Slashdot Mirror
AMD One-Ups Intel With Cheap Desktop Chips
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."
Intel will have an offering which provides equal performance for approximately the same price. I love AMD, thanks to them, it makes it possible for me to buy new Intel chips for less money all the time.
If only for the fact that their 6 cores at 3.0Ghz+ are slower than 4 i7 cores at 2.4Ghz, and their 6core chip costs more than the i7 920. So no, they are not "One Uping" anyone. Not to mention, you can overclock that i7 920 to 3.5Ghz, and it leaves the 6 amd cores at 4Ghz in the dust.
For highly distributed, memory intensive tasks, like AI and Simulations, i7 performs better than AMD's 6 core variants. The fact that you get 3 memory channels on the 1366 board also helps.
Never had any problems with their chips and they're far cheaper than intel. I like them.
The difference in cache size is real, the Intel i7-970 has 13.5MB of cache (L2 + 'smart'), whereas the AMD 1075T has 9MB (L2+L3) cache. I don't understand 'smart' cache well enough to say what that means for performance, but an extra 4.5MB of cache on the chip will surely push the price up.
Qxe4
The PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End show the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T as being nothing unusual in speed or price.
Shouldn't that read "$885/unit when buying 1,000 units"?
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!
Playing games at 18 watts and under!
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!
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Is that AMD's 6 core chip only competes against Intel's 4 core ship speed wise, and then only for apps that can use all 6 cores.
Currently Intel just has an untouchable performance advantage. Now, we'll have to see what the future holds. Both companies have new architectures coming soon. Intel's Sandy Bridge is in final production and slated to launch beginning of 2011, though only in the mainstream market at that time (the high end will come later in the year). AMD has a new architecture called Bulldozer that is supposed to come out in 2011 though they haven't been more specific as to when.
However as of right now, the Core i series kills anything AMD has. Their 6 core CPUs can only keep up with Intel's quads, and then not even the high end. They have nothing that touches Intel's 6 core line.
As such their prices are lower for any given part. They are a more budget solution, not a performance one.
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!
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
Never had any problems with her boobs, and they're far bigger than your sister's. I like them.
Yeah, because you should take aggregate data from three whole samples seriously.
Motorcycles, trucks... hmm, your analogy is nearly there, but there's something missing, I can't quite put my finger on it..
I know what it's missing: niggers!
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).
"And MY AXE!" was heard in the background..
When selling to a non-tech person, though, such things make little difference. Most aren't savvy enough to know the difference and mostly look at the number of cores and speeds as final arbiters on performance.
I'm a software engineer who has taken several courses on computer/processor architecture, etc... So I could look into the subject, read manufacturers' datasheets, google forum discussions and be able to distinguish what is brand evangelism and who actually seem to know what they're talking about and so on...
But am I really going to go through all that trouble? No.
When a friend asks me "Which one of these processors should I choose?", I'll look at the clockrates and the number of cores and make a suggestion based on how much multithreading I think he needs. If he is the type of a person who I should recommend to overclock (which does have its downsides, too) I might also do a quick google search about "[the model] + overclocking" to see if I see anything special.
It takes a lot of effort to keep up with the latest series from each brand in each area of hardware (display adapaters, processors, etc.)... So unless you actually need the $800 processors, work with them or they're your geek-specialization... You are most likely not going to care enough. ("Okay, the $300 processor wasn't the most optimal one? Damn. Well, it's probably good enough for the next few years, anyways.")
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/
Intel provides currently the highest buyable performance. But AMD provides the best performance for value. If you buy a 200euro amd you get the best bang for your buck. If you buy a 800 euro Intel you get more bang but pay more bucks per bang.
Intel offers no chip that provides the same bang for buck ratio as AMD. Hasn't done so in a long time.
That is why AMD is the choice for price concious buyers who want high performance on a budget and Intel for the rich people who simply want the most powerful CPU.
There are plenty of reviews comparing AMD vs Intel, Intel comes out ahead often but only by a small margin and for a HUGE price difference. Your choice wether you pay top money for minor gains.
Just as a super car costing 10x as much as a regular one isn't going to go ten times as fast. By that logic the Shuttle would have to break the speed of light.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
Could you explain that?
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
wow ! great ! sexe black gratuit
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...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
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). :-D
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.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
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.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
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.
I am not sure about the 1075T, but I picked up a 2.8Ghz 6-core and motherboard combo six months ago for $200. I would say that is WAY less than than "under $250 for 1,000 units", Also, at the time, the comparable Intel was around $480, and did not include the motherboard.
As other people have said, AMD gives you more bang for your buck, but Intels are cheaper. I will take this one step futher. Not sure if this is still true, but my experience have been that Intels are better at raw-number-crunching, whereas AMDs seem to handle multitasking better. On my six core, I can be processing h264 video over all six cores, still run photoshop and have it exporting a movie to my TV all at the same time. I would think the i7 could do that as well, but man, what a price jump!
Just think how fast that AMD cpu will be once you get the unlock card from Best Buy!
Seriously; AMD should run an ad campaign pointing out this latest Intel craven shenanigan.
I went Intel on my last build as I wanted the box to double as a Hackintosh multi-boot.
The idea was that the kids could bring their Elementary school-work home.
In practice, they prefer to use Windows and the box has spent next to no time running OSX.
(Usage probably breaks down 50% Windows 7 for Steam, 25% Ubuntu for Ubuntu upgrades, 25% XP for PIC and ARM programming.)
Back to AMD next build.
I bought a black six core AMD for the home and the money I saved I was able to install a SSD. Wow! Now my $1,500 home rig now beats my $3,800 four core Intel at work hands down. It nows pains me to have to sit at work waiting on this Intel computer to complete its tasks. I feel like seaking my AMD machine to work and showing it off. AMD home machine loads Windows 7 in about 11 seconds while my Intel work machine takes almost a minute - I typically can go get a cup of coffee and come back only to find my Intel work rig is still booting. Thank you AMD!
Frankly if they don't do the cheesy-as-hell activation fee like Intel is proposing I'm sold.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
You could buy one of these cheaper procs... ...but then you're still stuck using an AMD chip.
They're garbage from my experience. Open, cheap, and absolutely shitty fabrication.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
"...but we're not really coming up with anything really revolutionary.... Come on, people, innovate!"
''...Not saying the new CPUs aren't cool, but I just want to see what the next leap will be already! ..."
"...but AMD deserves a lot of credit for keeping the processor market competitive..."
When do we stop letting profit oriented corporations define the age's technological standards? It's no secret that a company will hold back technology in order to maximise profit.
I wonder where micorproessor thechnology would be today if there were more competition, real competition, where hardware companies are forced to keep up with technology instead of holding things back.(Think Microsoft and IE)
It's not like hardware manufacturers are doing anything special, they're just applying knowledge that is freely available.
Competition should be based on who can make the best designs.
So with all the knowledge out there, why can't I pick an open design and have non-profit-manufacturer-X make it for me at cost?
What's going on with open hardware?
It's hunting season around here, you insensitive clods!
Some of the benchmark programs are compiled with Intel's C++ compiler, which generates CPUID checks for the manufacturer string 'GenuineIntel' and redirects all other manufacturer's CPUs to the slowest code path. So if you can't compile the benchmark yourself with a trusted compiler, its not worth the paper its printed on.
Intel also releases several libraries that other software vendors use in their products; these libraries contain the same manufacturer check which cripples their performance on chips by AMD, Via, etc. Commercial software products such as Matlab have unintentionally or intentionally shipped with these checks, with the result that they run slower than necessary on AMD CPUs. When the manufacturer test is patched out of the program, it is un-crippled and runs as fast or faster than a comparable Intel chip.
Intel settled out of court with AMD over this, and are in the process of also settling with the FTC, but have not actually stopped the practice.
Thats is probably what I like best about AMD, able to turn one up on Intel everytime, so that intel (with the better product anyways) needs to lower their prices...and therefor will allow me to get their next gen CPU for much cheaper, way to go AMD, keep it up....
On a serious note, has anyone tried the phenom chip, can anyone say they actually like it, I have seen some benchmarks, nothing to get exited over, except the price...
For many years, the Intel C++ compiler has discriminated against non-Intel chips by detecting their manufacturer using CPUID and redirecting all chips not manufactured by 'GenuineIntel' to a slower code path. (And that manufacturer ID is their trademark so other manufacturers may not use it). C++ libraries available from Intel (such as their math libraries) also contain the same discriminatory code checks. This artificially decreases their performance on AMD's chips.
It makes Intel chips look better, by slowing down the program on all of their competitor's chips. So the safest thing is NOT to use Intel's compiler for anything (most especially benchmarking). This is a problem because it has a reputation of producing larger, but faster, code. (Faster on Intel processors at least!).
The code it produces is actually quite decent on AMD chips too, as long as you patch out the generated version checks to un-cripple the performance on AMD chips. You can do it as a post-build step after compiling. It's a hassle that most software vendors don't bother with -- in most cases they aren't even aware that Intel's compiler generates the manufacturer-checks and redirects their program through slower code paths on AMD chips.
My last system was an AMD build and I just built another right before he 6 core Phenoms came out. I play games and got Phenom II X4, Crosshair III motherboard, and a AMD5850 video card, 800W Corsair PS and a samsung LED. IBasically it amounted to the best an AMD system could offer at the time. The best Intel could offer was more than 1k more. Maybe some Intel systems benchmark higher than mine, but you CANNOT see the difference. That what pisses me off so much about benchmarks is that they are just numbers and people start saying what is what. Try a system, try the operations YOU will be performing on that system and then tell me whats worth it. Benchmarks are a guideline, nothing more. You think because Intel can encode faster that it is better? When was the last time John Doe encoded anything? When was the last time John Doe did anything other that look at porn and type in word. Most people could live with current Netbook performance for their daily tasks. Hell, the iPad seems to be enough for most people nowadays. You should always value your dollar, with any purchase, for anything. I will keep buying AMD until their performance does not match the price, but that won't be for a while cause I'll probably be able to put any next gen chip of theirs in my AM3 socket.
The i7-860 costs a lot more than a the X6 1075T
Sure the chip is only $20 more $250 vs $270 however you need a motherboard. i7 MB are notoriously expensive.
One can find a decent crossfire/SLI capable AM3 motherboard for $80 - $100. Not so with i7. Prices start at $160 and tier 1 brands are more like $180 - $200.
When you consider the additional cost of the motherboard your i7 solution is running 30% higher than the X6 platform. 30% higher for maybe 10% more performance.
Performance per $ is what matters. Sure you can get that i7 but it will cost you $100 more. Someone buying an X6 could spend that $100 on a better GPU making an overall better system.
Pure power Intel has always been a leader but many of their solutions fall apart in a price per value metric.
You may have to consider the cost (CPU+power) of your i7 vs the improvements you actually get. I typically throttle my i7 920 from 2.6GHz to 1.6Ghz in the summer to avoid heat (and also cut down on my power consumption).
I absolutely love launching make -j32, but it is rare. If you're a developer in the OpenOffice.Org team, it could make sense though.
Anybody know what the current state is of virtualization hardware support across the AMD line? I could certainly go look it up for these individual processors, but I'm curious to know, "all X's of the Y line have it".
I've been really happy with a couple recent builds I did with their 12-core parts, even at $750 each. Can these 6-core units handle dual-processor configs (clearly I'm just coming over to AMD from a long stint with Intel)?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
$76 per 1000 units is still more than 7,5 cent a piece. *sigh* and then you just got the cpu. Will computers ever become affordable?
OK as someone that follows this pretty closely I am not all that impressed just yet. I have done the research, and no AMD does not have the price/point value or advantage.
Firstly Intel's i5 will beat anything AMD has in 90% of benchmarks at the same price range. Secondly most people are hard pressed to use 2 cores let alone 4 or 6. Thirdly most developed software has a hard enough time using 2 cores, let alone 4, or 6. AMD's technology and die sizes is less advanced, and larger (which is not good). In certain specific situations AMD can have an advantage, but this is rare, and that must be all you plan on doing. So for instance if your using it for work, doing rendering, and that is all you are doing, and AMD has a benchmark advantage in the software you use for that, then sure go out and buy one. However for general usage, video games, etc... advantage Intel.
Someone did make the point that the AMD mother boards are cheaper, and this is true. However at the low or mid end the differance is only maybe 20% or 20-30$ so not all that significant really (at the high end yes their are some stupidly expensive intel MB out there, but who buys those anyway, not someone that is really worried about price or value I assume). Also the past has shown us that AMD makes just as many socket changes as Intel, they have simply delayed it due to not being on par with intel technology. It will happen, and then your 20% less costly MB will be 100% less compatible when they do change the standards, as you just bought at the end of a lifecycle.
Anyway like anything, it really comes down to your requirements, what you need, and what other components you plan on buying to make a complete system. Taking by their definition "components" and passing judgement may not be all that useful as you need to look at the whole system and what you plan to do with it. That said, if I were to go out and buy a new CPU tomorow it would be an Intel i5. AMD did have the advantage years ago, but ever since the Intel Core 2 Duo, AMD has been struggling to keep up. I sincerly hope that they will come out with something that trumps Intel technology, and takes back the technological advantage, as that would be the best thing for the market and the consumer. However simply slapping more cores on a solution it does not make.
Especially in third world countries, you'll find a US$25 difference can be huge. I know for a fact that in Brazil a US$70 chip is sold for US$150 because of absurd taxation. Now when you factor in the monetary convertion, you'll see that chip being sold for R$300. In a place where the average wage is R$1000, you'll find a US$25 difference in a motherboard to be huge. So AMD will have an enourmous advantage on these kinds of market. Funny thing is they tend to be all overrun with Intel processors, from what I've seen.
I currently use my 925 quad for video editing and audio creation, and even with multiple realtime Cubase amp sims it just purrs like a big kitten, the Radeon onboard was powerful enough I played SWAT 3 and Bioshock on it with decent framerates until my HD4650 arrived , and I've been selling AMD Neo based netbooks to those customers that were thinking of Atom. After getting their Neo and seeing how nicely it runs compared to an Atom all they do is rave, with the Radeon onboard making it a smooth multimedia portable.
Thanks
guitare occasion
Power/heat wins causing mass-production for servers could reduce price. Plus licensees price compete.
A Windows port would only need slow x86 emulation for non-.NET apps and could gain perf by using multiple CPUs during emulation, JIT, and mapping calls to native libs for performance.
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
Just as a side thought, amidst all this talk of how $900 is an obscene price for a 6-core processor --
It always amazes me how much we have grown to expect the price of amazing things to approach mundane everyday objects. Just think about how little you get for $900 in some of the other things you buy. For $900, you could probably buy a leather couch, a piece of hardware that you yourself could probably build if given a few months, no experience, a hammer and some wood.
Yet we still gripe about we can't believe how a 6-core processor is selling for the extortionate price of $900, a piece of hardware that took trillions of dollars in investment, many hundreds of thousands of people to develop, the great minds of our generations.
By some measures, then, $900 is cheap. But of course, it's all relative to what you come to expect...
Ahh, but for the $180 Fry's was (is? May be over today.) selling them for it was a hell of a deal at the speed and price.
I've been using AMD for about 4 years now, and recently purchased a new desktop, and decided that AMD is just was the way to go. Intel products (are great) but expensive, and as the frugal type of guy I am, I just can't justify the extra cost for Intel products.
Was ALi...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Yeah, Everyone knows Word and Facebook benefits a LOT from HT and multicore so average computer user RUSH to the store so they can buy the latest and greatest and they finally get good FPSs in farmvile. Oh and p0rn is more snappier (pun pun pun) with 12 cores /sarcasm
I simply take any benchmark as a grain of salt, it is well known the Intel optimizes their CPUs so they tweak themselves if they detect a benchmark application. Excuse me if I pass on the eV1agr4 I have better things in which spend the money for desktop components.