[expreview] Phenom X3 vs Core 2 Duo's - Page 3 - Overclock.net

Schroedinger · 04-01-08

The problem for AMD is not that their $150 tri core doesn't stack up to $200 Dual Cores from Intel, or doesn't beat $120 Dual Cores by "enough". To the extent that Tricore competes with Intel last-generation Dual Cores, it bloody well ought to perform better. I mean, how long has Allendale been around? This particular article also shows synthetic benchmarks, where number of cores is really very key. Unlike in most real world apps, where cores above two mostly twiddle their thumbs. Now that won't always be the case, but it means that a high end Tricore isn't going to be a competitor in the midrange market (where multithreaded applications are extremely rare) as against the E6550/E8190.

But like I said, that's not the problem. The midrange market is mostly OEM, and AMD can price shave to compete there. The problem is that that market is going to be squeezed by the falling price of the Q6600 ($200 and dropping as I write these words), which has an extra core and 50% better performance per core than any Phenom tricore processor announced to date. AMD is going to have to drastically cut prices if it expects to sell Phenom architecture products except to the fanboy market.

In other words, pretty soon the "midrange" market is going to be sub-$150, maybe even sub-$100.

And forget the top end, AMD's yields aren't high enough to price -anything- over $200. If they can stock clock 3.0 quads, then they can charge $200.

Guruboy · 04-01-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroedinger

The problem for AMD is not that their $150 tri core doesn't stack up to $200 Dual Cores from Intel, or doesn't beat $120 Dual Cores by "enough". To the extent that Tricore competes with Intel last-generation Dual Cores, it bloody well ought to perform better. I mean, how long has Allendale been around? This particular article also shows synthetic benchmarks, where number of cores is really very key. Unlike in most real world apps, where cores above two mostly twiddle their thumbs. Now that won't always be the case, but it means that a high end Tricore isn't going to be a competitor in the midrange market (where multithreaded applications are extremely rare) as against the E6550/E8190.

But like I said, that's not the problem. The midrange market is mostly OEM, and AMD can price shave to compete there. The problem is that that market is going to be squeezed by the falling price of the Q6600 ($200 and dropping as I write these words), which has an extra core and 50% better performance per core than any Phenom tricore processor announced to date. AMD is going to have to drastically cut prices if it expects to sell Phenom architecture products except to the fanboy market.

In other words, pretty soon the "midrange" market is going to be sub-$150, maybe even sub-$100.

And forget the top end, AMD's yields aren't high enough to price -anything- over $200. If they can stock clock 3.0 quads, then they can charge $200.

Um yeah, if you pay 33% more for your processor, you're going to see a performance increase (in the Crysis test, an increase of less than 20%, and you actually see a decrease in Cinebench). If you pay 20% less for your processor, you're going to see a performance decrease (in these tests, a drop of about 20%). So the X3 competes with and sometimes beats comparible Intel chips. The prices match up. What's your point?

stargate125645 · 04-01-08

And you want to trust the people that coat dolls with lead paint for your hardware reviews?

Licht · 04-01-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaRaDoX

it's like $150 or something for the high end tricore

Now that is very interesting since i have a AM2+ board.

Dman · 04-01-08

Probably a good move on AMD's part to maximize profit, its basically a way for them to make money on their defective quad cores. Price point isn't bad either, guess we'll see how they pan out when they hit mainstream.

Arjy · 04-01-08

They are comparing them to the lower end C2ds though,

WhiteCrane · 04-01-08

according to gameinformer, crysis was written for 2 cores. not 4.

Its worth mentioning Crysis is not CPU bottlenecked, it is GPU bottlenecked.

Mr.MidЯange · 04-01-08

Even if it's 150, it comes in par with an e4500, which is cheaper then that. Darn you AMD.

nuklearwax · 04-01-08

All the current Phenom X3s are based on the B2 stepping with the TLB errata. So i wonder if the bios fix for it was truned on which could reduce performance by 20%. I think the Phenom X3 will bench better when AMD switches over to the B3 stepping for the tri cores.

Erwin_Rommel · 04-01-08

Guys, for the love of christ read some reviews before you go shooting off your "TEEHEE! Intels 2 cores beat AMD's 3!!" comments....

Dual core C2Ds perform EXACTLY THE SAME as quad core C2Qs in Crysis. sorry, so these tri-cores are going to be better in every app that can utilize at least 3 cores, and they will be slightly worse in those that can't.

http://www.expreview.com/news/hard/2...0830d6602.html

and keep in mind, the OPs source site uses three procs that are higher clocked than the X3, the only one in the tests its really comparable to is the E4500, because its the closest in clock speed.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Industry News > Hardware News
[expreview] Phenom X3 vs Core 2 Duo's

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)