Topic: Just when you thought Intel was done revolutionizing the processor market...

[Pugnate]

It goes ahead and does it again!

It likely doesn't mean more AMD price drops, since this is high end stuff only. But the core 2 line has pretty much slaughtered AMD. The E6600 in every case out performs the FX62, even though the E6600 is about $330 and the FX62 is over a $1000. Even the $240 E6400 in many cases is outperforming the FX62.

That is just a complete slaughter.

But you have to hand it to Intel, they aren't resting on their laurels. It looks like they are trying to bury AMD, as they are about to release the quad core processors in 2 weeks time.

Now get this, you don't need a special mobo to use them. They will work fine on anything compatible with Core 2 today.

The downside is that they aren't making a massive difference in gaming, but give that about three months. Most teams like iD, Epic and Crytek have stated that their future games will all take full advantage of quad core processors.

In terms of applications there is up to a 100% increase in performance.

As for the price, yet again Intel wants to make it as affordable as possible. Like I said, they are looking to bury AMD. I think that is the only reason Intel isn't charging an arm and a leg.

AMD meanwhile is having some issues. Because of the merger with ATi, the next big thing in video cards, the R600 has been delayed from December to past February. This card is a beast and gives twice the performance of anything today, and was expected to be a big seller so that is a blow.

Secondly AMD's new processor tech has been delayed to the end of next year. That's probably because it couldn't hold a candle to Intel's Core 2 line.

Finally AMD's own quad core solution, which was expected about now is no where in sight. Fortunately, buying ATi has brought them a lot of business so they are more than likely to stay afloat.

[Quemaqua]

I still hate Intel so I'm waiting for AMD to make a comeback.  My guess is they'll (eventually) level the playing field again.  Intel might have brought out a few surprises, but my guess is AMD will eventually get the bars normal again.  Hell, maybe this will even encourage them to attempt a counter-trump.

[Pugnate]

Well if it weren't for AMD, Intel wouldn't have had to work so hard, so we have to kinda thank AMD for this. What is good about this stuff is that it just brings prices down.

Right now you can get a Athlon 64 X2 4800 for less than $280, which is sweet. The fast single core cards are ridiculously cheap now.

I just don't see how AMD can come back in terms of the really faster processors. Intel was working for years on this, and any suitable answer from AMD will require a year I should think. Plus acquiring ATi has made things messier inside.

Hurrah for competition though.

[gpw11]

Oh, AMD will come back eventually (we all hope).  I was reading an article on Digg today about AMD's Quad Cores and aparently the technolgy they're actually using is more advanced.  Well, each core is based on AM2, so not in that category, but the chip as a whole is actually a full on quad core, while aparently Intel's quad cores are more like just two dual cores.  Honestly, I have no idea if it's true or I even understood the article, but that might be good news as far as keeping AMD competitive.

But every time I try to look at building a pc I still have a hard time deciding between AMD and Intel.  Yes the Conroe cpus are a lot better  than AM2 as of right now, but from almost every benchmark I've seen (for gaming), the difference between modern games (FEAR, HL2, DOOM 3......ect) at high resolution is within 10-15 fps between the best Conroe and the worst AM2.  Obviuosly that's because the videocards are bottle necking the systems, but when building my new pc why wouldn't I save a hundred bucks on a processor, get a dirt cheap AM2 and then spend the difference on a better videocard?

Yeah, sure conroe kicks the crap out of AM2 in a lot of synthetic and real world (video and decoding based) benchmarks, but as far as games are concerned there GPU is holding all of them back anyways, and probably will be for a year or two.  Being someone who only wants a powerful cpu for gaming and still isn't going to go out and drop anything like three hundred bucks on a processor, I'd contest the fact that Intel is slaughtering AMD in the real world market.           

[Quemaqua]

The man makes a good point.  Though I haven't followed benchmarks so I don't know all this for sure.  But if that's the case, then... you make a good point.

I don't know.  I'm tired.  I'm going to bed now.

[Pugnate]

Obviuosly that's because the videocards are bottle necking the systems, but when building my new pc why wouldn't I save a hundred bucks on a processor, get a dirt cheap AM2 and then spend the difference on a better videocard?

If you are buying for purely gaming purposes then buy the best video card you possibly can and then use the money left over for other stuff including the porcessor.

and probably will be for a year or two.

While it is making a difference already, you are right about the real impact being felt with the newer video cards. But did you mean a year or a month? Because the 8800 (G80) series is scheduled before December and that is expected to be twice as powerful as any vid card out there. That will pretty much utilize any processor out there. The R600 from ATi is coming Jan/Feb., and is even crazier than the G80.

I'd contest the fact that Intel is slaughtering AMD in the real world market.

Well on the lower end single cores, processors that cost about $100-$150, things are pretty much the same. But once you go to processors that cost $200+ then AMD's ass is unfortunately handed to them.

If you are building a new system and can afford to spend another $100, go for the E6400. That's what I would strongly advise, especially since 90% of those have been easily overclocked to 3.0Ghz.

The E6400 isn't listed in the following benchmarks, but on most occasions it betters the FX62 without being overclocked.

Oblivion Benchmarks

The E6300 and the Athlon X2 3800 cost the same, but the E6300 gets about 10 frames more. That might not sound like a lot, but the difference will get bigger with more powerful video cards. Plus if you've ever played Oblivion 10 frames are very significant.

F.E.A.R. benchmarks tell a similar story

On the lower end it is a differnece of 10-15 frames, which frankly isn't a big deal in a shooter once you are past 60 fps.

But that should affect someone who is looking to upgrade to a cheap AMD processor. I just think if you are building a new system, bite the bullet and get the E6400. It should be around $220 and can easily be overclocked to 3.0ghz. It is a better investment for the future.

However if spending that extra $100 in getting that rather than a single core 3800 means you are sacrificing money on the video card, then don't.

[gpw11]

I was unaware that the next wave of videocards were projected to be that powerful.  But trust me, if I could go from a Athlon 64 3800+ to an E6400 for only a hundred bucks, I would.  The problem is that it's usually a bit more than a $200 difference here right now.  When demand goes down I may opt for the E6400 or settle for the E6300, but as of right now, if I were to build a gaming pc this week, I'd have to go with AMD.  That probalby will change in the next few months, but for today AMD is still a very viable option.

Anyways, I just paid a thousand dollars for various repairs on my car that needed to be done (clutch, muffler, central exhaust, ect.)  So it looks like I'll be waiting a little bit longer.  Personally, I don't mind as I'm kind of curious as to what's right around the corner.

[scottws]

There's always something around the corner.  You certainly never feel like you missed anything.  I mean yeah, you have those awesome Intel Core Duo processors Pug is talking about, but you have the four core processors coming out as well.  So it's not like if you don't get the E6400 you missed the boat.