Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AMD Hardware

AMD One-Ups Intel With Cheap Desktop Chips 362

Posted by samzenpus
from the price-war dept.
CWmike writes "Advanced Micro Devices on Tuesday announced inexpensive desktop microprocessors with up to six cores to put pricing pressure on rival Intel. AMD's new chips include the fastest AMD Phenom II X6 1075T six-core processor, which is priced 'under $250' for 1,000 units, AMD said. AMD also introduced a range of dual-core and quad-core Athlon II and Phenom II desktop microprocessors priced between $76 and $185. By comparison, Intel's cheapest six-core processor is the Core i7-970 processor, which is priced at $885 per 1,000 units, according to a price list on Intel's website."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD One-Ups Intel With Cheap Desktop Chips

Comments Filter:
  • The PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End [cpubenchmark.net] show the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T as being nothing unusual in speed or price.
  • by jcrawfordor (1761828) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @02:33AM (#33672588)
    There's an important data error in the pricing information in this article. The bulk price quoted by Intel ARK and the AMD catalog is the price per unit for 1000 units, not the total price for 1000 units. Otherwise, Intel's high-end six core processors would have retail prices of $10!
  • by mykos (1627575) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @02:35AM (#33672602)
  • nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ILuvRamen (1026668) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @02:43AM (#33672626)
    This is really nothing new. Everyone can say AMD is worse than intel all day until you actually look at the prices. I've put together computer quotes for people and I can't even put in a wolfdate core2 for remoately close to a 3.0GHz AM3 Regor which is around $62! And for an i3 board and processor together, it's over double an AMD board and processor even with a Phenom in it instead. I mean if you want something so fast that AMD doesn't even make it, only Intel does, go for it otherwise there's a darn good reason why AMD has been "losing" and isn't out of business yet. Their chips are better speed for the price in most cases!
    • Re:nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)

      by 0123456 (636235) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @02:48AM (#33672654)

      I mean if you want something so fast that AMD doesn't even make it, only Intel does, go for it otherwise there's a darn good reason why AMD has been "losing" and isn't out of business yet. Their chips are better speed for the price in most cases!

      Haven't AMD's recent profits come from a) ATI and b) Intel?

      Their chips are lower priced for the same speed because that's the only way they can sell them. If AMD could make faster CPUs than Intel's, they'd be charging $1000+ as well.

      Obviously that's good for us, because you can get a decent AMD system for less than Intel at the same performance level, but their low prices certainly aren't keeping them in business... I'm pretty sure that everyone at AMD wishes they could be selling their chips for twice as much.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by zippthorne (748122)

        AMD's lower prices are because of Intel's brand, not because of actual performance. You said it yourself: lower prices at comparable performance levels. The same holds true in the high end.

        Further, because of the market share of Intel, other the software giants don't do very much in the way of optimizing code to run on AMD, so they're always going to be compared on the subset of chip features that Intel also supports.

        Multiple equal giants would be a better situation for the rest of us, because then they'd

    • by mike260 (224212)

      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'

      search_results
      +----------------+
      good

      1 row in set (0.00 sec)

  • Budget (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @02:44AM (#33672634)

    I like AMD because their processors are usually fast enough for me and are usually much cheaper than the processors that Intel sells. I really can't afford to pay nearly as much for the processor as I do every other part for the computer combined, so I go with AMD.

  • Looks like we're still adding cores and cache to the CPUs, but we're not really coming up with anything really revolutionary. Last really interesting idea was Transmeta's ill-fated effort. Come on, people, innovate!

    That said, I think it might be time for me to upgrade my desktop. It's still got an AM2 CPU!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Vectormatic (1759674)

      next year AMD will be launching its "bulldozer" architecture, which from what i've seen takes a rather novel approach to cores/hyperthreading (two 'cores' which share some execution units. I'm not saying bulldozer will suddenly revolutionize anything, but it is an interesting take on multi-core

      as for your am2 cpu, yeah man, if your board takes a am3 cpu, go for it, you can pick up a quad core (which will trounce whatever you have in single threaded performance too), for under $100, if you still have a singl

      • by Jethro (14165)

        Oh I've got a quad-core - when I built that desktop AMD had just released the AM3 CPUs which made the Phenom II X4 940 a LOT cheaper. And frankly I have zero performance issues with this machine, so I really have no plans on upgrading (;

        As for the Bulldozer core, I mean, seriously the last REAL leap on x86 was, what, when Pentium went from pure CISC to a RISC/CISC hybrid kinda thing? We're still running the same basic architecture. Sure, we're 64-bit rather than 32, but you know.

        Not saying the new CPUs aren

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Vectormatic (1759674)

          ah right, when you said AM2 chip i assumed non-am2+, rulling out any phenom I/II based thing. enjoy that 940, it is a killer chip (my gf has one, i get by with my x2 7750)

          and yeah, bulldozer wont be a leap like pentium>pentium pro, but it might take multi-core in an interesting direction

        • by Jesus_666 (702802)
          Wasn't the last real leap on x86 when AMD provided an upgrade path to AMD64 aka EM64T aka x86_64?
      • The UltraSparc T1 shared his single floating point unit between its 8 cores and 32 threads

        See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraSPARC_T1#Physical_characteristics [wikipedia.org]

    • by Nursie (632944)

      Well, IBM/Sony and others tried the Cell architecture thing, couple a few general purpose cores with vector processing units. It seemed to make a bit of an impact on the supercomputer scene for a while, though apparently games programmers don't much care for it.

      I suspect that's because they have to target multiple architectures though, and Cell demands it's own attention.

      • by Jethro (14165)

        Yeah, whatever the Next Big Thing is, it'll have to emulate x86/x86_64 pretty darn well...

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Kinda sad really, only reason I buy AMD is because the AMD motherboards still support more legacy features than Intel boards but still support competitive modern processors (4x PCI slots for legacy video capture equipment but fast processor for encoding).
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by petermgreen (876956)

      4x PCI slots for legacy video capture equipment but fast processor for encoding
      hmm, when I go on newegg the most PCI slots they sell on an AMD board or a current gen intel board is 3 while they have LGA775 boards up to 5 PCI slots.

    • by NJRoadfan (1254248) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @07:35AM (#33673750)
      They also tend to still have serial and parallel ports as well. No X58 board has them and very few P55 boards still have them. Despite what people here might say, some of us folks still use these ports. USB adapters don't work very well with most bi-directional parallel port devices and USB serial adapters have issues with timing sensitive devices.
  • Initial review... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Freddybear (1805256) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @03:51AM (#33672832)

    Overclockers.com has a review of the Phenom II x6 1075T processor. Looks like it's got pretty good overclock potential and performs well against similarly priced Intel chips.

    http://www.overclockers.com/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1075t-review/ [overclockers.com]

    • by 0111 1110 (518466)

      In that benchmark an overclocked I7 beat an overclocked 1075T. I7s can be had pretty cheap these days so I don't see a compelling reason to get the 1075T. I think AMD is mainly selling to the mainstream folks who don't overclock or run very demanding software. I do like AMD and they are kicking ass in the GPU market, but they have yet to catch up to Intel, which shouldn't even be that hard since Intel has been moving forward at a snails pace for a while now. AMD has been getting lots of catch-up time and th

  • by keeboo (724305) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @04:30AM (#33672996)
    If you use your computer for heavier stuff like Qemu emulating weird architectures, heavy compilation, HD video and things like that:
    Go for the X4 models with 6MB L3 cache, it will do wonders with your aging AM2 motherboard (check for compatibility first, of course).

    Really, forget the 1 or 2MB L2-only models. Those are quite a disappointment for such tasks (to me? they're rubbish).
    I was considering a full upgrade to a Intel i5 (processor, mobo & memory) because my annoying sluggish old AMD Athlon 64. Frankly, my previous bad experiences with AMD processors (K6-1, old Athlons) did not help to form a positive opinion about the brand. But, hey, that Phenon processor was so cheap that I thought "heck, why not" and I was quite surprised.
  • Article neglects to mention that the processor prices are xxx dollars "each" if ordered in quantities of 1000 units or more not xxx dollars for 1000 units... and summary merely repeats the mistake...

    processor chips are not really this cheap...

  • by RogerWilco (99615) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @06:12AM (#33673384) Homepage Journal

    I think AMD really only One-upped Intel twice: When they were the first past the 1GHz mark and when they developed AMD64 while Intel was mucking around with Itanium.

    I've owned many non-Intel machines, the full list goes like this: Intel 8086-4.77, NEC V20-8, Cyrix 286-20, AMD 386-40, Cyrix 486DX2-66, AMD DX4-120, Cyrix P166+, AMD K6-300, AMD Duron-700, AMD K7-1,400, Intel PIV-3,06 Intel PentiumM-1,7, AMD Athlon64 X2-2,0, AMD Phenom X6-3,2

    I've never had any trouble with any of them, even though some had motherboard chipsets from SIS or VIA. The DX4-120, K6-300, K7-1,4 and all the newer ones are still running. (The DX4 is a stand-alone DOSbox for my dad to run some ancient software (on 360k floppies!), The K6 serves as a firewall somewhere, the K7 is used when my mom needs Windows (she's got 2 macbooks), the P4 is now in a laptop and now a media server, the PentiumM is in my current laptop, the Athlon64 is in my dads current computer and I run on the X6).
    Now I look at it, even though I left my parents over 15 years ago, they are still a kind of dumping ground for my old computers. :-D

  • by viking80 (697716) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @07:20AM (#33673702) Journal

    Have built systems for quite a few years, and it seems like you can overclock the hell out of intel chips using just good air coolers while AMD pretty much are running at peak speed. Both regarding heat and not crashing.

    Built a dual core core 2 Duo 1.83GHz. It is running stable at 3.5GHz.
    Intels 32nm i5-650 3.2GHz easily overclocks to 4.7GHz (not sure if stable yet)

    If you compare Intel with AMD after you take this headroom into account, intel is on par with if not more cost effective than AMD.

  • by Borealis (84417) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @07:55AM (#33673848) Homepage

    Frankly if they don't do the cheesy-as-hell activation fee like Intel is proposing [thetechherald.com] I'm sold.

COMPASS [for the CDC-6000 series] is the sort of assembler one expects from a corporation whose president codes in octal. -- J.N. Gray

Working...