POST A COMMENT

178 Comments

Back to Article

  • MonicaS - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link

    I'm pretty sure its a safe bet that soon AMD will be catching up to Intel in the way of value. I can't really see the use or the need of increased performance from CPU in the near future. The C2D are more the good enough with the Quatro and i7 being over powered for what people need. It will soon come down to price as it really won't make sense to get more power.

    Monica S
    Los Angeles Computer Repair
    http://www.sebecomputercare.com">http://www.sebecomputercare.com
    Reply
  • mapesdhs - Friday, October 30, 2009 - link


    It depends what you need. The Core2Duo is not remotely good enough
    for my needs (video encoding) and neither are AMD's best quad-cores.
    For me, the i7 is ideal. I have a thousand hours of video to convert.

    Ian.

    Reply
  • silverblue - Saturday, October 31, 2009 - link

    Yes, but I think you are really paying for it. Additionally, at the price point of the Athlon X3s/X4s in this review, you're not going to get anything from Intel that handles encoding comparatively well for that sort of price, however I should point out that AMD's competitors in the sub-$100 bracket are the Core 2 Duos/Pentium Dual Cores, not the Quads, and no Nehalem in sight. If Intel released a dual core Nehalem at this price range, I'm not sure even the Athlon X4s could compete with that, at least in encoding. Reply
  • silverblue - Friday, October 30, 2009 - link

    Catching up? I was going to say that I think we've already passed that point :) Reply
  • teclis1023 - Thursday, October 29, 2009 - link

    I'm not interested in getting into this flame war about monopolies, Intel and AMD. If anything, I certainly wish there were MORE competitive players in the field, though entrance costs are certainly staggering. I wouldn't mind being able to pick from 3 CPU makers and 3 GPU makers. Even then, it would hardly be a competitive market, but hey - I like choice, and 3 producers is hardly a flooded market!

    All I know is that I'm quite satisfied that, using AMD and ATI, I can build a well-performing all-around computer for less than $800. I don't need the top of the line for my home performance, even when I want to play games like Crysis and Left 4 Dead. I just need stability and good support.

    I'm also quite happy that AMD is putting a lot of effort into low-power CPUs. There's no reason we should have to pull 800W in order to play the highest end games. I'd love to see gaming systems running at 350W or below! (It's good to see Dell and HP finally embracing 80+ Certified PSUs)

    I tend to purchase AMD components because I'm simply not an over-clocking, mega-gaming power user. I like games, but I also like being able to pay for other things, such as food and rent :) Sure, I'd love to have an i7, but I honestly don't know what I would do with it. Would a person like me (Tech savvy, to be sure, but not a power-gamer) really use the power? Doubtful. Honestly, most users in the world demand very little from their systems.

    Before 2008, I tried my best to stay away from ATI products. I was never impressed with their performance or their driver support; however, for the money, they seem to be the best 'bang for the buck'. Paying $130 for a 4870 is a great deal for someone like me. Sure, I wish their drivers were less bulky, but overall, the products are fantastic.

    Good luck duking it out - I'll stay here on the sidelines!
    Reply
  • rhog - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link

    To all you guys knocking AMD have you looked at the main stream products of Intel as of late? Have you tried a Core i5 750? This CPU is a shame. I had real hopes for it as I own two core i7 920 (3.8ghz and 4.0ghz). Having no hyperthreading and performance just slightly better than the PIIBE it is not the Killer processor I thought it coudl have been. On a side note, If you count the user posts at Newegg it "seems" not to be selling well as compared to the 920 and the PIIBE 940 and 955. In the 200 dollar range a 955BE at OC'd to 3.8ghz does very well against the Core i5 750 that has been overclocked as well. Under 200 the Core2 Quads and Duos are just not that great compared to a PIIBE processors and in the $120 and under AMD Athlon II X4 620, which I own, is a great CPU for the money. AMD is starting to come out of the red and they are doing it the right way. Most processors are bought in the Under 200 dollar catagory and the Core i5 is not competing that well, at least for now, as it is not a clear winner. Just my Opinion as an owner of a Core i5 Reply
  • lukem33p - Friday, August 20, 2010 - link

    Excuse me? All of these multimedia tasks are eaten up right now by the i5, if you look, because it has far better instruction sets, Turbo mode, and L3 cache, which the Athlons do not. Phenom IIs, but for the latest Thuban, because of how lopsided instruction set optimization has gotten. Reply
  • AlmostDone - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link

    If AMD wants a bigger slice of the cake they need decent CPU's or CPU/GPU combo for notebooks, fast and power efficient.

    Notebooks growth is much faster than your desktop.

    What budget mainboard do people recommend to go with a X4 620.

    Thanks
    Reply
  • lujo - Thursday, October 22, 2009 - link

    This is not correct:

    "Thanks to its higher clock speed the Athlon II X3 435 draws a little more power than the 620 at idle, but uses a little less under load. The new energy efficient chips can't be touched. Personally I wouldn't spring for them, but if you're looking to upgrade a building full of machines and want as much power reduction as possible the e series can deliver."

    At idle 435 and 620 are running at the same clock speed and same voltage.
    435 X3 is nothing more than 620 X4 without one core.
    There mus be another reason why at idle 435 draws a little more power than 620.

    I personally think 620 should use at idle more power than 435
    Reply
  • LazierSaid - Thursday, October 22, 2009 - link

    Yet another review showing how much more power efficient AMD is on the bottom end

    ...

    When you test your $75 value Pentiums on $200+ X48 boards that run 15 watts over the G4x boards people actually buy.

    The X48 northbridge alone has a TDP over 30 watts.
    Reply
  • hob196 - Thursday, October 22, 2009 - link

    Any thoughts on whether different memory speed has a greater effect on chips with no L3? Reply
  • jjpmann - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    How would the X4 620 compare clocked at the same speed as the X4 605e? Reply
  • wolfman3k5 - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    I like the review, and I like the new products from AMD/ATI.

    That being said, I've read the posts. How many retards actually post here? Some of the comments are clearly unintelligent and stupid and bellow the standards of this website.

    READ THIS: SOME OF YOU BLOODY IDIOTS BEHAVE LIKE RETARDS!!! STOP POSTING RUBBISH!!!
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Friday, October 23, 2009 - link

    Hey. Insist on Intel Inside. Intel Inside PC is powerful and intelligent. Other than that are rubbish. Reply
  • fsdetained - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    I found it funny how Intel has only one cpu under 65w tdp for desktops on newegg and its a 1.8ghz single core celeron while AMD is about to release six at 45w tdp that will easily outperform it along with the two they already have out at 45w tdp. Reply
  • Accord99 - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    It's just a general figure that's unnecessarily overrated for the C2D. All the dual-cores would fit within a 35W TDP and most the C2Q would fit within a 65W TDP. Reply
  • maddoctor - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    No, Intel products are outsold and AMD processors can not sold because its products are rubbish in the eye of the consumers. Reply
  • SunSamurai - Sunday, November 01, 2009 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=96&a...">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=96&a...

    Oh look a cheaper AMD CPU outperforming a more expensive Intel CPU

    SUCK ON IT.

    You're rubbish in the eyes of everyone here.
    Reply
  • jtleon - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    After diggin through all of Maddoctor's delightful and humorous comments, I find myself asking this question...

    Why does HP, Dell, Gateway, Acer, Lenovo, and all other PC makers choose to offer ANY AMD products in their portfolios?

    I think Maddoctor forgets that those in business of making computers can make MORE profit using AMD than they can make using Intel. After all, PROFIT is the driving force of business.

    Joe public does not care what CPU is working for him, as long as the job gets done, in a reasonable amount of time. Joe Public could care less if he has supercomputing capabilities...for his VIDEO GAME.

    I am pwning plenty of i7's, Q6600's, E8500's, Phenoms, etc. with my lowly dual P3 box running the AGP port. The fact remains, 99% of computer users on this planet could care less who (AMD or Intel) is running their applications, as long as they pay next to nothing for the computer.

    Even Maddoctor can understand this fact.

    Regards,
    jtleon

    Reply
  • stmok - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Why does HP, Dell, Gateway, Acer, Lenovo, and all other PC makers choose to offer ANY AMD products in their portfolios?

    The European Commission can answer that one for you.
    => http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ICT/intel....">http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ICT/intel....

    Reply
  • jtleon - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    Many thanks for this excellent followup post!

    jtleon
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    Your post is pointless. Why Sony, Samsung and Apple is exclusively using Intel processors. Because they are know that Intel processor is more powerful and consuming less energy than AMD's craps. Reply
  • erple2 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link


    QUOTE BLOCK:
    I am pwning plenty of i7's, Q6600's, E8500's, Phenoms, etc. with my lowly dual P3 box running the AGP port.
    /QUOTE BLOCK

    In price? Or power consumption? I can't imagine it's anything else. The P3 was marvelous for it's time, but we've moved on since then.

    (PS: could someone fix the quote block or any of the other rich text tags? Bold, Italics, Underline and Quote all cause an error when I try to post with them in it)
    Reply
  • jtleon - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    In GAME! Try expanding your game portfolio - not all games = CRYSIS!

    LOL,
    jtleon
    Reply
  • fsdetained - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    I agree not all games are crysis but I do feel like playing more than solitaire on my computer. GTFO. Reply
  • jtleon - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    I gladly accept your challenge.

    Please join me in FEAR Multiplayer (2005 release) at this very popular server:

    ===T=U=R=B=O+=== TDM

    At your earliest convenience, BTW my usual res is 1600x1200.

    Feel free to view my winning P3 box here:

    http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/1480.html">http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/1480.html

    Anand please forgive this post for being so off topic.

    Regards,
    jtleon
    Reply
  • brotherkung - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Game portfolio? To what? Unreal Tournament 1 or Maple Story? Not everyone enjoys running modern non-Crytek titles at 800x600 with the lowest possible settings either. There are plenty of people in the market who are willing to pay a very modest price for decently performing low-midrange hardware. Reply
  • lukem33p - Friday, August 20, 2010 - link

    Profit only works when the product sells. AMD has not created an image for itself amongst normal people. This is like the Wii vs the XBoX 360. No one cares about the XBox 360 even if it is a better value cause no one has hardly heard of it. The Wii is priced the same, performs far worse, and has far simpler games, but outsells because they found the market, and the market stays loyal.

    And yes, I own an ATi Radeon HD 5770, so I am not an AMD Hater. I just wish that AMD would be competitive in ad campaigns. Get the word out!
    Reply
  • jtleon - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    After diggin through all of Maddoctor's delightful and humorous comments, I find myself asking this question...

    Why does HP, Dell, Gateway, Acer, Lenovo, and all other PC makers choose to offer ANY AMD products in their portfolios?

    I think Maddoctor forgets that those in business of making computers can make MORE profit using AMD than they can make using Intel. After all, PROFIT is the driving force of business.

    Joe public does not care what CPU is working for him, as long as the job gets done, in a reasonable amount of time. Joe Public could care less if he has supercomputing capabilities...for his VIDEO GAME.

    I am pwning plenty of i7's, Q6600's, E8500's, Phenoms, etc. with my lowly dual P3 box running the AGP port. The fact remains, 99% of computer users on this planet could care less who (AMD or Intel) is running their applications, as long as they pay next to nothing for the computer.

    Even Maddoctor can understand this fact.

    Regards,
    jtleon

    Reply
  • ravaneli - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    First off, is anyone from AT reading this? Why is that maddoctor guy not banned yet? He replies to every single post and is clogging the forum. As a matter of fact I think this new processor is totally pointless, but that guy is unbearably annoying to me. Just say what u want and shut up.

    My personal opinion is that this is just another one of AMD marketing gimmicks of faking 'keep development going'. They have no development going. Nada. Zilch. They first development that will hit the market will be the Buldozer.

    Tell me what performance or price gap did this processor fill? Tell me what justifies it's existence? No it is not faster than the E7500. Are you kidding me? Look at your own diagrams for one's sake. Oh, by the way the E7500 will OC to 4Ghz on air!

    This processor offers NO exceptional value at all. Not compared to AMDs line, not compared to Intel's line. This is the truth, and AT knows it.

    That said, I am not rooting for Intel at all. I have the brains to see what will happen if AMD runs out of blood, because it sure is hell is bleeding like crazy right now. It has been in the red for a long time, and intel again announced fat profits yesterday.

    Most Core2Duo prices haven't decreased at all for the last year and a half. I hate Intel for that. Why don't they do it? E8500 still costs ridiculous $189. Because they don't have to. Because AMD still hasn't come up with anything better than the Core2Duo. THe best they can do is match it.

    Also, I believe the people that read this forum are PC enthusiasts, and even if they don't make much money they will save until they can buy a descent component. Who in his right mind is gona buy this ridiculously crippled and handicapped garbage? Even if I build a PC for my mom, I will just get something basic for $50, not this grotesque $85 uselessness.

    I just hope things turn around with the buldozer and Intel gets some REAL price pressure.
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    No, Bulldozer will never come because Intel will kill it with Sandy Bridge and if they successfully launch it, its fates will like Barcelona failure. I believe after this failure, Intel will make everyone happay with its cheaper product because Intel does not need a competitor. I like this situation. Reply
  • SunSamurai - Sunday, November 01, 2009 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=96&a...">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=96&a...

    Oh look a cheaper AMD CPU outperforming a more expensive Intel CPU

    SUCK ON IT.
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    AMD Bulldozer hype will be ended with the most powerful processor in the world with Intel Sandy Bridge. BTW, If you have realized that Intel is better, don't go with crappy AMD processor. They could not design a processor like powerful Intel Processor. Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Good argument, these craps are better to placed it in the toilet. Who will buy these craps except AMDiot. Reply
  • narrenschip - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    What are the parameters/settings for the blender redering test? The description mentions 'a character that comes with the application', but as far as I know, there are no models/scenes included with the program.

    W;-)
    Reply
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    We utilize the Flying Squirrel image for our render benchmark -
    http://graphicall.org/bbb/chars/flyingsquirrel.ble...">http://graphicall.org/bbb/chars/flyingsquirrel.ble...
    Reply
  • deimos3428 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    It's nice to see some more low-end chips come out, but I'm not sure that there's all that much of a market for anything between say an Athlon II X2 240 and a Phenom II X2 550/Athlon II X4 620. Choice is good, but too much choice can get very confusing. Reply
  • Taft12 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    That's why they're phasing out the Phenom II X2 and X3. It's a confusing time because there is a lot of Phenom II in the channel still, but soon the 705e, 905e, 945, 955 and 965 will be the only Phenom II CPUs available, the rest will be Athlon II. Reply
  • deimos3428 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Which has nothing to do with blender rendering. Oops. Reply
  • Slash621 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    I am extremely happy that you are utilizing an excel benchmark. I operate some huge models between access and excel and learning which processor will provide the best bang for the buck is of great business importance to me. Thanks again for all your hard work Anandtech Crew! Reply
  • yacoub - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    I'm glad they're putting these out and vying for the low-end market, but I don't see the point when apparently my E4400 Core2Duo running at 3.0GHz, as it has been for two years now, is still faster.

    When it comes time to replace this, I would expect after two or three years, one could buy a CPU for $99 that near-doubles the performance. I guess not?
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    Stick to your E4400 rather than but one of these craps. Intel is much better for you and is cheaper. Reply
  • SunSamurai - Sunday, November 01, 2009 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=96&a...">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=96&a...

    Oh look a cheaper AMD CPU outperforming a more expensive Intel CPU

    SUCK ON IT.
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Stick to your E4400 Core 2 Duo rather than buy this rubbish. Even averages Joe know who is the brand with most powerful product. Intel is the only company with everyone know about it with the best brand awareness. Reply
  • mihaimm - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Well... you can do exactly that. The Athlon II X4 620 it's exactly 99$ and it OCs to 3.6GHz. I expect it would exactly double the performance of E4400@3GHz. For more than 2 threads that is... Reply
  • Titanius - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    maddoctor is to Intel what snakeoil is to AMD and SiliconDoc is to NVIDIA. Apart from taking different companies side, they are the same thoughtless person in personality probably on the payroll of their respective companies they obsess over.

    Three points:

    1. Competition is the foundation of getting the best bang for the buck.

    2. A monopoly might be good for a little while, but it gets corrupted by its own power and starts abusing its customers.

    3. People that obsess over a particular business disregarding the facts and truths is an annoying, idiotic, hypocritical, retard or they are on the payroll of the company as an annoying marketer in charge of spamming the comments section of articles regarding their products or competing products (how much does that pay BTW, if the price is right, I might be interested...)
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    I believe Intel as a single source supplier is the best situation for PC Consumer and the customers. Intel will prices their stuf accordingly with the production cost. I believe someday everyone will be happy when AMD is no more. Reply
  • fineliner - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    How's Intel "pric[ing] their stuf accordingly with the product cost" in this case?

    September 2009 Price List (From Intel.com):
    i7-950 (8M L3, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 3.06GHz, 4.80GT/sec, Intel QPI 45nm) - $562
    i7-920 (8M L3, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 2.66GHz, 4.80GT/sec, Intel QPI 45nm) - $284

    I see a gain of clock speed of 400MHz (~15% clock improvements) with the price nearly DOUBLEd! How's Intel treating their customers (probably you are one of them) right?

    I can only see the reason behind is lack of competition. The best Phenom II X4 BE in the market is, maybe, on par with i7-920 (in some of the test, best case scenario). Performance level of a i7-950 is totally out of AMD's reach.
    Reply
  • Grizybaer - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Competition shifts power to the buyers. how much is your computer worth to you? trade excel for your calc * paper; trade picassa for shelves of photo albums, trade ur music collection to stacks of cd's.

    I'm cant think of a time when a monopoly is good.

    people who dont post objectively sound more and more like fox news. dont call it stupid or better; gimme some facts, gimme some numbers. Gimme some logic.
    Reply
  • erple2 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    The only time I can think of a monopoly being "good" was waaaay back when cable companies first started rolling along. The monopoly gave them the incentive to roll out cable to (almost) every household in the US, on the stipulation that they had "guaranteed" profits for many years. They wouldn't have gone to the trouble of rolling out cable to so many homes so quickly otherwise.

    Now, however, there's real competition, and those that are stuck with cable only are realizing the "problem" with cable.
    Reply
  • Fleeb - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Or maybe, these three are just the same person craving for attention in real life he cannot have. Do not hate the guy. Pity him. Reply
  • mapesdhs - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link


    Sorry for the double post! The submission form just gave an error
    the first time round, but I guess it went through anyway. Anand,
    please feel free to delete this post and my previous duplicate.

    Ian.

    Reply
  • mapesdhs - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link


    Anand, just curious, the test platform description includes mention
    of an X58 mbd, yet there are no i7 results in the tables. How come?
    Then again, including a couple of data points from a P55 with an
    i5 750 and i7 860 would be more useful. AMD wins on price by a mile
    of course (personally I reckon the 620 is the best buy much of the
    time) but for those occasions where only 1 or 2 threads are running,
    the i5 750 might win on price/performance. If it's deemed appropriate
    to include a top-end Ph2 in the results, then surely at the very
    least the i5 750 should have been included aswell just to put things
    into perspective? I would include an 860 aswell just to show where
    the curves are heading on the Intel side, but nothing above that.

    And btw no, I don't agree with anything maddoctor says. Speaking of
    which, can you please ban the guy? Once again the discussion section
    of an otherwise interesting article is just being filled up with
    junk. To everyone else: please don't reply to his posts, you're just
    making it worse. It's a sad fact of nature that half the population
    have got to be below average. Who _are_ these people? Sheesh, I can
    almost hear the banjo, da da ding ding ding... :D

    Ian.

    PS. One other thing Anand, have you ever tested how high the 620
    can be oc'd with a *good* air cooler? I know the retail AMD cooler
    allows it to reach 3.25, but what about with something better? Someone
    mentioned the Coolermaster Hyper TX2 as being a suitable alternative.

    Reply
  • rupa - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    hi ... my 620 is stable till 3.380 (260x13) - noctua nh-u12p default vcore x64 asus m3a78t

    Reply
  • mapesdhs - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link


    Anand, just curious, the test platform description includes mention
    of an X58 mbd, yet there are no i7 results in the tables. How come?
    Then again, including a couple of data points from a P55 with an
    i5 750 and i7 860 would be more useful. AMD wins on price by a mile
    of course (personally I reckon the 620 is the best buy much of the
    time) but for those occasions where only 1 or 2 threads are running,
    the i5 750 might win on price/performance. If it's deemed appropriate
    to include a top-end Ph2 in the results, then surely at the very
    least the i5 750 should have been included aswell just to put things
    into perspective? I would include an 860 aswell just to show where
    the curves are heading on the Intel side, but nothing above that.

    And btw no, I don't agree with anything maddoctor says. Speaking of
    which, can you please ban the guy? Once again the discussion section
    of an otherwise interesting article is just being filled up with
    junk. To everyone else: please don't reply to his posts, you're just
    making it worse. It's a sad fact of nature that half the population
    have got to be below average. Who _are_ these people? Sheesh, I can
    almost hear the banjo, da da ding ding ding... :D

    Ian.

    PS. One other thing Anand, have you ever tested how high the 620
    can be oc'd with a *good* air cooler? I know the retail AMD cooler
    allows it to reach 3.25, but what about with something better? Someone
    mentioned the Coolermaster Hyper TX2 as being a suitable alternative.

    Reply
  • Zool - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    For a fast compare with other procesors the test setup is not bad but for some people some the benchmarks could be misleading.
    People will not buy these cpu-s just to put them together with a intel SSD drive and a gtx280.
    I think it wouldnt take much longer to test it with average hdd and a sub 100$ gpu. I would care much less if i cant compare it to other anad tests with high end cpus.
    Reply
  • Zool - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    For a fast compare with other procesors the test setup is not bad but for some people some the benchmarks could be misleading.
    People will not buy these cpu-s just to put them together with a intel SSD drive and a gtx280.
    I think it wouldnt take much longer to test it with average hdd and a sub 100$ gpu. I would care much less if i cant compare it to other anad tests with high end cpus.
    Reply
  • 7Enigma - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Zool,

    The purpose of using an SSD is strictly for the variability between tests. What Anand's site never shows (and one of my major complaints) is % error. In any statistical measurement you always present the amount of error in a test. What this might show is there is no REAL clear winner, or very little difference as when you get close (say within 5%), and you have a large variability (say due to a standard HD or run-to-run variability), the numbers become moot.

    I will agree with you on the GTX280, however, as that is a pointless component for this price sector.
    Reply
  • 7Enigma - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    As an example I went back and looked at the game data. The Fallout3 data is generated MANUALLY by running through an area and using FRAPS. The X2/X3 chips are bunched up with less than 1 fps between them. I would wager a hefty sum that the % error in this test is greater than 1fps and so any chips within that range are EQUAL. Same goes for Left 4 Dead... Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    I don't see anything wrong for the benchmark setup, but other SSD products are not competitive and have lower performance than Intel products. The most wrong thing about is Anand is compare AMD rubbish product to Intel products. Reply
  • - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    YO Maddoctor is ANAND!! Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    No, I'm not Anand. Anand is Intel fanboy like me, because he know only Intel who can designed an approriate processor with powerful performance. Reply
  • formulav8 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Enough already. Your an absolute pest Reply
  • Sangueffusor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Your trolling is retardedly hilarious. Please, comment as much as you can before you get banned. I like laughing at your posts. Reply
  • tech4tac - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    If AMD can put out inexpensive Athlon II X4 600e series desktop parts and at 45 TDP, why can't they do the same for their mobile segment:

    Compared to Intel's mobile processor lineup, AMD's is rather embarrassing (AMD is just not in the game). If Intel can sell the I7-820QM @ 1.73GHz and I7-720QM @ 1.60GHz (45W TDP parts @ $546.00 and $364ea in 1K quantities) for the performance notebook market, then why isn't AMD using the Athlon II X4 600e series to form the basis for a Turion II X4 product. It'd probably be 1/2 the price but with competitive performance. They could probably even drop down the clockspeed a tad to get it in the 35W TDP range (i.e. same as Mobile C2D performance parts). Then, the only thing left to work on would be idle power consumption.

    Even if there is no hypothetical Turion II X4, the 600e parts could do well in desktop replacement notebooks as-is. Besides supply issues, I can't imagine any other excuse... Just my 2 cents.
    Reply
  • fineliner - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    I realize that everytime when one of us mentions something good about AMD and bad about Intel the famous doctor will respond. Let's see if I got his attention now.

    Back to the topic, I think this is a very interesting point raised - AMD Quad parts in mobile. Athlon II X4 605e clocks at 2.3GHz, rated at 45W TDP. So following the logic, if AMD lowers the clocks to 1.6/1.8G, they could knock down the power to, maybe 25-35W TDP. Those are very nice product offerings to notebooks.

    No idea why AMD does not release such parts. Engineering problem maybe? delays?... given their track record.

    I would like to see AMD bringing affordable Quad core CPUs to notebook platforms, just like what they did to bring more affordable quad parts (Athlon II X4) to desktop. At the end of the day, some of us perfers AMD or Intel, but competition is the key! At least, it will offer certain degree of motivation to Intel to keep their mobile quad prices low (or lower).

    Agreed that "Competition is the foundation of getting the best bang for the buck." Competition also keeps innovation going. So credits to both AMD and Intel to bring us ever faster and cheaper processors. If only Intel's left, I don't think I would see that happening.
    Reply
  • phaxmohdem - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    I don't see the performance being very competitive unless AMD can incorporate some clone of the Turbo Boost tech into their chips. However, I agree a cheaper quad core mobile alternative would benefit us all. Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    WTF, They could not design it properly. Only Intel smarter engineers can do that with the best semiconductor manufacturing in the world. Turbo Boost in Intel is the best competitive solutions to suppress the power consumption like Mooly Eden have said. Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Yes, because AMD is not competitive both the cost and its products performance. Many people did not know about AMD because people believe Intel is the PC. With sucks marketing, it is not surpriced AMD will face bankruptcy and soon Anandtech will only review Intel products. Reply
  • GeorgeH - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    I understand that you want to use your standard benchmarking setup, but measuring the power consumption of these chips with a GTX280 isn't all that helpful when you consider that the vast majority of these chips are going to be paired with an IGP.

    It'd be nice if you could pick just one (say one of the XXXe chips) and throw it in a 780G or 785G motherboard and then measure its power consumption. From there we could extrapolate how much power the GTX280 is using to see how “Energy Efficient" these chips are in more real world setups. Saving 10-20W in the 150-200W range isn’t nearly as big of a deal as it is in the 50-100W range.
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Please, don't see those crappy AMD processors. With Intel upcoming Core I3, Intel will rule the HTPC ethusiast that care about power consumption with decent HD quality and full HD audio. Reply
  • Ahmed0 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Oooh... fancy buzzwords like "HD"...

    Im posting from a computer using an old "crappy" AMD processor (which, funnily, is a fair bit faster than Intels offering from the same timeperiod).

    I also have a newer Intel/Nvidia based system and I like both of my systems.


    Your fanboyism reminds me of SiliconDoc who was banned recently... coninue like you do and youll end up the same way. Now, post some constructive criticism/arguments or shut up...
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Yeah, it is up to you if you like both your own PC whether is Intel or AMD. But, I remind you, Intel will be no more as a company in 2011 after AMD filed chapter 11 in Q3 2010. This is the nature of moore's law that only the number 1 company will become the only supplier of semiconductor products. Reply
  • Summer - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Good showing by AMD. Hopefully AMD can keep this up. Competitive market = great for consumers! Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    The world will be a better place without AMD. Intel does not need competition in PC Market, and soon, Intel will destroy ARM stronghold in Handhelds too with low power Intel Atom. I believe with many smart engineers, Intel will not stop the innovation with products that become cheaper and cheaper. I believe what Monpoloy Man have said. Reply
  • Quickwind - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Always nice to see these low end processors around so that if I need to I can build a cheap but effective computer for a family member.

    And I know it's bad to feed the trolls but.... Do you even know what competition does for the market? How it creates lower prices and pushes innovation to stay ahead?
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Nice to see you are trolling. Intel will always innovates and its products will gradually cheaper and cheaper as Moore's Law even wthout competitor, see the facts you are using Intel now. Intel will make the consumer happy with more powerful and cheap products. Reply
  • Zool - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    When you buy a amd procesor for the same price than intel than the average pc usage speed is virtualy same if u dont sit before you computer with a stopwatch.
    And after a while heawy parallel software like graphics and encodings will switch to OpenCL and use GPU and CPU so intel speed will be irelewant there.
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    What? Dont underestimate Intel with parallel processing. Intel bright engineers like Francois Piednoel and Justin Rattner have made the most efficient parallel processing in the world. That is why Justin Rattner had putted AMD Opteron in the trash during IDF 2006. Reply
  • Jamahl - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Somebody ban this moron please. Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Btw, Anand. I was looking for these Athlon IIs at Newegg, and I see an Athlon X2 5000+, 45nm, AM2+, 2.2GHz. Could you ask AMD where this came from. which die this is made from, why it's AM2+ only, etc? Reply
  • fsdetained - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    This is the old Athlons, the k8 generation I believe. The athlon II's and Phenom II's are k10 generation, as well as Phenom I's I think.
    It's amd2+ because am3 wasnt out at the time it was made.
    Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    no, it says 45m, even in AMD's product page. It was quietly launched, but I can't find any reports about it. Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    sorry about the double post. The web server claimed there was an error on the 1st post, but apparently it was properly posted. Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    no, it says 45m, even in AMD's product page. It was quietly launched, but I can't find any reports about it. Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Why you are care about this. All AMD products are crap. Period. Reply
  • blackbyron - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    maddoctor, you are a tool and a true idiot. AMD is not crap. Sure I use intel because its faster, but AMD needs to change. I believe you are 100% intel fanboy. Back in 2005, do you know AMD dominated the market? If you say intel is cheaper and better than AMD and you hope that it'll go out of business, then intel will might increase the prices that start at $600.

    Sounds bad huh, doesn't it make you worry?

    Intel Fanboy = FAIL.
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Hey, you are name calling, so just buy AMD's products now if AMD's products are not crap. Even you have admit that Intel products are faster than AMD. You see that, AMD is crap that could not design processor properly like Intel. This is an evidence that Intel's engineers are smarter than AMD. Reply
  • blackbyron - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    They are not crap, and I am not saying I like AMDs. The reason why AMD can't catch up Intel is they gave out rebates to customers and persuaded them to buy Intel cpus. Then EU filed a lawsuit against Intel for hurting consumers and were fined. Have YOU also heard about Intel that they paid dell 1 billion dollars not to use AMDs? You can't say AMD is crap. Do you know AMD makes really good graphics card? Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    What EC are wrong in their investigations. Intel is respect with law and did not do anything wrong. Just ask Anand. He will argue with me Intel is not a cheater and did not cheat with benchmark like AMD. AMD products are crap, if you buy it, you will regret wil its slower performance than Intel product. Reply
  • blackbyron - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    you don't really understand what I'm talking about. I am not talking about how good AMD is. I'm talking about business. Business is Business. Have you heard about Intel been fined for 1.45 billion dollars because of lawsuit? Intel does something illegal. If you don't believe and not satisfy what I said, google is your friend.

    Are you going get angry that Intel will start at $400 on quad core? Doesn't that make you worry?
    Reply
  • qwertymac93 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    it seems a dual core is completely pointless when you can get a quad for a few $ more. any clock speed difference can be made up from overclocking, and power consumption isn't really that much higher. the dual core athlon seems to only have a place in notebooks, were a 10 watt increase can kill any demand for a product. in time the dual cores will fade out and only be seen in notebooks. with phenoms costing twice as much to make, i dont think they even make sense, why not make an 8-core athlon ll for the same die size? Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Only AMD worshiper will buy its products. AMD will never win the benchmark. Don't to become an AMD worshiper, get a life and buy Intel powered product. Reply
  • pullmyfoot - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    dude, shut up man. how old are you? 5? Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Are you mad? I belive currently you are using Intel based products, and further you will be using Intel products only because AMD will be no more in 2011. Reply
  • vexingv - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Anand's conclusion really sums it up. On the low end, AMD has got it locked. But AMD really has a busy product segment between the Athlon II X2, X3, and X4's. My quandary: I'm giving my current HTPC (AthlonX2 4200+) to my parents and was planning on replacing it with a new Athlon II setup. However, my main PC is an e7200. Now I don't know whether I should go low end (X2 240) for the HTPC or move up a bit (X3 435 or X4 620) and have my old E7200 be the basis of the HTPC and use the AMD system as my new main PC.

    decisions, decisions...
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Whatever AMD product throws to market, rubbish is a rubbish. Intel products prices will make AMD's prices room tighter, and AMD is going to sink into oblivion. I love it because Intel prices will be cheaper to consumer. Reply
  • SunSamurai - Sunday, November 01, 2009 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=96&a...">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=96&a...

    Thats a less expensive AMD CPU out preforming a more expensive Intel CPU

    Suck on that a while.
    Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    AMD has 13 Athlon IIs, 6 energy efficient, 7 normal CPUs, ranging from $60 to $143, with a quite a few overlapping processors. That's not even counting the Phenom IIs in that price range. Some of these might be OEM specific only, so that would simplify the lineup for the individual buyer. Even still, that's a lot of questions the buyer has to face? Faster dual core? Medium triple core? Slower quad core? Energy efficient/low heat? L3 cache?

    I guess one can say there's an Athlon II that will fits anyone's needs at this price range, but figuring out which is the harder part.
    Reply
  • Ezz777 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Or stretch your budget to whatever an i5 is going for and get the best of both worlds...

    I'm currently budgeting for a new PC, and i find it hard to justify this sort of price point for a CPU. I'm not strictly Intel/AMD aligned but i just feel the i5 seems to answer most of these questions.

    So...I guess then my question is what sort of budget for a Entry / Mid gaming PC would justify these CPUs?

    And secondly, is there a rule of thumb you all use for what proportion of a PC you should spend on the CPU (or GPU for that matter)?

    Clearly this will change due to the various offerings, but would does 25% CPU, 50% GPU, 25% M/B etc. sound about right?
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Yes, Intel Core I5 is the best choice. No sophisticated AMD products, and it will never be. Don't buy AMD rubbish products. Reply
  • Ezz777 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Not quite what i was getting at - but thanks for your input...

    I guess my question isn't really Athlon II X3 related but more 'concepts in PC building' so apologies for going OT.

    If anyone does want to respond - my question is along the lines of if we assume linearity in the CPU and GPU markets, is there a ratio on how much you should spend on each to get a balanced gaming PC?
    Reply
  • fsdetained - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    That's a horrible way to go about buying parts as you'll just screw yourself in the end.
    I would only buy an athlon II for entry level gaming. It would do ok with more demanding games but the games are starting to catch up with current tech finally. Phenom II or I5/I7 would be for the more serious gamers.
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Hey, AMD could not make any processor approriately like Intel. Even AMD will not make any processor soon because AMD will bankrupt. AMD is whining too much and must be punished. Intel products are better than any AMD products. Reply
  • RadnorHarkonnen - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Can somebody ban this one, it is getting really disrupting.

    Beyond just behing plain dumb, somebody tell this tool chipmakers aren't football teams. Not that is very bright to discuss like this about football teams.

    Reply
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Done... Reply
  • RubberJohnny - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    The next few months will be very interesting for AMD, soon they will have the i3 to compete with in this market so pricing will become very important and Nvidia (possibly) about to put some heat on them in the graphics department...hang in there little fella! Reply
  • rippley007 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    The huge problem with this is STREET prices of CURRENT Intel cpu's.
    Less than 7 days ago, in a STORE mind you, i just purchased a q9550 CPU. for $169.. Quad core 2.83 ghz, 12mb cache, looks/acts/IS a much better price /performance, AT $169.. That is hard to beat
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Look, this is the facts that Intel is much better in price/performance ratio. Reply
  • fsdetained - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    It had to be a return, open box, or a going out of business sale because even newegg has it listed for $269 and they pretty much always whoop store's prices. No way he got it by normal means at that price.
    For $179.99 you can get an AMD Phenom IIx4 955 Black Edition which is about on par performance wise as a q9550. That's $90 you're saving for the same performance.
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Good, you have bought an Intel product, you will happy with it. I believe you will never buy AMD products, because their products are crap and can not win the benchmark. Reply
  • bupkus - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    I have an AMD/ATI 4850 video card I bought a year and a half ago and it's working just fine. I don't expect Intel to have a competitive offering for a long time. Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    It will change with Larrabee. I believe you will buy Intel Larrabee, because simple choice will make you happy with Intel standards. Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Yeah, I want it soon. Intel will crush them in the low end segment too. I want Intel own all PC Market if Intel have been successfully made AMD's cash empty. AMD is whine too much, so Intel must punish AMD until dead. Reply
  • bersl2 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Successful troll is successful. Reply
  • kiwik - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    I, for one, welcome our new Intel Overlords. Reply
  • stmok - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Look everyone! Its maddoctor! The counter-twin to snakeoil! Reply
  • Shilohen - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Ohh, I've never read anything from snakeoil yet so I was seeing him more like Intel's SiliconDoc. Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Boy, you're not kidding. Put those two together and there be fireworks. Reply
  • RubberJohnny - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    It probably is snakeoil, he leaves out a couple of words here and there to make it sound like he comes from some non english speaking country instead of his mums basement... Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    It's funny how some people here are trying to guesstimate. I'm not an AMDiot like snakeoil. Reply
  • kiwik - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Exactly, you're the omega to his alpha, whatever that means. Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Whatever, please you must notice that everyone in Intel Investorhub website and AiMeD Corporation blogs have been talk like me that AMD will be doomed with its own not so competence in developing its products. Reply
  • kiwik - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Cool story bro. Reply
  • qwertymac93 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    you suck at english...and life 0_0 Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    I don't care about it becaue I can't make any change with my comment. Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    I don't care your suggestion. I could not edit my previous comment. Reply
  • RubberJohnny - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    I didn't want to stoop to your level but...you speak the truth.

    Maddoctor you are a retard...have fun paying $1000 for your i3 when your intel monopoly wet dream comes true.
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Intel products are cheaper. Price/performance ration is more favourable to Intel products. Only AMDiot will like AMD products. And Intel is not monopoly, this is the nature capitalism folks, if you don't have any competitive product, it is a grant to a company with the best product to crush you. Reply
  • tamalero - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    lol, this guy is for Intel-AMD what silicondoc was for ATI-NVIDIA.
    I wonder if Dailytech checked if its the same troll.
    Reply
  • ecvs85 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    maddoctor in real life must be a women who just dumped by her boyfriend that works in AMD's CPU development team :) Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Intel products are cheaper. Price/performance ration is more favourable to Intel products. Only AMDiot will like AMD products. Reply
  • SunSamurai - Sunday, November 01, 2009 - link

    Without AMD, intel would not have cheap processors. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT IDIOT? Reply
  • StevoLincolnite - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    [quote]Intel products are cheaper. Price/performance ration is more favourable to Intel products. Only AMDiot will like AMD products.[/quote]

    Both company's are good, and both have good price/performance depending on the targeted market demographic.
    Reply
  • Lunyone - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    I like that AMD is bringing out a x3 based off of the Athlon II's. This makes sense, so they can sell more chips/wafer. I think for the $12 difference I'd rather have the x4 620, but that is just me. I do like that they have come out with more power friendly CPU's too, especially for those thinking of a quieter HTPC!! I know that the Intel CPU's generally OC better, but most people don't OC at all so having a cheaper/better based clocked CPU is a win/win for consumers. Maybe we'll see a price drop during the Christmas rush, maybe not. Reply
  • sinshixxi - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    yea $12 diff com'on, who gonna save it for x3. Maybe lower grade x3 the $76 would have an edge comparing to $99 x4. $22 I wouldn't save it. $99 x4 just simply kick ass. Reply
  • Sledge hammer - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    this triple core outperforms the intel E8400 and E8500 that cost 100 dollars more.

    http://www.guru3d.com/article/athlon-ii-x3-435-pro...">http://www.guru3d.com/article/athlon-ii-x3-435-pro...


    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Friday, October 30, 2009 - link

    That is Intel's Premium Dual Core line, it's no longer the best price/performance ratio in relation to Intel's own products.

    there are cheaper alternatives...

    You can get pretty much the same performance with the E7600 and a little bit less with the E7500 vs the E8000's. So the difference is reduced to around 50 USD.

    The thing is those processors are barely 82mm2 and cost 130-150USD vs the 169mm2 90USD processor, Intel's margin is simply way higher.

    Intel doesn't really compete in the Tri-Core space really. It'a niche AMD gets to enjoy because Intel has no interest in competing there for now.
    Reply
  • - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    I think most folk can’t see the potential paradigm shift of the direction AMD is moving, all the while remaining consistent to their eccobeliefs- "less power more production". Their Opteron multicore processor stresses low power with multiple cores- I think it’s clear looking at the Opteron and their other recent chips that AMD is not competing with Intel for the top speed honors or the fastest Giga chip. We have also seen perhaps closer relationships between AMD Apple, AMD Microsoft directly connected by AMDs graphic card products 4000 series, OpenCL, directX11, direct Compute... The giga-chip wars are over, AMD has been preparing for the end-of-day future is now, for a while now. It’s no longer about pumping the power of the CPU, because all the processing power one ever needs goes unused; we've all had this river of untapped processing power in our computers for some time now. The power is in the GPU; coupled with current low watt multicore processors, while using OpenCl, DirectX11, direct-compute, CPU-GPU becomes both the redeemer and the grim reaper at the same time. The second stage is the bonding between GPU & CPU- Llano

    On another note- I personally don’t believe Larrabee will be developed in time, if at all work as promised. I belive they were late in seeing
    Reply
  • - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    asH Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    It's funny, AMD will never get any profit and still loss after 3 years consecutively. I belive you can not buy any AMD product when Intel roll out the Larrabee. I believe Intel will win in this market too and will crush NVIDIA like AMD before. Intel will own all and everyone will be happy both customers and the consumer. Reply
  • SmilingBuddha - Friday, October 30, 2009 - link

    You missed Econ101. Reply
  • Griswold - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link

    I *know* that you are clueless. Reply
  • zipzoomflyhigh - Friday, October 23, 2009 - link

    Yeah well they had to absorb 5 million to buy ATI.
    So everyone would be happy if Intel owned everything huh? Would anyone here be happy paying $1000+ for a cpu? I think not. You are clueless. AMD will return to profitability next year and will completely own the GPU market by then. Without AMD, no Intel fanboy would be happy period.
    Reply
  • theonejrs - Thursday, October 22, 2009 - link

    No offense, but you don't know what you are talking about! AMD currently owns 31.5% of the CPU market to Intel's 68.5%. That's better than a 5% increase in the last year alone! Rumors have it that nVidia is canceling some of it's higher end video cards because they can't compete with Ati in the high end market, so Ati's market will grow even more, which means even more profits for AMD!
    http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/06/nvidia-kill...">http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/06/...x260-aba...
    The article also claims that nVidia may even abandon the high end cards altogether!

    Intel is in the awkward position of having the best computer, but almost no one can afford it, so the original i7 is relegated to the server market. They also have to maintain production of faster CPUs than AMD makes! AMD has two low priced Quad cores, the Athlon IIx4 620 and 630. $99 and $122 respectively. The 620 will overclock about 800MHz, while the 630, over 1GHz, both on air! From a price/performance point of view, AMD wins hands down! AMD has invested heavily in the low to mid price market, and have a wide variety of CPUs to cover any need. I would say they have planned well, and should be in a very good sales position during the continuing recession!

    I would also like to point out that AMD hasn't made a major mistake in well over a year. Products have come out when they were supposed to, and there haven't been any real glitches in any of the new CPUs. They've also continued to refine these new CPUs to the point that the Phenom IIx4 Deneb 940 overclocks better and is a better all around CPU today, than it was when it was first introduced!

    And for the best business deal of the new century, hands down! AMD sold their entire multi-billion dollar debt by selling their Chip Fabs, while still maintaining operation and control of them! I don't think these guys are about to fold their tent quite yet! I believe they are a lot smarter than you think!

    Respectfully,
    theonejrs
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Friday, October 30, 2009 - link

    This is FUD, currently Intel owns 80 something percent marketshare as opposed to AMD's 11.5%. Were discussing CPU's not GPUs.
    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-Notebooks/In...">http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-N...e-Lead-O...

    Discrete and Integrated GPU marketshare is seperate, there are 3 competitors there, Intel, AMD/ATi, nVidia.

    Overclocking is only relevant to the budget enthusiast and that represents a small section of the market. What matters is stock performance not overclocking.

    AMD wins price/performance, but they lose on brand image, and that is more important as that allows Intel to sell processors at the same performance for a higher premium and garner more profits.

    It's about time that AMD hasn't tripped on it's 2 feet, as if they had continued to do so, Intel wouldn't see them as worthy of making any price adjustments over.

    No AMD will not be going anywhere soon, we still need them, we all need AMD to continue to exist for different reasons.
    Reply
  • medi01 - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    I hope you were joking about satisfied customers. Intel will again simply "own" its customers, as it did years before, when it felt no competition. Reply
  • andrewaggb - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Larrabee is a big unknown. I suspect it won't be as good as anybody hopes and initially drivers will suck. My guess is larrabee version 2 will be much better but probably still suck compared to equivalent amd/nvidia, and maybe version 3 (in like 5 years) will be competitive. And that's if intel doesn't just give up again like they have every other time they say they will make good graphics. The barrier to entry into the graphics market is huge now, it's not simple to design a dx11 gpu core that works (just ask nvidia) let alone one that is fast. And then drivers are a constant work in progress. I don't believe a new player can come along and get it all right their first try.
    Reply
  • Zingam - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    That's why Intel actually does not imply they are making a GPU but rather a processor with GPU capabilities. Interestingly enough NVIDIA also backs off the notion GPU. I guess the only pure next generation GPUs will be ATI. What is going to come after that - nobody like us knows yet. Reply
  • rhorwitz - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Oh you are so terribly mistaken! Without any competition Intel would raise its prices so high that only the rich could afford a PC. If it were not for AMD (or any other competitor) we would still be using first generation pentiums costing $500 ea. To make an assinine statement that "...everyone will be happy both customers and the consumer." is pure unmitigated BS.

    Rick
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Currently, Intel does not need any competitor. Intel will crush them as soon as possible with prices cutting. This is their own fault, why they are not so competitive in performance and can not wins the benchmark Reply
  • fsdetained - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    Because they've done this so well with AMD for the last 20+ years... great logic little boy... Reply
  • santiago321 - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    I am sure this joker has no idea about computers. If only designing GPU chips and killing competition was so simple.

    Tell you what, consider these two facts;

    1. Intel has been trying to kill AMD for last 40 years and still trying

    2. It took intel 5 years to add Northbridge in the die after amd did that in 2004.

    Tech forums are no paradise for jokers. Go home and sleep well
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Friday, October 30, 2009 - link

    1. Intel isn't trying to kill AMD, they are trying to shackle AMD into the budget range and keep them there, AMD sole purpose is to remain as a second supplier and to give the appearance of competition, so for Intel AMD serves a purpose.

    2. Intel didn't care about having a memory controller on their processors as they were already outperforming AMD's offerings without it. It isn't the be all and end all to performance and also comes with disadvantages as well. Core 2 outperformed Athlon 64's of the time, and were even to equivalently clocked 45nm Phenoms, 65nm AMD had it's own share of issues.
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    What Intel never trying to kill AMD. This is only AMDiot assumption. Ask Anand, he will never agree with you AMDiot. This is the nature of capitalism. Money and product competitiveness are the facts that you can not denied. Reply
  • fsdetained - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    Shitty pun, knock it off. Intel has tried to crush AMD since 1986. Where have you been? Oh, right, you probably weren't even born when the 8080 and 8086 processors came out for the IBM PC or even when the AM286 came out.
    Money, product, and competitiveness are not facts they are words you just threw out to sound like you know something. You have no clue about business, go back to your 6th grade classes.
    Reply
  • yuhong - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    "2. It took intel 5 years to add Northbridge in the die after amd did that in 2004. "
    Do you mean memory controller? But, BTW, Transmeta was able to put northbridge into the die back in 1999.
    Reply
  • AnnihilatorX - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    My sacarsm meter dial has turned through 3 circles and landed the negative spot. Reply
  • StevoLincolnite - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    There is so much wrong with your post it's not funny, but I'll point some out.

    1) We have no idea how Larrabee will perform.

    2) nVidia ATI/AMD are not going anywhere soon.

    3) Intel got beaten by ATI and nVidia in the Graphics card market before when Intel released the Intel i740i AGP graphics card.

    4) With Intels history of poor driver support for there Graphics solutions, I don't have much faith in Larrabee being different, I hope I'm wrong though, the added competition would be awesome.

    5) If Intel owns the Chipset/CPU/Graphics markets 100% that would be -bad- no competition to keep prices low, remember when a decent computer would cost over 3 thousand bucks?

    6) Both ATI and nVidia have had YEARS of experience in the Graphics industry, they will not let a new player into that market without a fight.

    7) I would -not- be happy if we lost any extra company's especially AMD and nVidia, it would be all-round bad for everyone, I wouldn't have been able to build a stupidly cheap Quad-Core system (Athlon 2 x4 620) if it weren't for AMD.
    Reply
  • pinguin - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    >>remember when a decent computer would cost over 3 thousand bucks?

    I wouldn't mind paying $3000 for a decent computer, but please remember that even an undecent one would have set you back $1500 back then, while nowadays you can buy a $500 AMD rig
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    No, it will never. You can get a decent performance Intel rig with less than 500 dollar. Intel products will become cheaper and cheaper. Consumer will be more happy with cheap Intel products and they can choose it only from the most trusted brand for processor, Intel. Reply
  • fsdetained - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    You can buy A intel rig for $500, yes. But, it will not be as powerful as the AMD $500 build. Taking into account you spend just as much money on the intel processor as you do the AMD processor. Or you'll likely spend more on the amd processor as there are many ways to cut corners and still have 95% of the performance of the other parts and get a better processor. Reply
  • doomedtofrag - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Yeah, your name says it all. You so badly wanted Hitler's thing in you, but since that no longer is a possibility, you are after Intel now??? Reply
  • LSnK - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    So how much do Intel pay you? Haha. Reply
  • fitten - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    5) If Intel owns the Chipset/CPU/Graphics markets 100% that would be -bad- no competition to keep prices low, remember when a decent computer would cost over 3 thousand bucks?

    Kind of like Apple does now, then. ;)
    Reply
  • maddoctor - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    Intel will not jacks up the prices at random. Intel is a good company with many OEM's respect to Intel. Intel did not do anything wrong, with its dominant power. This is AMD's own fault that it did not has manufacturing capacities for its processors production. This is the fate of Intel that Intel will own all. Reply
  • bsensible - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - link

    Get real! Are you an Intel Sales rep? Without AMD most of us can ill afford a computer. The slowest one would cost over $1000. Business is business. There is no such thing as a good or moral company. They answer to their share holders, not to you or me. If you are only joking. It is not funny at all. Reply
  • fsdetained - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    Yeah intel is a great company, other than all of the bribing, overpricing, trying to monopolize. Other than that they are a good company and make good processors/ssd's/everything else. IGP's blow so far though. Reply
  • dragunover - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    You nailed that one on the head. Reply
  • blowfish - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    not worth responding to such a troll! At least maddoctor seems very appropriate. Could do with brushing up on his written English, but then who knows what backwater he inhabits. Reply
  • tamalero - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    by any chance you're a Intel worker? you sound like you do. Reply
  • maddoctor - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    Intel did not do that. All the given evidences are false and could not prove anything. Reply
  • taltamir - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - link

    "no competition to keep prices low"

    [sarcasm] Thats right, if only there was no COMPETITION prices could be LOW... it is a well known FACT that competition serves only to raise prices! [/sarcasm]
    That is the dumbest thing I have heard in a very long time.
    Reply
  • mm2587 - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    wow. Way to fail at reading comprehension.

    The man is say if there was no competition there would be no reason to keep prices low. He was saying "if there was no competition to keep prices low, intel would raise prices"

    So lets read next time before we call anyone else stupid.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - link

    Not quite... at least, not in my opinion.

    On page 6, maddoctor posted:

    "Whatever AMD product throws to market, rubbish is a rubbish. Intel products prices will make AMD's prices room tighter, and AMD is going to sink into oblivion. I love it because Intel prices will be cheaper to consumer."

    I may have misinterpreted this, but his post seems to be indicating that if AMD were no longer in the game, Intel would have no competition and would LOWER prices in accordance. Something which, as we all know, not only wouldn't happen but is totally contrary to common business practices. If there's only one supplier, you're not going to go find cheaper options from somebody else; you'll be tied to that one supplier and they will feel less need to improve their designs.

    As odd as it may seem, that's what I believe he was referring to.
    Reply
  • SunSamurai - Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - link

    You do fail at reading comprehension. Reply
  • silverblue - Friday, October 30, 2009 - link

    Interesting statement to make when you fail to back it up. Reply
  • huran - Sunday, April 03, 2011 - link

    ( http://www.2kuu.com )

    Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!

    Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel Women sandal is $30

    DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $35

    Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12 Jeans price is $34 Paypal accept,Door to Door services!

    5 days arrive your home or you ur friends’ adress by EMS,DHL,UPs click my link under here!

    ( http://www.2kuu.com )
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now