Things AMD can do to take on Conroe...

$BangforThe$ said:
There is little reason to doubt Conroe given the performance of Yonah on the Aopen 975 cipset M/B .

I am more interested in weather or not AMD can drop the price's of the FX60 to around $300 dollars and still maintain a profit . If they can a FX60 @ $300 would be a sweet deal. Slower than Conroe but still a very nice Cpu for $300.
Click to expand...

yea well that review that you keep on touting is a little skewed imo. and if you are asking amd to lower the prices of their fx models b/c of price/performance than i guess intel is well behind your expectation with its pentium EE series.
 
How is that review skewed . Ananda tech did the review and that site has always been AMD biased. With the Conroe coming I bet Intel is selling those P4 EE like hot cakes LOL. Why would I even consider the P4 EE its got little life left.Were as the FX60 is amd top of the line chip for a while yet. Yonah slaps the shit out of P4 EE. It also beats AMD X2 @ 2.8 GHz . I agree the yonah reviews of 2 months ago were skewed 1 & 2 but this review placed both cores on top of the line m/b's . What part was skewed.

You link to any review you like with an X2 running @ 2.8ghz. and lets do a comparsion
 
reread my last statement please. its easy to answer a question when you completely misinturpretate it. for the past 2 years P4 EE's have been crap incomparrison to A64's. using your logic intel should have been selling said chips for 300 dollars. so like i said you must have been a very unhappy customer with intel given your logic. i also dont see how the conroe has anything to do with P4 EE's being sold LOL...

as for that review i question why they did more tweaking for the intel setup than the amd setup. also the statements regarding overclocking difficulty are very very very moot points to bring up. i highly doubt he popped in the intel chip, did absolutely no bios tweaking, and just oc'ed the chip to 2.8ghz. so what he got it perfect the first time, assumidly, with the intel chip and it took him a second go at the amd chip? i find that hardly worth mentioning even if i was intentionaly trying to cast the amd chip in a bad light.

also never have i said anything negative about the conroe, if nothing else i've repeatedly said that i plan on buying one. i've also said countless times that these "previews" are hardly going to be the deciding factor in my purchase of a conroe. so no i wont be able to get you that "link" for a few more months as their are no retail am2 or conroe chips on the market yet.
 
amd is probably not gonna drop the price of the fx-60 or later below ~$1000.... and definitely not to $300

thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard

FX-53's still go for around $300
 
$BangforThe$ said:
How is that review skewed
Click to expand...

well, the one thing I thought Anandtech did wrong was to give the Opteron 3-3-3 timings on the memory, even at stock speeds, while over-volting the DDR2 667 on Yonah to achieve the same timings.
I don't think they would have been able to hold tight timings on the overclocked Opteron, but surely testing 3-3-3 DDR2 667 (the best commercially availible, and very expensive in the 2x1gb setup: $300 and up) against DDR1 @ 200mhz with the worst possible timings is going to alter the results to an extent.
At stock speeds, 2-2-2 timings for the Opteron and 4-3-3 or 4-4-4 would be more realistic, and more indicative of real world setups. Though I suppose I can understand the use of 3-3-3 DDR2 667 for yonah.

(Not bad mouthing Yonah, if I had $800 laying around I'd be getting that exact setup Anandtech was testing...)
 
FreiDOg said:
well, the one thing I thought Anandtech did wrong was to give the Opteron 3-3-3 timings on the memory, even at stock speeds, while over-volting the DDR2 667 on Yonah to achieve the same timings.
Click to expand...

bingo and this was one of my main gripes with the review. they tweaked the intel setup more so than the amd setup. it makes no sense. the stock setting for the ddr2 they were using was supposed to be 4-4-4-12 yet they tweaked it 3-3-3-8. then they go around fubber up the ddr1 from 2-2-2-4 to 3-3-3-8. i mean wtf?
 
DemonDiablo said:
bingo and this was one of my main gripes with the review. they tweaked the intel setup more so than the amd setup. it makes no sense. the stock setting for the ddr2 they were using was supposed to be 4-4-4-12 yet they tweaked it 3-3-3-8. then they go around fubber up the ddr1 from 2-2-2-4 to 3-3-3-8. i mean wtf?
Click to expand...
Well for 2x1Gb modules what's fair would probably be

DDR400 2-3-2-5
DDR2 667 3-3-3-x

To my knowledge there just isn't any DDR400 in 2x1Gb capacity rated for 2-2-2 at the factory set timings.
 
coldpower27 said:
Well for 2x1Gb modules what's fair would probably be

DDR400 2-3-2-5
DDR2 667 3-3-3-x

To my knowledge there just isn't any DDR400 in 2x1Gb capacity rated for 2-2-2 at the factory set timings.
Click to expand...

Kingston's HyperX 2GB kit is 2-2-2-5. (but it's the only one, most 2x1gb parts are 2-3-2 or 2-3-3 as you say).

And personaly, I think I would have liked to see a 4-x-x DDR2 667. ~$300 for 2gb of 3-3-3 DDR2 667 is a lot of money, $150 for 4-4-4 DDR2 667 (and around the same for 2-x-2 DDR400) is more realistic for most people - or at least for me. While it's probably only a percentage point or three in most tests, it would be good info on the effect of memory latency on Yonah.
 
DemonDiablo said:
bingo and this was one of my main gripes with the review. they tweaked the intel setup more so than the amd setup. it makes no sense. the stock setting for the ddr2 they were using was supposed to be 4-4-4-12 yet they tweaked it 3-3-3-8. then they go around fubber up the ddr1 from 2-2-2-4 to 3-3-3-8. i mean wtf?
Click to expand...

Could you show me a review were they O/C a X2 opty 165 to 2.8ghz and hold tight timings.
 
$BangforThe$ said:
Could you show me a review were they O/C a X2 opty 165 to 2.8ghz and hold tight timings.
Click to expand...

yea b/c its real hard to find a review of an oc'ed 165 with better timings than 3-3-3-8 amirite? half the people on these boards can probably tell you they have higher oc's with better mem settings.
 
Even with tight timings, the Opty 165 would only see atmost a 2% increase over ram running at 2-2-2.
 
I asked for a link of a reputable review site O/C a opty 165 with tighter timings and you tell me that lots of people around do it. Thats not cutting it . A link to a site with a stable O/C is required . Other wize its just hear say.!
 
freeloader1969 said:
Even with tight timings, the Opty 165 would only see atmost a 2% increase over ram running at 2-2-2.
Click to expand...

i know tighting up the mem settings isnt going to make an overwhelming comeback. however its just the fact that they would tweak the stock settings of the mem for the intel setup in a positive way and then turn around and tweak the mem settings of the amd setup in a negative way. what gives? also in a lot of those benchmarks they were running neck to neck, meh.
 
J_I_M_B_O said:
Well, now that I think of it, I don't really care what happens to AMD or Intel, as long as we get powerful processors what so we care?
For some reason I've always favored Intel, but I bought an amd because it's more powerful
Click to expand...


Remember how Intel just sat on the 3.2 GHz P4 for over a year? They didn't take competition seriously and did nothing. They're getting owned so they're taking all their money they got from selling craptacular CPU's via OEM and are trying to put AMD out of business. If that happens, by 2010, all we have is a slightly faster Conroe. Fast now, not fast later. Intel doesn't give crap about consumers and would be perfectly happy selling the same CPU to OEMs for the next 10 years. Their research would be motivated by getting yields higher, and perhaps a few token MHz to make it look like they're still focused on speed. I would really like it if AMD pwned Intel for a few more years and got about 50% market share. Then they could duke it out all they want, I I'd just buy what ever is faster. But right now Intel's only competition is an uphill battle against moron CEO's with Intel contracts, even though AMD is way better than anything Intel currently has.
 
A problem for AMD right now is that people forget the real costs behind the CPU..

Not only if you make a new architecture and design, you will have to make a whole new fabrication process, an probablly many iterations of the processor to get it working correctly. I mean engineering alone there is beyond what we could imagine. Throw that together with retooling, and we aren't talking a simple soldermask stencil. That is going to cost you a lot of cash.

So it makes sense for AMD to sit on their curent platform for as long as they could, even Intel did it with the lackluster Netburst, because retooling and new fab production is terribly expensive even for them. Even with the release of Conroe, AMD will probablly sell well, and make decent profits. While, I do not think they are sitting idle on their hands, they also realize a hasty venture to the likes of a 65nm process could cost them a considerable bulk, and destroy any profit they had going.
 
$BangforThe$ said:
Could you show me a review were they O/C a X2 opty 165 to 2.8ghz and hold tight timings.
Click to expand...

(They used an Opteron 175 at 11x255 for the overclock to better match the FSB settings of the Yonah, so I have no idea why you'd want to see an Opteron 165 @2.8).

My issue was with the stock speeds, and Anandtech's total lack of apparent effort on the Opteron's setup.
Even if they couldn't do any better than 3-3-3 (though there are 3-2-3 and 3-3-2 1gb sticks at DDR500 if they bothered looking), not running 2-2-2 or 2-3-2 at the stock 200FSB smells of either lazy or stupid.

Considering how close (less than 2-3% in many tests) many of the stock comparisons were, if you reversed the situation (slow, 4-4-4 timings on Yonah, great, 2-2-2 timings on the Opteron) the Opteron might edge out 1/3 of the tests or so.

They paid so much attention to how the CPUs matched up, they used a 175 intead of the 165 to keep the same CPU multiplier and FSB/memory clock, they set the 165 at a 204HTT speed to match the 1.833ghz of the Yonah, but they couldn't be bothered to change the memory timings on the Opteron board for a more realistic performance comparison?
 
So I won't argue the point. I know Amd makes an excellant CPU. I am just saying so does intel right now in the form of Yonah. Conroe is coming and it should be at least 20% better than yonah clock for clock. and its only going to get better from here on out, For both AMD and Intel .
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
Remember how Intel just sat on the 3.2 GHz P4 for over a year? They didn't take competition seriously and did nothing. They're getting owned so they're taking all their money they got from selling craptacular CPU's via OEM and are trying to put AMD out of business. If that happens, by 2010, all we have is a slightly faster Conroe. Fast now, not fast later. Intel doesn't give crap about consumers and would be perfectly happy selling the same CPU to OEMs for the next 10 years. Their research would be motivated by getting yields higher, and perhaps a few token MHz to make it look like they're still focused on speed. I would really like it if AMD pwned Intel for a few more years and got about 50% market share. Then they could duke it out all they want, I I'd just buy what ever is faster. But right now Intel's only competition is an uphill battle against moron CEO's with Intel contracts, even though AMD is way better than anything Intel currently has.
Click to expand...

/agree
--

Conroe is impressive. Yonah was a step up. Basically Conroe is what the Intel !!!!!! have been waiting for... it's only a matter of time though.

Really, neither is better. Sure. AMD is faster right now. But it's going to turn into the video card race from this point on. AMD kicked the shit out of intel in the past few months, but as of now, it's neck and neck.

The days of ZOMG MY AMD > YOUR INTEL are over. Now it's "who's better THIS month" ?
 
AMD has a slightly bigger hold on the market, but it's pretty tenuous right now. A hard year could really hurt it. Intel has so many contracts it would take another five years of craptacular performance to hurt it.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
AMD has a slightly bigger hold on the market, but it's pretty tenuous right now. A hard year could really hurt it. Intel has so many contracts it would take another five years of craptacular performance to hurt it.
Click to expand...

AMD does have a slighter bigger hold on the consumer market, but Intel still dominates the entire market. Since they probablly still hold an 80% stake in both the mobile, and the biggest of all business market.

That being said I do not think that Conroe will hurt them terribly in the consumer market place as long as AMD continues to focus on offering cheap systems to the masses via B&M stores were Joe Schmo buys his computer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top