 24/7/365. Reply
  • Calin - Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - link

    Thank you very much Reply
  • SonicIce - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    I can't belive how cheap single core Athlon 64's have gotten. This is a very good thing! Hopefully dual cores will fall soon. Reply
  • jelifah - Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - link

    That's what Jarred was trying to say in his article when he said 'if you can wait a month'

    July 24th AMD is expected to slash prices by around 50%. And yes that includes the pretty little X2 3800+, which should be available for $150. Now the only question is how quick NewEgg can ship them on that day, because I WILL place an order at that price.

    I'm actually going to be paying LESS for a dual core than I paid for my socket 939 3000+ single core 18 months ago.
  • ChronoReverse - Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - link

    I'll be watching prices very carefully in the upcoming months. Right now I'm still undecided as to getting an used s939 3800+, a new AM2 3800+ or getting the $160 Conroe.

    Great times ahead now that there's competition again.
  • Rebel44 - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    Yeah they will - I´m just waiting for release of new Intel´s procesors because AMD announced to lower prices of X-2´s by up to 50%:-) Reply
  • Rebel44 - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    Hi I´d like to ask if frequence multiplier on athlon 3500 is locked or not.
    Thanks for answer.
  • JarredWalton - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    All AMD CPUs are upward locked, so the 3500+ can use an 11X or lower multiplier. The exception is the FX line, which are not locked up or down. Reply
  • Rebel44 - Monday, June 19, 2006 - link

    Thats a pity, but its still better than intel because their CPUs are just like radiator.
    P.S. sorry for offtopic

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now