Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD One-Ups Intel With Cheap Desktop Chips

samzenpus posted about 4 years ago | from the price-war dept.

AMD 362

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."

cancel ×

362 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And 3 hours after reading this... (-1)

LostMyBeaver (1226054) | about 4 years ago | (#33672532)

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.

Re:And 3 hours after reading this... (5, Interesting)

haruchai (17472) | about 4 years ago | (#33672726)

I love AMD ( and buy them ) as they are good enough for what I do and have really been the ones driving x86 innovation for the last 10 years. They've made Intel a better Intel by forcing them to keep up and cutting cost. Things would be even better for the consumer if AMD were closer to Intel in fabrication prowess - Andy Grove's company isn't called
Chipzilla for nothing

Re:And 3 hours after reading this... (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 4 years ago | (#33672794)

Well after it came out that Intel was paying off OEMs [mashget.com] not to use AMD chips I switched all my builds for customers and myself to AMD after being a lifelong Intel+Nvidia man, and my customers and I couldn't be happier. The bang for the buck is just insane as is seen in TFA, their 95w quads give damned good performance without turning my apt into a space heater, and when paired with an ATI chipset you have a great platform at a great price.

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.

So please, if you care about having real competition in the market as I do, give AMD a try. We really don't want to go back to the bad old days, when Intel would charge insane money for even their shitty chips, and the new AMDs will do any job you throw at them quite well and quite affordable. And where else can you buy a dual kit for $250 [tigerdirect.com] a quad for $300 [tigerdirect.com] or a fully loaded monster 6 core for $580 [tigerdirect.com] ?

Re:And 3 hours after reading this... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33673226)

Intel still charges insane money for their chips.. they only lower it to a fair price after AMD forces them ...

Re:And 3 hours after reading this... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33672738)

Intel could compete on price... but..

Someone has to pay for intels retarded quasi-futuristic commercials playing on tv all day long.

And it won't be me.

Re:And 3 hours after reading this... (2, Interesting)

kestasjk (933987) | about 4 years ago | (#33672866)

I wonder what the $/performance ratio looks like, rather than $/core...

Re:And 3 hours after reading this... (3, Interesting)

Vectormatic (1759674) | about 4 years ago | (#33673230)

for the price segments where both AMD and intel are active in (so, that is the below $250 segment), $/performance is roughly equal, with AMD stealing some leads (and in some cases, very significant leads, in some segments intel only offers some insanely slow old celeron, where amd offers a x3 or so). AMD mostly wins because they are offering more cores/$. In single threaded performance, a c2d chip might just beat that athlon II x3, but as soon as threading comes into play, the 3rd core wins the battle for AMD

Taking all things into account (cpu/mobo), a performance equivalent AMD system will be somewhat cheaper then a comparable intel build

Personally i prefer AMD for that reason (not to mention i got into PC building in the amd 64 days, which might have contributed to my AMD preference)

Re:And 3 hours after reading this... (3, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | about 4 years ago | (#33673290)

Personally i prefer AMD for that reason (not to mention i got into PC building in the amd 64 days, which might have contributed to my AMD preference)

Ah yes, the very same reason I like Lotus for office productivity software and FoxPro for databases; once a computing great, always a computing great, and you've got to stay loyal of course.

Re:And 3 hours after reading this... (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | about 4 years ago | (#33673342)

considering you say you like lotus, i guess my sarcasm detector must be on the fritz...

anyway, i prefer AMD, but that is not to say i will ONLY buy AMD, that wouldnt make sense anyway (in fact, my file server is a core 2 Duo, my small experimentel webserver is a dothan based celeron)

? Do you really think Intels are 4x faster (4, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 4 years ago | (#33672944)

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.

Re:? Do you really think Intels are 4x faster (1)

Barny (103770) | about 4 years ago | (#33673132)

Yeah, I have been building a TON of PCs of late with the Athelon II 635 in them, so much horsepower for so little cash, and you can throw 8G of ram at it and it will be a missile of a rig :)

Re:? Do you really think Intels are 4x faster (5, Funny)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33673304)

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.

That's all very well, but how many bangs could a bangbuck buck if a bangbuck could bang bucks?

Re:? Do you really think Intels are 4x faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33673520)

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.

That's all very well, but how many bangs could a bangbuck buck if a bangbuck could bang bucks?

500! We've discussed this before.

Re:? Do you really think Intels are 4x faster (2, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33673518)

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.

The Core i7-860 spanks everything AMD has at $280 @ newegg, there's only a few odd benchmarks AMDs $300 top six-core CPU wins. Then entire market from $250+ and up is Intel, Intel, Intel. The $100 market AMD wins, but their value gets worse the closer you come to the high end. You make it sounds like Intel only owns the Ferrari market, when in reality they own the whole $50,000+ car market.

Re:And 3 hours after reading this... (2, Interesting)

beelsebob (529313) | about 4 years ago | (#33673004)

Intel already does have chips that compete with at the same price. The i5 760 will beat these in pretty much any task, and costs $208. So it doesn't have 6 cores, but it is sufficiently faster on a per-core basis that it doesn't matter.

Re:And 3 hours after reading this... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33673050)

nope [anandtech.com]

Re:And 3 hours after reading this... (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 4 years ago | (#33673320)

Yup [anandtech.com]
and
Yup [anandtech.com]
and
Yup [anandtech.com]

So basically, the i5 760 will beat it handily at pretty much everything except for one embarassingly parallel task.

Good game though.

Re:And 3 hours after reading this... (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | about 4 years ago | (#33673438)

You know "parallel" when you're not running a just a benchmark and you're not running a big server or HPC load means "desktop", right? How often do you only have one application running? Multiple processes go to multiple cores just like multiple threads do.

That would be all nice and dandy if only... (-1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33672542)

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.

Re:That would be all nice and dandy if only... (4, Interesting)

tacarat (696339) | about 4 years ago | (#33672668)

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. It's like explaining that while a motorcycle engine may have higher RPMs, a truck has more torque and can move big loads better. Hell, that's the simplest analogy I know for modern chip comparisons and it still goes over some people's heads.

Then, of course, is the SUV-that-never-goes-offroad-computing crowd that throw down big bucks so they can have 3D accelerated, multicore/non-multithreaded MS Spider Solitaire. God bless them.

Re:That would be all nice and dandy if only... (5, Funny)

joss (1346) | about 4 years ago | (#33672690)

Motorcycles, trucks... hmm, your analogy is nearly there, but there's something missing, I can't quite put my finger on it..

EOM: Equal Opportunity Missing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33672706)

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!

Re:That would be all nice and dandy if only... (1)

smallfries (601545) | about 4 years ago | (#33672788)

Is it like he is standing in the garage, about to drive to work, when he realises that his keys are still in the hall?

It's not just about tech-savvyness... But time (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33672778)

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.")

Re:That would be all nice and dandy if only... (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | about 4 years ago | (#33672720)

Oh, so you've already got a hand on and benchmarked these new chips?

No, you haven't. We'll have to see.

Re:That would be all nice and dandy if only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33672872)

We already know how slow the Phenom II quad core is. This "new" six core design is almost identical, only with two more cores slapped on. So yes, we can easily gauge its performance without ever touching it.

Also, this [cpubenchmark.net] .

Re:That would be all nice and dandy if only... (1)

kestasjk (933987) | about 4 years ago | (#33672890)

True, but realistically AMD aren't going to have developed & released a radically new arch at a budget price without telling anyone.

Re:That would be all nice and dandy if only... (4, Insightful)

cbope (130292) | about 4 years ago | (#33672772)

Not completely true, it depends on the application. In highly threaded tasks, AMD's 6-core will handily beat that i7 running at 2.4GHz (and even the higher clocked models without HT). Just check the latest benchmarks at Anandtech or Tom's hardware. In apps that are not heavily threaded, yes, Intel may win. But more and more apps are becoming multi-threaded and this will only increase in the future. AMD's current 6-cores are more future-proof than Intel's current platform. Not to mention that Intel loves to switch sockets every fucking generation, while AMD is able to keep sockets the same across many generations while staying competitive.

I use both AMD and Intel, so I am not terribly biased one way or the other, but AMD deserves a lot of credit for keeping the processor market competitive. Without AMD or another strong competitor, we would all be paying $1000 for our CPU's form Intel and we would still be stuck with Netburst.

Re:That would be all nice and dandy if only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33673016)

I assume you haven't bothered to look at those latest Anandtech benchmarks yourself. If you did you would have noticed that AMD doesn't generally win with heavily threaded apps in those benchmarks. As you can see on the latest Anandtech benchmarks a Core i7 860 (2.8 GHz, 4 cores) will get similar results as a Phenom II X6 1075T (3 GHz, 6 Cores), often it will be ahead of the AMD chip. Since the Core i7 are usually benchmarked with Turbo mode disabled the numbers should even be a little better in real life than in those tests. Then there is Hyperthreading which does help for heavily threaded apps, as tests with x264 have shown.
The AMD CPUs look better on paper, but that doesn't hold up in the real world. It's just like with Intels Pentium 4 CPUs that boasted huge clock rates but weren't much faster than lower clocked Athlon XPs. Unlike Intel CPUs back then the current AMD offering is a little cheaper, so it's still a good buy.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3937/amds-fall-refresh-new-phenom-ii-and-athlon-ii-cpus-balance-price-and-performance/1

Re:That would be all nice and dandy if only... (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | about 4 years ago | (#33672786)

How can you say they're slower when they've just announced them?! There is no possible way you have demoed these 6 core chips.

Re:That would be all nice and dandy if only... (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | about 4 years ago | (#33673272)

The 1075T is a new chip, but the 1055T and 1090T have been out for months, same six cores, same cache, just a slightly lower/higher clock speed

Re:That would be all nice and dandy if only... (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about 4 years ago | (#33672928)

**Citation needed

I like AMD (0, Offtopic)

Haedrian (1676506) | about 4 years ago | (#33672546)

Never had any problems with their chips and they're far cheaper than intel. I like them.

Re:I like your mom. (-1, Troll)

Elbereth (58257) | about 4 years ago | (#33672686)

Never had any problems with her boobs, and they're far bigger than your sister's. I like them.

Re:I like AMD (1)

smash (1351) | about 4 years ago | (#33672846)

I have had problems with AMDs in the past, but it wasn't the CPUs. The CPUs have always been fine, but often to support them you need to go to some busted-arse chipset from VIA, SLI or Nvidia.

Admittedly it has been some time now since I've had a non-intel box (because of previous bad experiences with non-intel machines), but the most overlooked aspect of building a box is, imho the chipset.

Now AMD appear to be building a lot more of the chipset either into the CPU or GPU (now they've purchased ATI) i might give htem another shot.

Re:I like AMD (2, Funny)

smash (1351) | about 4 years ago | (#33672856)

SLI = something else. I forget the company, probably gone bust now. Chipset vendor from the late 90s onwards...

Re:I like AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33672992)

MSI?

Re:I like AMD (1)

smash (1351) | about 4 years ago | (#33673282)

Yeah, MSI i think. Either way, chipsets are the problem more often than CPUs...

Re:I like AMD (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | about 4 years ago | (#33673478)

AMD and NVidia are really the only players in AMD board chipsets these days, and AMD chipsets are on all the really well-performing boards anyway. The tight memory timings you can get with the recent AMD chipsets are great. Now, if only they'd leapfrog Intel's triple-channel and go quad-channel for memory modules, you'd see some really nice performance.

I know some Intel chips outrun AMD chips, but after the whole Randal Schwartz fiasco, Intel refusing to do 64-bit extensions to ia32 because they were counting on Itanium (then bringing out EMT64 as a knockoff of AMD) and messing around with the FSB for so long until they took AMD's lead again for the on-die memory controller, I'll keep rewarding AMD for the way they do business and push the market forward.

I do buy Intel chips sometimes, usually used. Most of my systems are AMD, though, and through the years although I've been mnostly happy with both brands I've been more happy with AMD.

Re:I like AMD (1)

Elbereth (58257) | about 4 years ago | (#33673212)

ALI (Acer Labs, which eventually got spun off from Acer, I believe). There was also SIS (Silicon Integrated Systems) and OPTi.

But, yeah, the chipsets were usually the problem. I never had a problem with Nvidia's chipsets, personally, but I hear other people have. I'm not sure what kind of wonky add-in cards they were using, but I loaded my systems with lots of stuff, with no issue. There was that one Nvidia chipset that caused hard drive corruption when you used it with a Sound Blaster, but I skipped that one.

Re:I like AMD (1)

smash (1351) | about 4 years ago | (#33673300)

Yeah thats the problem nvidia chipset i was talking about.

Its a damn shame, because AMD have had some fine CPUs in the past - but typically the motherboard selection was pretty bad. I lost count of the number of broken VIA chipset problems I dealt with and just got sick of it.

Went to an intel BX chipset P2-350 (back in the day) and never looked back.

Its not just AMD affected though i might add - other motherboards for intel i have had wierd buggy shit on. Ended up just going for intel desktop board + intel cpu and have had very minimal problems since.

If there's a decent AMD CPU + motherboard offering available, I'll give it a shot.

Problem is, plenty of hardware review sites focus on benchmarks, and differences in SiSoft benchmarks, or FPS ratings, when i just don't care about 1-5% performance increases. I just want the box to behave properly and work.

I don't want to be dealing with wierd and wonderful bios/chipset issues. I guess its why I like Macs so much these days... if it doesn't work, there's only one vendor to blame :)

Re:I like AMD (1)

Calinous (985536) | about 4 years ago | (#33673364)

Frankly, there was a time when motherboard reviews from Anandtech presented the number of times the board crashed during testing. It then went lower and lower, then they only crashed when using interleaved memory banks, then they didn't crash at all during normal use.
      Or maybe the crashes weren't reported any longer.

Re:I like AMD (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | about 4 years ago | (#33673288)

ALI/ULI

They were bought out by nvidia i think, after they did a last hura for the amd 64, with a chipset which had both PCI-e and native AGP, asrock built some very good boards with their chips.

anyway, as long as you stick to the pick of the day, AMD has some good chips, in the athlon days, VIA KT266/333, Athlon XP > Nforce 2, amd 64 > Nforce 3/4, after that ATI picked up the gauntlet, and these days you just want an AMD/ATI chipset, excellent integrated graphics and performance.

Just keep in mind that picking the right chipset isnt enough if the mobo was designed crappy, i've had a MSI nforce 2 mobo which was SHIT, despite previous good experiences with the NF2 chipset

cache difference (0, Offtopic)

phantomfive (622387) | about 4 years ago | (#33672566)

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.

Re:cache difference (4, Interesting)

Ecuador (740021) | about 4 years ago | (#33672700)

The cache difference would not explain the price (or the transistor difference, 1.1bil vs 0.9bil), since we are talking about 3x+ the price. It is just that Intel enjoys a speed advantage so AMD has to pit its hexa-cores against Intel's quad-cores. And because, as it has always been, Intel is the more "recognized" brand, AMD makes sure that it gives you more performance for the price.
It has been the same deal since my first ever PC: I could get, for about the same price, either an intel 486@66 or an AMD 486@100. My next was an AMD-K6 @ 233 which cost as much as the Pentium MMX 200 (yeah, the K6 lagged behind a PII, but it was no match for the Pentium MMX). Then I went with some Athlons, you remember how those did vs P3 at first, and then, even easier against P4. I am not a fanboy, but on a budget so I did get a Core 2 E8400 at some point because that was the only time I was buying a PC and AMD did not have a performance advantage at my desired price point. Now I am mainly on a Phenom II X4.
But I digress, the point is that the Intel CPU's have traditionally been priced based on how much they can go for, not how much they cost. So right now they can get away with things like $1000 CPU's. If it wasn't for AMD, it would be like the 90's where they had mainstream cpu's at $1000, not just high end ones.

Re:cache difference (2, Interesting)

Eskarel (565631) | about 4 years ago | (#33672922)

AMD might try to give you more performance for the price now, and when they started they certain did, but remember that AMD are in the boat they are now largely because they used the advantage they gained from Intel's Itanium blunder to sell $400 mid range chips. Intel won their market back because AMD got greedy and Intel under cut them by about 50% with faster chips.

AMD have no high end, with no high end they cannot survive because today's high end is tomorrow's mid range. You need to be tooling up that process 6 - 12 months in advance to compete. As much as I love AMD(I bought AMD for years, until my most recent PC), they're done.

Re:cache difference (2, Insightful)

Corporate Troll (537873) | about 4 years ago | (#33673114)

AMD have no high end, with no high end they cannot survive because today's high end is tomorrow's mid range.

I would agree, 5 to 10 years ago. Alas, I don't anymore. We are at a performance plateau, where the user (normal, we're not talking special-case) can be perfectly happy with 5 year old machines (I'm a dumpster diver, good P-IV or AMD XP machines can be found there). Any machine in the 2.0GHz range (give or take) will cover the needs of users.

CPU makers are at the point where people who need more CPU power will have to be willing to pay for it. All the rest can go with whatever is cheapest. Intel knows this, hence the Atom. I built an Atom desktop based on the D410PT motherboard for my mother in law running Ubuntu 10.04. At no point performance has been a problem.

Tomorrows "desktop" CPUs won't be the "top-of-the-line" of today. They will be the scaled-down, power-efficient CPUs that won't deliver as much power, but enough for the end-user. All other will have to pay premium to get more power.

Unless we suddenly get a big craving for extra CPU power, that's how it's going to go.

Re:cache difference (1)

cyberjessy (444290) | about 4 years ago | (#33673188)

AMD is not done, in fact quite the opposite.

2011 will have some of AMDs most anticipated releases ever, Bulldozer and Bobcat. Also decent graphics are no longer a luxury, it is a necessity even in phones and tablets. Intel makes terrible graphics cards, while AMD makes the best performing ones available today. 2011 will see more widespread adoption of integrated CPU+GPU solutions (from both Intel and AMD), and guess who will hold the advantage there.

Re:cache difference (4, Interesting)

tyrione (134248) | about 4 years ago | (#33673192)

AMD might try to give you more performance for the price now, and when they started they certain did, but remember that AMD are in the boat they are now largely because they used the advantage they gained from Intel's Itanium blunder to sell $400 mid range chips. Intel won their market back because AMD got greedy and Intel under cut them by about 50% with faster chips.

AMD have no high end, with no high end they cannot survive because today's high end is tomorrow's mid range. You need to be tooling up that process 6 - 12 months in advance to compete. As much as I love AMD(I bought AMD for years, until my most recent PC), they're done.

Not even close. Bulldozer architecture, merged with their rock solid GPGPU structure in OpenCL is a reality and a fundamental architecture design shift that Intel will work at copying.

Re:cache difference (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33673526)

If it wasn't for AMD, it would be like the 90's where they had mainstream cpu's at $1000, not just high end ones.

Would that be a bad thing? If regular people couldn't afford powerful CPU's, software makers would be force to optimize for less juice. Everything, from Flash and browser and Javascript, to games and office apps, would have to run well with less CPU power. Would that be all bad?

Re:cache difference (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 4 years ago | (#33673160)

No, the difference in performance is all it takes to explain it. The 1075T is roughly as fast as a Core i5 760, which is about $40 cheeper than it.

Re:cache difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33673470)

The cache on the Intel chip is only there because the can.

Intel's magor advantage over AMD in the past, but still to an extent today, has been cache size. The processes they use are so bullet proof that they can pack cache in and still not get defects.

AMD on the other hand have to keep killing cache units due to defects, space them out more and even worse, build their chips on bigger processes for longer.

So Intel pack extra cache on not because it gives a massive performance boost, but just because they can and AMD can't.

AMD One-Ups Intel? Another misleading Slash story. (4, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 4 years ago | (#33672576)

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.

Re:AMD One-Ups Intel? Another misleading Slash sto (1, Interesting)

Lueseiseki (1189513) | about 4 years ago | (#33672692)

Yeah, because you should take aggregate data from three whole samples seriously.

Re:AMD One-Ups Intel? Another misleading Slash sto (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33673066)

Could you explain that?

$885 per 1,000 units? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33672580)

Shouldn't that read "$885/unit when buying 1,000 units"?

Re:$885 per 1,000 units? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33672600)

No, it's really that cheap.
--
Tavis Ormandy, asshole extraordinare.

Pricing error in this article (4, Informative)

jcrawfordor (1761828) | about 4 years ago | (#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!

Re:Pricing error in this article (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33672666)

mmmmmmm.... I think we figured that one out, thanks.

Re:Pricing error in this article (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33672760)

seriously? but i already bought a thousand of them.

Their ULV processors are pretty impressive, too (4, Interesting)

mykos (1627575) | about 4 years ago | (#33672602)

Re:Their ULV processors are pretty impressive, too (0)

ray-solomon (835248) | about 4 years ago | (#33672640)

What games? FarmVille?

Re:Their ULV processors are pretty impressive, too (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33672652)

You know, if you clicked the link....

Re:Their ULV processors are pretty impressive, too (-1, Offtopic)

Arimus (198136) | about 4 years ago | (#33672696)

FarmVille? That ain't a game its a scam to part deluded idiots from their cash or waste more time worrying that their virtual cow hasn't been milked or their crops are rotting in the field when they should be doing something else (like worrying whether they remembered to fuel the bloody POS in eve).

Re:Their ULV processors are pretty impressive, too (0)

FranTaylor (164577) | about 4 years ago | (#33673058)

de gustbus non est disputandem

we are talking about how well it runs, not whether you like it or not

Re:Their ULV processors are pretty impressive, too (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | about 4 years ago | (#33673388)

I was just about to yell at you about your irrational hatred of Farmville when you managed to turn it into praise for your (most likely irrationalas well) love for EVE.

So, about that POS...any shiny labs in there? ;-)

nothing new (5, Interesting)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | about 4 years ago | (#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 (3, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | about 4 years ago | (#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.

Budget (3, Interesting)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 4 years ago | (#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.

The thing I think you miss (1, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 4 years ago | (#33672680)

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.

Re:The thing I think you miss (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | about 4 years ago | (#33672712)

you seem to know these things. I have two types of problems I'm interested in: pseudo-spectral simulations and point particle trajectory integration. for the first, I need to perform many FFTs; for the second, I have many small single-process jobs (can only assign individual jobs to individual cores).
would I be better off with the 6 core AMD, or the 4 core Intel?

Re:The thing I think you miss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33672752)

You'll probably want to go with i7 1366 board. I'm also doing Physics simulations using MPI, and the higher memory throughput helps a lot. i7 also has hyperthreading, which further helps if you can fully utilise. Intel chips do more per clock cycle, so you're not really losing on the non threaded applications. If you're using a 1 socket board, go with the W series, which can easily overclock to 4.0ghz and stay cool, they cost on par with i7 930. If you're going for 2 socket, then still Intel... If you go for a 4 socket with an extension board for another 4 sockets, then go with AMD 6+ cores. In the 4 socket setup its worth going AMD for the price advantage.

Re:The thing I think you miss (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 4 years ago | (#33673002)

Sounds like you might have a job for a GPU. GPUs absolutely rock at FFTs and if your single-process jobs are simple enough you may be able to run hundreds of them simultaneously on each GPU. Current generation GPUs support double-precision floating point if you need it and also ECC memory to guard against random bit errors corrupting your calculations. ECC is definitely the way to go if you need reliable results, whether it be GPU or CPU.

Re:The thing I think you miss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33673442)

Sounds like you might have a job for a GPU. GPUs absolutely rock at FFTs and if your single-process jobs are simple enough you may be able to run hundreds of them simultaneously on each GPU.

Now if only my regular compiler would allow me to take advantage of the GPU.

Re:The thing I think you miss (1)

Boycott BMG (1147385) | about 4 years ago | (#33673292)

If you want to do those things I suggest an Nvidia Fermi GPGPU. Of course, in order to use them you will need to know how to take advantage of them. Fortunately, Nvidia has a written CUDA plugins and other ways to use them in, for instance Matlab, so you don't have to write everything yourself.

Re:The thing I think you miss (2, Interesting)

seifried (12921) | about 4 years ago | (#33672780)

They have nothing that touches Intel's 6 core line.

I'm pretty sure the AMD 12 core CPUs will "touch" Intel's 6 core CPUs quite nicely (locally they are both about $1200 retail from the store).

Re:The thing I think you miss (2, Informative)

obarthelemy (160321) | about 4 years ago | (#33672904)

"performance" by itself doesn't mean anything. You have to refer to "performance per dollar" or "performance per watt" or ... that's why you don't see everyone buying the top of the line CPU... There's a bunch of stuff that offers the highest performance, and that doesn't really sell much, if at all: fighter jets, formula 1 cars, thoroughbreds... We might feel all sexy at the idea of owning one of those, but the bare fact is, we can't afford it, and, when push comes to shove, we would be stupid to, anyway.

talking about perf/price, AMD is not that bad, especially for run-of-the-mill levels of performance, and once you take the MB cost into account (why are Intel's MB so much more expensive ?). On a fixed budget, I'd rather scrimp on the CPU/MB, and put more into the GPU and disks, because that's what limiting my PC, right now.

talking about perf/watt... I'm not running a server farm, I don't care. Intal is ahead, though.

Re:The thing I think you miss (0)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 years ago | (#33672954)

and then only for apps that can use all 6 cores

Or multiple applications like you will see in your process manager all of the time. Also you can also bet that developers are all being dragged into the 1990s and they'll eventually start using those extra processors. This is beginning to look like a post I made from a dual Celeron 300 when Slashdot was only a year or two old, but most of the time there is something another processor can do which lets the main task finish more quickly.

Re:The thing I think you miss (3, Interesting)

FranTaylor (164577) | about 4 years ago | (#33673078)

Price/performance is not the criterion here. There are applications where this is important, but an average desktop user is not one of them.

These systems are all quite bloody fast enough for "normal" desktops. The question is :how much does it cost? and AMD will get you a much better price for this class of machine.

Re:The thing I think you miss (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | about 4 years ago | (#33673452)

Yes, the best AMD CPU is slower than the best Intel CPU, and probably slower than the second best Intel CPU too. However, AMD usually has better price/performance ratio, so if I do not want the fastest CPU there is, I should probably buy an AMD product.

Same thing was when I was looking for a video card ~3 years ago. The new ATI HD2900XT was slower than the best nVidia card, but the nVidia card was much more expensive. HD2900XT was faster than the nVidia card that had a similar price.

Re:The thing I think you miss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33673512)

For single-threaded tasks, Intel's Core i series is still the winner, but for multi-threaded apps (and multiple applications) I'll stick with my my dual 12-core Opteron system (the one that will hopefully turn up at my door in a couple of weeks).

I'm looking forward to putting that mother through its paces.

Technology (1)

Jethro (14165) | about 4 years ago | (#33672684)

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:Technology (2, Informative)

Vectormatic (1759674) | about 4 years ago | (#33672740)

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 single core am2 chip, put in a $60-70 X3 and be amazed!

Re:Technology (1)

Jethro (14165) | about 4 years ago | (#33672768)

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't cool, but I just want to see what the next leap will be already! I didn't spend most my life reading science fiction to NOT have light-based computers yet!

Re:Technology (2, Interesting)

Vectormatic (1759674) | about 4 years ago | (#33672878)

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

Re:Technology (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | about 4 years ago | (#33673490)

Wasn't the last real leap on x86 when AMD provided an upgrade path to AMD64 aka EM64T aka x86_64?

Re:Technology (1)

Nursie (632944) | about 4 years ago | (#33672850)

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.

Re:Technology (1)

Jethro (14165) | about 4 years ago | (#33673018)

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

Legacy Implementation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33672708)

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:Legacy Implementation (2, Informative)

petermgreen (876956) | about 4 years ago | (#33672860)

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.

gay elves protest shield surfing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33672718)

"And MY AXE!" was heard in the background..

Initial review... (5, Informative)

Freddybear (1805256) | about 4 years ago | (#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]

Re:Initial review... (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | about 4 years ago | (#33673062)

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 they have been blowing it. I hope they can turn that around. Instead of beating intel at their own game of massive SMP they should be trying to beat them at single threaded performance. The majority of the apps I use on a daily basis are still single threaded.

a tip on buying AMD processors (3, Interesting)

keeboo (724305) | about 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:a tip on buying AMD processors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33673086)

I wouldn't make such a blanket statement. I'm running on an Athlon II X3 425, and I've been quite happy with it. For anyone considering buying from AMD, check benchmarks to see whether or not the additional L3 cache makes a difference. There actually are tasks out there that do not benefit so much from additional cache, believe it or not.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2775/6

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-athlon-ii-x2_9.html

Depending on what tasks you care about, it may matter more than you think. Or it may matter less than you think.

Re:a tip on buying AMD processors (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | about 4 years ago | (#33673100)

If you're feeling more spendy you can get a multi-socket Opteron 2000 or 6000 series server motherboard from SuperMicro or TYAN. With lots of RAM and 12-16 cores, you can emulate a whole room full of computers.

Great (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33673222)

wow ! great ! sexe black [top-sexe-black.com] gratuit

Vital missing info... (1)

advocate_one (662832) | about 4 years ago | (#33673266)

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...

CPU manufacturers and I have a history (4, Interesting)

RogerWilco (99615) | about 4 years ago | (#33673384)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?