AMD undercuts Intel to offer more bang for the buck

AMD has officially released new Phenom II processors in both triple and quad core flavors and priced them to undercut Intel’s Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad lines.

The Phenom II X3 triple core parts are available with clock speeds of either 2.6GHz (model 710) or 2.8GHz (model 720) and priced at $125 and $145 respectively. This pricing means that the 2.8GHz model is $20 less and 20% faster at 3D processing than Intel’s Core 2 Duo E8400.

The Phenom II X4 quad core parts run at 2.6GHz (model 810)and 2.8GHz (model 920) and are priced $175 and $195 respectively. Performance-wise the 810 is slightly faster than Intel’s Core 2 Quad Q8200 and comes in at only $5 more.

Both the Phenom II X3 and X4 processors use 45nm architecture and all except the 920 have a TDP of 95W (the 920 has a TDP of 125W).

AMD’s price list can be viewed here.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_609,00.html

i wonder when these will make it to laptops markets, triple core laptops wouldn't be bad

 

Hi.

It just a pity Intel and Amd don't fit in the same socket, then we would really see a price war, ooh well we can dream!

John.

 

John they do, but you need to go back to socket 7 era cpu's
I am shocked that AMD is still in the negative. Their processors are so much ore affordable than Intel's. Seriously the amount of people who need something more powerful than a q6600 is such a small percentage. AMD's processors have more than enough power for 99% of the world. I just dont see how everyone still buys Intel when they know AMD is the better bargain.

K-TRON

 

Ya but remember the quality. AMD is probably using cheaper parts.

 

inb4 " This is desktop hardware go to desktopreview.com "

 

AMD uses a different lithography process than Intel does. This is true, but the quality is the same. Processors rarely ever die when run at normal clock speeds. CPU's only die from physical damage, ie (too much overvoltage, or psu explodes, or something like that)

K-TRON

 

It is nice to see that AMD is still providing budget CPUs even after suffering massive financial losses last year. I really hope AMD can pull themselves out of the losing streak and survive. Otherwise we’d be left with Intel and nVidia monopolies .

 

They are going under because people ARE obsessed with numbers. AMD's are a great value but computer sales are driven by the ones that want the highest numbers.

New computers make alot of money for companies, but there wouldnt be multipule rebranders of nVidia/ATI video cards if the market for "better and faster" wasnt more dominate. its the same with the CPU. People arent going to SLI/Crossfire these massive cards and then "budget out" on the systems CPU.

AMD's largest problem is they have never really offered the "over the top" CPU's so that the people that want the high end can start the word of mouth chain that makes intel so previliant. If i want a 3gHz+ system i almost HAVE to go Intel as AMD just doesnt offer a powerful CPU like that.

In my Server at home i run AMD because they ROCK in that application, but a single machine that wants power pretty much is stuck choosing Intel. (and i wish that wasnt the case)

 

iits not like they have a choice... imagine amd raising prices higher or like intel... the thing that makes them attractive is the price.. nad like ktron said.... one of those processor its enough for almost everyone.... people that really need performance for every buck... should get intel.... intel its clearly way up and amd is behind intel, but that does not make them bad.... if u really want the whole horsepower battery, low heat, go intel..... but if u are just gonna surf the web, use word... chat... maybe do some playing.. go with amd... wont let u down... and at a good price... and heat by the way.... i have three friends with amd laptops.. man that cpu is aways at 90 c ..... jut surfing the web or using word it would be normally at 80 degrees.... and this is normal for both ofthem... my c2d wont hit 60 even after playing for hours...

 

Well the heat is not really the cpu's fault. It is lack of good design for a cooling system. I must say that every AMD desktop/server chip I have, cant break 130F when running max load for days.
I really think AMD's run as cool if not cooler than Intels. The problem is most people suspect AMD to run hotter because the systems which usually have AMD's are coded for the fans to come on at a higher temperature, which causes an uneven playing field.

K-TRON

 

i dont get what would be the point to make the fan come on late.... besides hp make this notebooks.... DV5- x where notebooks have same built what changes is the processor and video card inside.. they probably use same heatsink... i mean sounds like they wouldnt spend money designing to different heatsinks... i dont know... anyway amd is also known to run way hotter than intel, but i must say... runs ok even at those temps.... no downclocking or so...

 

Actually in the dv7 serries the Intel laptop with dedicated graphics has 2 chains of heatsinks one for the graphics card and the other for the cpu and chipset. In the amd system there is 1 chain of a heatsink to serve all 3 of the parts for some reason. I think you had bad thermal paste though because they run about the same when you clean out the fans and replace the thermal paste with some AS5. Oh and dont you remember back in the days of pentium 4's and amd athlon 64's? Yeah intel was known for running hotter and slower.

 

Hi.

Yes those were the days, you had INTEL, AMD, CYRIX, THOMPSON, and something called a WIN-PROCESSOR, I think they were all socket 7.

John.

 

It was the WinChip. Also wasn't there some kind of upgrade CPU that involved stacking your old CPU on top of the new one?

 

Hi.

Yea, Winchip , it was supposed to be a cut down cpu or something.

http://www.cpu-info.com/index2.php?mainid=Winchip

My first PC , had a Intel 386 SX 33mhz , no maths co-processor!

John.

 

I was talking about a new dv5 15 inch notebook, so is new and have not thermal paste...... the other one my friend's dv7 yes thats a 17 inch notebook but still runs the same hot... i was just pointing this out to hp, cause a friend of mine has a amd dell inspiron... and runs cool.... but its kind of old... so i dont know is news amd runs that hot... and i know intel was known for his hot pentium 4 cores, and pathethic, back there amd would match intel even with lower clocks.... but we are talking about the present... about amd with lower prices, but still, today, behind intel in performance, heat, consumption. maybe that will change in a future... but now, thats what s happening

 

When I look at reviews of AMD's processors, I always get the feeling that I'm looking at the generation just before the current one sold at the discount that all obsolete electronic parts get. For example, these Phenom II's are being compared to Core 2 CPUs and while this is fair in terms of price points, the elephant in the room is the Core i7 920. This is unfair to AMD because they pioneered a lot of advances which Intel more or less copied, but that's the feeling I get and I'm probably not the only one.

Also, they appear to have given up on mid range and high end mobile processors. This is disappointing.

 

I disagree. Remember that laptop sales have long surpassed desktop sales; and in the mobile market, a hot CPU is a big problem. I wouldn't mind buying AMD (I have in the past), were it not for their generally hot CPUs when compared to Intel; although I do agree that AMD has offerings that are more than enough for almost anyone.

 

That only become true with the advent of the Core architecture. I still remember how the the FX series where destroying everything Intel had to offer when they came out....

 

AMD had a dominant period where the Athlon 64, Athlon X2, and Athlon FX series took the Pentium 4 / Pentium D line behind the woodshed with a paddle. It wasn't until Conroe / Core 2 that Intel stormed back.

 

A little competition never hurt anyone ( ), but at this point AMD is being pushed out of the mobile sector.

 

I just dont understand why AMD is not focusing more on mobile sector. Mobile CPU's sell at higher price compared to desktop counterpart.

if AMD releases dual core mobile cpu at 3ghz, they would be able to sell it $400 and could seriously be back in business.

 

They don't have the same kind of cash Intel has right now, so my guess is that they can't really go and try to create a whole new architecture from scratch.

 

^^

They dont have to. Phenom II is very energy efficient. If they can make quad core at 45W, they should be able to make 3ghz dual core at 35w. Currently they are selling 3ghz quad core desktop at $225. Dual Core 3ghz will fetch a much bigger premium plus will need half the die space.

I guess AMD just have one mask for 45nm. All tri-cores seem to be defective quad cores.

I still feel they should start with mobile and then move to server/desktop.

 

The heart of a chip maker is R&D; if R&D produces nothing new (that is, only improvements to aging architectures like AMD), then that manufacturer is on the way to bankruptcy. AMD cannot continue competing against a manufacturer like Intel without coming out with new products. We already know that the Turion and Athlon architectures are outdated and not even cost-friendly, given how competitively Intel has been pricing their Pentium Dual Cores and low-end Core 2 CPUs.