X2 vs Conroe etc etc

Up until now I've been an AMD supporter, probaly because they *used* to
offer a far better price performance ratio over intel cpus, This is
definately not the case now. I have 4 athlon 64 based machines and only
1 intel. However I think conroe is going to change all of that. It would
appear that intel will be offering the best 'price perfomance' ratio
when conroe arrives.

I'm just speccing a replacement desktop and I'd like to go dual core.
The X2 3800 is very expensive here in Australia @ $450 (its probably the
only one I can afford). Given that there is rumoured to be a price drop
the day after conroe, I'm planning on waiting 'til then before deciding
what to buy. Given the conroe performance benchmarks that we've all no
doubt seen, I think I may be tempted for one of the lower priced
conroes, which should destroy the X2 3800 in most tasks if the
benchmarks are accurate.

I think AMD is gambling/hoping that intel can't ramp-up conroe quickly
enough. This could backfire disasterously if intel manages to pull it off.

how many of you are waiting until conroe comes out to then buy an X2 ?

how many of you are going to buy a conroe ?

how many of you think AMD need to reduce prices of not just the X2 3800
but all the X2 given they are all going to be soundly beaten by conroe ?

who thinks the X2 3600 will be a waster of time ? why would a 2 x 256k
cache dual core be introduced near conroe ?

Who is dissapointed that 4x4 is only going to be for Athlon FX ? How
many people can afford to $1500 processors in a PC ?



I hope for my sake (as a consumer) that Intel pulls it off and really
gives AMD a shake up. They really have rested on their laurels IMHO.

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:12:19 +1000, bards1888 wrote:

how many of you are waiting until conroe comes out to then buy an X2 ?

All that are anticipating price drops probably are.

how many of you are going to buy a conroe ?

Every time I think of upgrading I keep asking myself why since the systems
I have now do what I want easily.

how many of you think AMD need to reduce prices of not just the X2 3800
but all the X2 given they are all going to be soundly beaten by
conroe ?

The market flow will determine the prices. It's pretty much that simple.

who thinks the X2 3600 will be a waster of time ? why would a 2 x 256k
cache dual core be introduced near conroe ?

AMD will release this at about $140. It'll probably be half the price of
Intels cheapest Conroe. Sounds like a good move from AMD to keep the low
end buyer.

Who is dissapointed that 4x4 is only going to be for Athlon FX ? How
many people can afford to $1500 processors in a PC ?

4x4 will eventually be for everything. My guess is a lot of people can
afford a $1500 cpu, but not many will actually spend that much for one. I
sure as hell won't.:-)

I hope for my sake (as a consumer) that Intel pulls it off and really
gives AMD a shake up. They really have rested on their laurels IMHO.

Competition is always good for the consumer. Both companies need to
prosper for that to contunue.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

"bards1888" wrote in message
...
Up until now I've been an AMD supporter, probaly because they *used* to
offer a far better price performance ratio over intel cpus, This is
definately not the case now. I have 4 athlon 64 based machines and only
1 intel. However I think conroe is going to change all of that. It would
appear that intel will be offering the best 'price perfomance' ratio
when conroe arrives.

I'm just speccing a replacement desktop and I'd like to go dual core.
The X2 3800 is very expensive here in Australia @ $450 (its probably the
only one I can afford). Given that there is rumoured to be a price drop
the day after conroe, I'm planning on waiting 'til then before deciding
what to buy. Given the conroe performance benchmarks that we've all no
doubt seen, I think I may be tempted for one of the lower priced
conroes, which should destroy the X2 3800 in most tasks if the
benchmarks are accurate.

I think AMD is gambling/hoping that intel can't ramp-up conroe quickly
enough. This could backfire disasterously if intel manages to pull it off.

how many of you are waiting until conroe comes out to then buy an X2 ?

how many of you are going to buy a conroe ?

how many of you think AMD need to reduce prices of not just the X2 3800
but all the X2 given they are all going to be soundly beaten by conroe
?

who thinks the X2 3600 will be a waster of time ? why would a 2 x 256k
cache dual core be introduced near conroe ?

Who is dissapointed that 4x4 is only going to be for Athlon FX ? How
many people can afford to $1500 processors in a PC ?



I hope for my sake (as a consumer) that Intel pulls it off and really
gives AMD a shake up. They really have rested on their laurels IMHO.

Given that they have beaten Intel consistently in price and performance,I'd
hardly say they are resting on their laurels.In fact,if anyone has done this
it's Intel,only the competition from AMD has pushed them to improve.AMD will
drop prices when the Conroe comes out,and they will be large cuts across the
board,the
5000+ will sell for a little over $400.And given AMD's track record,I think
you can bet they will produce processors that will match or beat the
Conroe.If it really lives up to the hype,that is,I've already seen articles
popping up that question that hype.

AMD better have a rabbit up its sleeve, or better have a lot of 939 cpus
around because there was not much difference in performance between 939 and
AM2, other than lower power requirements(and lower temps I assume). AMD said
themselves that the big performance leap will come in 1 to 2 years. From
Maximum PC August issue

--
Sapphire X1600 Pro 512mb AGP
MSI Theater 550Pro TV Tuner
Thermaltake LanFire Midtower(4X80mm fans),Antec 550 Watt PSU
Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 nForce3, A64 3500+, Stock Cooler IdleTemp 28 C
2 Gb Dual Channel PC3200 OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5 CL2.5
Viewsonic A91f 19in Moniter
2XSATA WD 320gb Raid Edition, PATA WD 120Gb HD
Pioneer 110D Dual Layer burner
Logitech MX 310 Optical Mouse
Microsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick
Microsoft ergonomic keyboard
Cheap computer speakers with Sennheiser HD 477 Headphones

3DMark05Free-Overall-3134 1024X768, 4XAA/8XAF 6.4Drivers
Cpu - 4405
3Dmark2001 - 8702 4XAA/8XAF 1280X1024

Games I'm Playing- IL-2 Sturmovick Series
Empire Earth 2, Need For Speed: Underground 2,
Civ IV, Warhammer 40,000 Gold




"bards1888" wrote in message
...
Up until now I've been an AMD supporter, probaly because they *used* to
offer a far better price performance ratio over intel cpus, This is
definately not the case now. I have 4 athlon 64 based machines and only 1
intel. However I think conroe is going to change all of that. It would
appear that intel will be offering the best 'price perfomance' ratio when
conroe arrives.

I'm just speccing a replacement desktop and I'd like to go dual core. The
X2 3800 is very expensive here in Australia @ $450 (its probably the only
one I can afford). Given that there is rumoured to be a price drop the day
after conroe, I'm planning on waiting 'til then before deciding what to
buy. Given the conroe performance benchmarks that we've all no doubt seen,
I think I may be tempted for one of the lower priced conroes, which should
destroy the X2 3800 in most tasks if the
benchmarks are accurate.

I think AMD is gambling/hoping that intel can't ramp-up conroe quickly
enough. This could backfire disasterously if intel manages to pull it off.

how many of you are waiting until conroe comes out to then buy an X2 ?

how many of you are going to buy a conroe ?

how many of you think AMD need to reduce prices of not just the X2 3800
but all the X2 given they are all going to be soundly beaten by conroe ?

who thinks the X2 3600 will be a waster of time ? why would a 2 x 256k
cache dual core be introduced near conroe ?

Who is dissapointed that 4x4 is only going to be for Athlon FX ? How many
people can afford to $1500 processors in a PC ?



I hope for my sake (as a consumer) that Intel pulls it off and really
gives AMD a shake up. They really have rested on their laurels IMHO.

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:21:43 -0500, VanShania wrote:

AMD better have a rabbit up its sleeve, or better have a lot of 939 cpus
around because there was not much difference in performance between 939
and AM2, other than lower power requirements(and lower temps I assume).
AMD said themselves that the big performance leap will come in 1 to 2
years. From Maximum PC August issue

Perhaps this is some more required reading to get the whole story about
Conroe "benchmark testing".

http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/06...-of-anand.html

This blogspot seems very anti-MS and extremely anti-intel. Not sure why.

I don't think we'll have enough info until the chips are released to make a
good decision about performance and reliability. I'm hoping that the
blogger opinions are wrong but I won't dismiss them as garbage either. In
about 1 month we'll have some serious info and can make some non amd and non
intel fanboy decisions. I still don't get the fanboy mentality from either
camp. If you could go into the future and get a (AMD or Intel) chip
produced 5 years from now - the fanboys of the opposing camp would find a
reason to hate it. I live for the competition. I want both manufacturers
to make good chips that truly compete on the performance so that they are
given reason to drop prices and release the next chip that much sooner.

"mikepolniak" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:21:43 -0500, VanShania wrote:

AMD better have a rabbit up its sleeve, or better have a lot of 939 cpus
around because there was not much difference in performance between 939
and AM2, other than lower power requirements(and lower temps I assume).
AMD said themselves that the big performance leap will come in 1 to 2
years. From Maximum PC August issue

Perhaps this is some more required reading to get the whole story about
Conroe "benchmark testing".

http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/06...-of-anand.html

The anti-Intel opinions are easy to explain,look at their track record.They
pretty much had a monopoly on CPU's until AMD came along,and had gotten lazy
and greedy.Their processors were overpriced,overheating power hogs.It
wasn't until AMD actually started hurting their profits that they started to
try to actually improve their product,instead of resorting to their usual
questionable business tactics like pressuring mass market PC companies to
use only their products.AMD,on the other hand,has a record of innovation and
devolopment.They were first with low heat,low power consumption,64 bit,and
dual core.It's easy to see why many are skeptical of Intel's hype.I agree
competition is good for consumers,hopefully Intel will realize that their
old tactics won't work and actually concentrate on performance and price,but
I'll believe it when I see it.
"Boe" wrote in message
. ..
This blogspot seems very anti-MS and extremely anti-intel. Not sure why.

I don't think we'll have enough info until the chips are released to make
a
good decision about performance and reliability. I'm hoping that the
blogger opinions are wrong but I won't dismiss them as garbage either. In
about 1 month we'll have some serious info and can make some non amd and
non
intel fanboy decisions. I still don't get the fanboy mentality from
either
camp. If you could go into the future and get a (AMD or Intel) chip
produced 5 years from now - the fanboys of the opposing camp would find a
reason to hate it. I live for the competition. I want both manufacturers
to make good chips that truly compete on the performance so that they are
given reason to drop prices and release the next chip that much sooner.

"mikepolniak" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:21:43 -0500, VanShania wrote:

AMD better have a rabbit up its sleeve, or better have a lot of 939
cpus
around because there was not much difference in performance between 939
and AM2, other than lower power requirements(and lower temps I assume).
AMD said themselves that the big performance leap will come in 1 to 2
years. From Maximum PC August issue

Perhaps this is some more required reading to get the whole story about
Conroe "benchmark testing".

http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/06...-of-anand.html

I would and wouldn't agree with that. My first real PC had and AMD 386-40
so competition has been around for a while. I have been a big fan of both
intel and amd for a while however for the past year or so, AMD has been a
tad high on the pricing for their CPUs. Understandable, charge what will
maximize profits - neither company is a charity. AMD will be dropping
their prices drastically when the Core 2 chips come out - this isn't out of
civic duty or because manufacturing costs have dropped significantly - just
a matter of what the market will support. Take a look at the x2 4800 today
on pricewatch. Check it again 3 weeks from now.

"Gojira" wrote in message
news:dewsg.4297$pB.1398@trnddc06...
The anti-Intel opinions are easy to explain,look at their track
record.They
pretty much had a monopoly on CPU's until AMD came along,and had gotten
lazy
and greedy.Their processors were overpriced,overheating power hogs.It
wasn't until AMD actually started hurting their profits that they started
to
try to actually improve their product,instead of resorting to their usual
questionable business tactics like pressuring mass market PC companies to
use only their products.AMD,on the other hand,has a record of innovation
and
devolopment.They were first with low heat,low power consumption,64 bit,and
dual core.It's easy to see why many are skeptical of Intel's hype.I agree
competition is good for consumers,hopefully Intel will realize that their
old tactics won't work and actually concentrate on performance and
price,but
I'll believe it when I see it.
"Boe" wrote in message
. ..
This blogspot seems very anti-MS and extremely anti-intel. Not sure
why.

I don't think we'll have enough info until the chips are released to make
a
good decision about performance and reliability. I'm hoping that the
blogger opinions are wrong but I won't dismiss them as garbage either.
In
about 1 month we'll have some serious info and can make some non amd and
non
intel fanboy decisions. I still don't get the fanboy mentality from
either
camp. If you could go into the future and get a (AMD or Intel) chip
produced 5 years from now - the fanboys of the opposing camp would find a
reason to hate it. I live for the competition. I want both
manufacturers
to make good chips that truly compete on the performance so that they are
given reason to drop prices and release the next chip that much sooner.

"mikepolniak" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:21:43 -0500, VanShania wrote:

AMD better have a rabbit up its sleeve, or better have a lot of 939
cpus
around because there was not much difference in performance between
939
and AM2, other than lower power requirements(and lower temps I
assume).
AMD said themselves that the big performance leap will come in 1 to 2
years. From Maximum PC August issue

Perhaps this is some more required reading to get the whole story about
Conroe "benchmark testing".

http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/06...-of-anand.html

Boe wrote:
I would and wouldn't agree with that. My first real PC had and AMD 386-40
so competition has been around for a while. I have been a big fan of
both
intel and amd for a while however for the past year or so, AMD has been a
tad high on the pricing for their CPUs. Understandable, charge what will
maximize profits - neither company is a charity. AMD will be dropping
their prices drastically when the Core 2 chips come out - this isn't out
of
civic duty or because manufacturing costs have dropped significantly -
just
a matter of what the market will support. Take a look at the x2 4800
today
on pricewatch. Check it again 3 weeks from now.

I picked up an 3800 x2 for £115 + vat the other week..... That does seem
exceptionally good value for a **** load of cpu.

Gaz

You have to go by CPU's comparable in performance,an AMD comparable to an
Intel model is still cheaper,at least for now.And the price drops will be
very significant ones,anyone thinking of buying should wait until the end of
the month.
"Boe" wrote in message
. ..
I would and wouldn't agree with that. My first real PC had and AMD 386-40
so competition has been around for a while. I have been a big fan of
both
intel and amd for a while however for the past year or so, AMD has been a
tad high on the pricing for their CPUs. Understandable, charge what will
maximize profits - neither company is a charity. AMD will be dropping
their prices drastically when the Core 2 chips come out - this isn't out
of
civic duty or because manufacturing costs have dropped significantly -
just
a matter of what the market will support. Take a look at the x2 4800
today
on pricewatch. Check it again 3 weeks from now.

"Gojira" wrote in message
news:dewsg.4297$pB.1398@trnddc06...
The anti-Intel opinions are easy to explain,look at their track
record.They
pretty much had a monopoly on CPU's until AMD came along,and had gotten
lazy
and greedy.Their processors were overpriced,overheating power hogs.It
wasn't until AMD actually started hurting their profits that they
started
to
try to actually improve their product,instead of resorting to their
usual
questionable business tactics like pressuring mass market PC companies
to
use only their products.AMD,on the other hand,has a record of innovation
and
devolopment.They were first with low heat,low power consumption,64
bit,and
dual core.It's easy to see why many are skeptical of Intel's hype.I
agree
competition is good for consumers,hopefully Intel will realize that
their
old tactics won't work and actually concentrate on performance and
price,but
I'll believe it when I see it.
"Boe" wrote in message
. ..
This blogspot seems very anti-MS and extremely anti-intel. Not sure
why.

I don't think we'll have enough info until the chips are released to
make
a
good decision about performance and reliability. I'm hoping that the
blogger opinions are wrong but I won't dismiss them as garbage either.
In
about 1 month we'll have some serious info and can make some non amd
and
non
intel fanboy decisions. I still don't get the fanboy mentality from
either
camp. If you could go into the future and get a (AMD or Intel) chip
produced 5 years from now - the fanboys of the opposing camp would find
a
reason to hate it. I live for the competition. I want both
manufacturers
to make good chips that truly compete on the performance so that they
are
given reason to drop prices and release the next chip that much sooner.

"mikepolniak" wrote in message
news On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:21:43 -0500, VanShania wrote:

AMD better have a rabbit up its sleeve, or better have a lot of 939
cpus
around because there was not much difference in performance between
939
and AM2, other than lower power requirements(and lower temps I
assume).
AMD said themselves that the big performance leap will come in 1 to
2
years. From Maximum PC August issue

Perhaps this is some more required reading to get the whole story
about
Conroe "benchmark testing".

http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/06...-of-anand.html