How is this supposed to compete with the Q9450?

this is where if bin waiting for:rockout::rockout:

why are amd wasting there time with that, the q6600 will be even cheaper by then and will out perform it by a stupid amout!! why are they going back rather then forward?

its shame that AMD are stuck in a rut not being able to move forward n only backswards....

maybe they are hoping to downsize their production so much that they can go into the 'budget' market instead of being so enthusiast orientated & just slowly work its way back to the top.

but that said its gonna have a hard climb as Intel really slashed its prices. & of course with all the talk of the C2D being so overclockable & efficient etc which realy pushes AMD into the dirt to produce something decent & still make a profit.

the way i see it since AMD have mentioned going back into single core production & now this that they are 'scraping the barrel' theres nothing more they can do but hope to sell their gear at a loss & 'hope' that people will pick it up. unlike intel their CPU's are so cheap i bet their profit is made up of the sheer numbers bought/sold/produced.


Unlucky AMD - just dont take ATi with you when you dissapear into the deep sea....

This is a boon for those looking for a sub-$150 processor but isn't March 2008 a little too late for comfort?

Why the hell do we need a tri core CPU if Intel has the Q6600 out? AMD has to stop pushing a step back from Intel.:shadedshu

For Amd to somehow compete with intel they need a miracle of biblecal proportions this aint it.

More than that. They need a processor that's 0.75x the price of Intel's best CPU, that performs 1.25x better than it.

I think AMD needs to just focus on what they have working good right now (low energy x2's), chipsets, and g-cards. Get stabilized and then come back. They keep making rash decisions that are driving them down.

None of you have seen the tri-core processors, don't talk about their performance when you have absolutely no data to back your words. Im actually pretty interested in seeing how they perform. I actually think Tri-core is a good market, dual core is decent, but quad is stupidly overkill and a waste of power. So Tri-core makes perfect sense. I think its quite funny, before Core2 came out everyone was and AMD fanboy, now the tide has turned and everyone is a Intel Fanboy. And look at this you guys are making judgment calls on unreleased products because theirs 3 instead of 4 cores. Quite funny. Well See another 1-2 processor generations after this before AMD will "disappear" if that even happens, IT TAKES MUCH MORE THAN ONE BAD LINE to kill a company. Anyone else remember Intel pre-Core 2, yeah . . . If you ask me now is the time to invest in AMD.

It's not that we were rogued AMD fanboys. Just that at that time, AMD gave us more what what we paid, now Intel is giving us more for what we pay, and why shouldn't we encourage the use of Intel processors? That makes us smart-buyers and not fanboys. Investing in AMD is as profitable as giving all your money off to some Somalia relief charity....AMD is in that big losses, if you've an appetite for losses, that's you.

btarunrIt's not that we were rogued AMD fanboys. Just that at that time, AMD gave us more what what we paid, now Intel is giving us more for what we pay, and why shouldn't we encourage the use of Intel processors? That makes us smart-buyers and not fanboys. Investing in AMD is as profitable as giving all your money off to some Somalia relief charity....AMD is in that big losses, if you've an appetite for losses, that's you.

You're quite right -- Intel is a better "bang for your buck" right now. But you must realize how important it is that somebody continue to buy AMD processors -- do you really want Intel controlling the market completely?

For example, when I'm building computers for people I know or helping them purchase a new PC online, I always choose AMD for them -- I know for a fact that they won't know the difference, and it helps AMD stay in business.

Yes, I was merely replying politely to that guy's declaration of us all being fanboys that switch sides. I own a machine that runs an X2 5400+. While it is vital for AMD to survive and provide competition to Intel....competition that fosters innovation, the one thing AMD badly needs now is aspirational value. It needs even people like you and me to look upto it and say "wow that's one Intel nut-kicker" which unfortunately it's not being. Intel is taking advantage of this and making products of whatever pricing, lesser innovation and basically fooling around with the market (eg: delay in launch of cheap Yorkfied chips). The day AMD devises a product that out-performs every Intel processor ever made, AMD will regain the face-value it lost. AMD should prioritise on high-performance segment at this point because you wouldn't want your customers telling "Intel makes the best processor there is, I'd want a Intel processor, come what may!"....If AMD delivers its goods well, the common man will begin to look upon it as a viable company that can bring the silicon giant Intel to its knees (which it did, with the K8...qualitatively if not quantitatively) Intel survived its lean period because it had a huge stash to fall back on, from the P4's success, AMD didn't pool in as much with its K8. Result? Rumors of IBM buying stakes of AMD to waive off its debts.

btarunrIt's not that we were rogued AMD fanboys. Just that at that time, AMD gave us more what what we paid, now Intel is giving us more for what we pay, and why shouldn't we encourage the use of Intel processors? That makes us smart-buyers and not fanboys. Investing in AMD is as profitable as giving all your money off to some Somalia relief charity....AMD is in that big losses, if you've an appetite for losses, that's you.

I never called you fanboys, I was just saying its funny your slant on things. On how you can magically predict and talk about performance of tri-core cpu's when they havent hit the market. I'm certainly not saying to buy AMD processors right now I acknowledge Intel has the better processor. I'm just saying don't over speculate yourselves, thats what people did with conroe and they were dead wrong. Many of them where people who don't know SHIT about CPU architecture.

Also I'm gunna take a stab here, and say you haven't done much investing in stocks. Chances are AMD will eventually bounce back, you buy low and sell high. Thats how you profit on the stocks(In the most basic way, I could go more in depth, but its pointless). Also AMD/ATI does much more than just desktop processors and graphic cards for PCs.

btarunrYes, I was merely replying politely to that guy's declaration of us all being fanboys that switch sides. I own a machine that runs an X2 5400+. While it is vital for AMD to survive and provide competition to Intel....competition that fosters innovation, the one thing AMD badly needs now is aspirational value. It needs even people like you and me to look upto it and say "wow that's one Intel nut-kicker" which unfortunately it's not being. Intel is taking advantage of this and making products of whatever pricing, lesser innovation and basically fooling around with the market (eg: delay in launch of cheap Yorkfied chips). The day AMD devises a product that out-performs every Intel processor ever made, AMD will regain the face-value it lost. AMD should prioritise on high-performance segment at this point because you wouldn't want your customers telling "Intel makes the best processor there is, I'd want a Intel processor, come what may!"....If AMD delivers its goods well, the common man will begin to look upon it as a viable company that can bring the silicon giant Intel to its knees (which it did, with the K8...qualitatively if not quantitatively) Intel survived its lean period because it had a huge stash to fall back on, from the P4's success, AMD didn't pool in as much with its K8. Result? Rumors of IBM buying stakes of AMD to waive off its debts.

My comments on the whole fanboy was referring to people always having bias against the company(AMD ATM) that battling against the company that is in ascendence(INTEL ATM) at the current moment in time. Like I said previously I was not calling you fanboys, I was just saying this is unjust speculation on a new type of desktop processor.

mdm-adphYou're quite right -- Intel is a better "bang for your buck" right now. But you must realize how important it is that somebody continue to buy AMD processors -- do you really want Intel controlling the market completely?

For example, when I'm building computers for people I know or helping them purchase a new PC online, I always choose AMD for them -- I know for a fact that they won't know the difference, and it helps AMD stay in business.

I do the same thing for all PC's I put together for family and friends. AMD offers dual-core CPU's for well under $100... and they offer enough power for a majority of computer users (including myself). I always felt that AMD was the underdog in the CPU war... even during their BEST yeasr... because Intel has always had a majority of the CPU market. Just because AMD had a few great years, people expect them to produce the BEST CPU even though they have fewer resources then Intel. Then when AMD can not do that, they get ripped apart and slammed. :ohwell:

NamesDontMatterAlso I'm gunna take a stab here, and say you haven't done much investing in stocks. Chances are AMD will eventually bounce back, you buy low and sell high. Thats how you profit on the stocks(In the most basic way, I could go more in depth, but its pointless). Also AMD/ATI does much more than just desktop processors and graphic cards for PCs.

How do you know about AMD bouncing back? Aren't you speculating too? "AMD bouncing back" sounds a lot more vague than the rumours doing rounds of IBM eating into AMD. Buying the stocks of a company that's on the verge of allegedly selling off to another company isn't the wisest....it's risky business. Buying NVidia's shares on the other hand guarantees returns because even if ATI/AMD zooms ahead of NV, it'll never eat into the huge customer base and potential-customer base that NV created.

Regarding Tri Core AMD, just as we can't predict it to be a flop, we can't predict it to be a hit either, Intel already seems to be working on a Core 2 Trio.

NamesDontMatterMy comments on the whole fanboy was referring to people always having bias against the company(AMD ATM) that battling against the company that is in ascendence(INTEL ATM) at the current moment in time. Like I said previously I was not calling you fanboys, I was just saying this is unjust speculation on a new type of desktop processor.

We have a bitter feeling about AMD because it backstabbed our aspirations many a time. First it was the Barcelona Flop-show, then the Radeon HD2000 series, now Phenom. How much more can we "love" AMD and live in a dreamy world waiting for Dresden to roll out a magic chip? Something that would make me want to roll a dice to choose between Yorkfield and that "magic chip"? This is what made people like me, a lot of us from TPU lose hope on AMD to ever bounce back into the performance segment. I again reiterate: AMD needs to give out an Extreme performance product to give its overall outlook a positive makeover. The company's losses and non-competitive products have forced us to adapt the ideology we have now, at which you're lashing out at. AMD is a "once bright schoolkid now turned junkie"....catch my drift?

NamesDontMatterI never called you fanboys, I was just saying its funny your slant on things. On how you can magically predict and talk about performance of tri-core cpu's when they havent hit the market. I'm certainly not saying to buy AMD processors right now I acknowledge Intel has the better processor. I'm just saying don't over speculate yourselves, thats what people did with conroe and they were dead wrong. Many of them where people who don't know SHIT about CPU.

Reality check: AMD's quad core procs already are a dissapoinment in terms of performance when compared to current Intel quad core offerings, (not to mention against soon to be released proc from Intel) how come a defective quad core with a core disabled will change that?

Why does everyone seem to think that because AMD doesn't have a competitor in the high end arena (and doesn't have any plans for one) that AMD is going out of business? How many prebuilt computers on the market even have quad core processors in them? Very few, it is still mostly dual and single core processors. This is were the real money lies for these chipmakers, not in selling the best performing chip to the likes of us (who are in a severe minority).

As for the Phenom, its price/perfomance ratio was terrible on launch with the q6600 noticeably outperforming it for just $20-30 more. Things have changed and now it costs $70-80 more and I think that AMD has very decent price/performance ratio on the 9500 (the 9600 is a total rip off- $50 more for 100mhz). However, the triple cores (quad core on a limp) will (should) be priced even lower, hopefully trying to compete with Intel's 45nm DUAL cores (not their quads). If they can price them equally, and give them near performance of a 45nm DUAL, yet show customers that there is an additional core available, then I think AMD will have done something right.

Here is a portion of an article from 2006 that I found on the internet regarding CPU market share... just to point out that even at AMD's peak, they were still far behind Intel... yet, people expect them to beat Intel despite having less money for R&D and everything else that goes into producing new CPUs:

AMD has achieved its highest ever market share in the CPU market in the second quarter, according to data released by Mercury Research.

Despite processor shipments decreasing by 7% quarter-over-quarter, AMD managed to increase its market share to 22% at the expense of Intel.

Intel's share slipped to 73%, despite the chip giant aggressively cutting the prices on its Pentium 4 and Pentium D processors. With Intel's recently announced Core 2 processors, analysts expect the decline to slow and for Intel to gain market share in the desktop market.

As for these new 3-core CPUs... If they are priced under $100, I would definitely consider buying some.

devguyWhy does everyone seem to think that because AMD doesn't have a competitor in the high end arena (and doesn't have any plans for one) that AMD is going out of business? How many prebuilt computers on the market even have quad core processors in them? Very few, it is still mostly dual and single core processors. This is were the real money lies for these chipmakers, not in selling the best performing chip to the likes of us (who are in a severe minority).

As for the Phenom, its price/perfomance ratio was terrible on launch with the q6600 noticeably outperforming it for just $20-30 more. Things have changed and now it costs $70-80 more and I think that AMD has very decent price/performance ratio on the 9500 (the 9600 is a total rip off- $50 more for 100mhz). However, the triple cores (quad core on a limp) will (should) be priced even lower, hopefully trying to compete with Intel's 45nm DUAL cores (not their quads). If they can price them equally, and give them near performance of a 45nm DUAL, yet show customers that there is an additional core available, then I think AMD will have done something right.

If Intel finds that these Triple-core Phenom chips are eating into its Core 2 Duo market-share they'll be the first to respond with a similarly priced tri-core processor. AMD must produce a high-performance chip not to earn profits but to uplift its face-value of being a competent company that has the potential to deliver the best.

Sure, OEM's don't come out with Quad-core chips but how many OEM's actually use an AMD processor in the first place? HP Pavillion----Intel processor Lenovo- business desktop 90% of its models use Intel.

They are taking the defective quad cores and turning them into useable chips. regardless of how you feel, its a damn smart move. This way, they save face and dont lose alot of money on non working chips. Intel made the smart move years back with a separate team dedicated to a new architecture. It worked in their favor. Now AMD is just playing stop gap. I suspect they are working on something better and taking all the good and replacing all the bad with more good. Thats what Id be doing if I were them. I dont need some high level proc to kill Intel. I dont care for them killing intel. I just want a good proc, for a decent price that ocs very well and gives me what I want. Ive yet to try out the phenoms to see if they do that.

15th WarlockReality check: AMD's quad core procs already are a dissapoinment in terms of performance when compared to current Intel quad core offerings, (not to mention against soon to be released proc from Intel) how come a defective quad core with a core disabled will change that?

New Stepping B2. This is a relatively new architecture will take time for AMD to smooth it out. Three core are rumored to rival Intels dual core prices. Id take 3 over 2 any day.More Power :laugh: Also I don't game anymore, so multitasking is where its at for me.

btarunrIf Intel finds that these Triple-core Phenom chips are eating into its Core 2 Duo market-share they'll be the first to respond with a similarly priced tri-core processor. AMD must produce a high-performance chip not to earn profits but to uplift its face-value of being a competent company that has the potential to deliver the best.

Sure, OEM's don't come out with Quad-core chips but how many OEM's actually use an AMD processor in the first place? HP Pavillion----Intel processor Lenovo- business desktop 90% of its models use Intel.

First you must have a lot of free time, second many OEMS use AMD processors especially laptop providers which, I'm not sure if your up to date on are outselling desktops (Actually I think this has been happening since 2005). So you got Acer, Asus, Toshiba, Gateway(now owned by acer), and others.

Also I'm not sure if your aware of the swing between the two companies, it has been going back and forth for quite some time now. I don't feel like typing it up, but anyone who has been around for a while knows this.

This discussion is really starting to dumb down, and really your having too much fun twisting and playing with peoples words. My original jab was about the overall pattern, not fighting or "discussing" specifics.

If you want to see something interesting check this out.

finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AMD&t=my
finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=INTC&t=my

Draw your own conclusions. Also look how the spikes line up with product launches. At 7.70 AMD is looking pretty good to purchase. And Acquisitions are not always bad if this ever did happen, which I highly doubt. Somone should go ask Jim Cramer, :laugh:

I don't know the price of either AMD or Intel cpu's where everyone else live, but let me give you an exampel from where I live:
AMD Phenom Quadcore 2.2Ghz = 1895:-SEK* (something around 200~£ or $)
Intel Core 2 QUAD Q6600 2.4GHz = 2 140:-SEK* (something around 220~£ or $).

First of all , for most people they would say something like "Well it's just a couple of hundred bucks in difference" - thoose are the one's who actually earn a lot of money. Someone like me has to say "Ok.. I think I'll buy the AMD since I can't afford the Intel".

Second , I heard from the salesman (who is selling both CPU's) that Cache level on the Intel does make a big difference,and you also pay for the technology inside it (whatever that might be?). Since I don't have either of them to even test it, I can't say "Yes, this one is faster than that one". Can anyone here verify this??


*SEK : Svensk Krona (Swedish currency).

I agree that a lot of OEM companies are still using AMD chips, but you cant deny that AMD run OEM systems are in decline. sure they will continue to be sold as well as being widely available to all but at the same time with a little research people will find out that Intel is more favourable/popular & go with them because most laptop/Pc OEM vendors sell them at very fair prices.

im in no way desputing that OEM's dont but they dont sell as much as stuff thats run with Intel.

as much as AMD's been good to me in the past I have to look beyond brand names & go for whats best for their wallet. we all have to look beyond brand names. forget the big divide between AMD & Intel.

OEM's will continue to use AMD chips in their systems no doubt about it but they wont make as much out of them as they would an Intel chip. since Intel have been pretty agressive with their advertising its hard to wake up in the morning & say that we dont know what the fudge a Core 2 Duo is. Intel advertises as well as other retailers. ads will always say that the pc/laptop is powerd by Intel Centreno Core 2 Duo technology etc etc but you get my point.


AMD could go into so agressive advertising also but they have nothing of value to shout about. to put it in a way

TechnicalFreakI don't know the price of either AMD or Intel cpu's where everyone else live, but let me give you an exampel from where I live:
AMD Phenom Quadcore 2.2Ghz = 1895:-SEK* (something around 200~£ or $)
Intel Core 2 QUAD Q6600 2.4GHz = 2 140:-SEK* (something around 220~£ or $).

First of all , for most people they would say something like "Well it's just a couple of hundred bucks in difference" - thoose are the one's who actually earn a lot of money. Someone like me has to say "Ok.. I think I'll buy the AMD since I can't afford the Intel".

Second , I heard from the salesman (who is selling both CPU's) that Cache level on the Intel does make a big difference,and you also pay for the technology inside it (whatever that might be?). Since I don't have either of them to even test it, I can't say "Yes, this one is faster than that one". Can anyone here verify this??


*SEK : Svensk Krona (Swedish currency).

Cache on CPU makes a huge differeance -

for example look at Intel & AMDs budget range...

AMD = Semperon
Intel = Celeron

they are both crap for gaming because they both some with 256kb cache instead of 512kb cache like most basic level processors.

The AMD 3000+ running at 1.8Ghz lowest in the A64 line up had 512kb cache. some may say that the differances maybe nil but games benefited from a cpu that has 1mb cache instead of 512 or lower. I once even heard that the rough speed differance from a 512kb to a 1mb cache was roughly around 200mhz or less but i dont believe that anyway.

that is one of the reasons why the Intel Core @ Duo's are so great for gaming - 8mb cache

Having a bigger cache on a CPU means that the CPU can do more - it has a much higher throughput


If your still a little confused Here is a little article I hope will help