Intel Core 2 Duo in short supply and priced above list

Intel Core 2 Duo in short supply and priced above list

Summary: There are only a few places that I have seen carry the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4 GHz processor.

TOPICS: Processors

There are only a few places that I have seen carry the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4 GHz processor.  The E6600 processor has a list price of $316 but is selling as high as $459 at major online retailers and even then they can't maintain any in stock.  Computer superstore Fry's is selling the 2.13 GHz E6400 with an Intel Desktop motherboard for $499 when the CPU itself only lists for $224.

What makes these "low" to "mid-end" Core 2 Duo processors so attractive is that they are able to beat the fastest AMD FX-62 desktop processor which lists for $827 and they beat any of the older generation non-Core Intel CPUs.  Furthermore, they are able to beat AMD's fastest at stock speeds yet they are able clock well above the 3 GHz mark allowing them to widen the performance gap even further.

So is it worth the money for these new Core 2 Duo processors when they're selling above list price?  If you're in the market for a new computer today, the processors still offer the biggest bang for the buck even when the price is being inflated by the short supply.  It will take some time for the prices to come down.

Topic: Processors

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Best bang for the buck?? nah...

    Don't get me wrong, the Intel Core 2 Duo chips are powerful cpu's, and I agree that the E6600 on up handily beat the best AMD currently has to offer at stock.

    As well, the AMD flagship processor is extremely overpriced, but thats only for marketing purposes. The rest of the AMD x2 series is well-priced at the moment and I think provides better value.
    • Agree completely

      E6600, 6400, 6300 get their butts handed to them by Athlon X2 CPUs. They also have a much lower idle power than Core CPUs. PCs are idle 99% of the time. Thats what matters.
      • In what universe?

        Performance wise, none of AMD's CPUs can beat the mid-end E6600. Even with the artificially high prices on the Core 2 Duo, you still get more performance per dollar out of them over any other non-Core 2 CPU be it Intel Netburst or any AMD CPU. AMD is only competitive in dirt cheap sub-80 dollar market where the motherboard is bundled.

        Idle power depends on the motherboard and it's disputable which has lower idle power because different websites have different idle power measurements. Moderate to max loads definitely favor Intel by a large margin.
        • Oh... let me answer that!!!

          He's in the Universe were a PC's performance is how much heat is produces. To him, the Pentium D is the mightiest of CPUs.

          Or, perhaps he is in the universe where the least amount of work is done by Clock Cycle. Again, Pentium D is the winner.

          Hrm... I know, he is in the universe where no matter what Intel does, AMD is always better.

          As my AMD Rep did tell me though, they will have their performance crown back by Christmas.
          • 4x4 doesn't count

            "As my AMD Rep did tell me though, they will have their performance crown back by Christmas."

            If they're trying to compare a dual socket solution to a single socket solution from Intel, maybe. The problem is that comparison would be lame because it's like saying 2 of my guys combined can beat one of your guys. That's really stupid and lame of AMD to be making that argument.

            Apple is already selling the dual 2.6 GHz Woodcrest at $2500, which is a pretty good price for a WinTel machine. Yes I did say WinTel.
          • Not for sure on that part

            He just said the performance crown would be back in AMD's hands by Christmas. Wouldn't really give me any details.

            As for the Apple, yeah, I am tempted to purchase that instead of wait for the Core 2. I think it would do a better job of handling Graphics. Although, I would have to bump up the RAM and a few other goodies, but all in all, still under $3300.
          • New Apple is Core 2, but Woodcrest

            Woodcrest is Core 2, just not the "desktop" version.
          • Apple's Woodcrest

            I may have missed something, but looking at the Apple and Dell sites for essentially the same technology Apple are coming out [b]waaay[/b] cheaper. The main problem comes with trying to buy a Dell with the same spec - the base system [b]may[/b] be cheaper but check the memory speed, check the video card, and check the HDD. By the time you get up to the Apple spec the Dell is over by about 20%. And just look at the cost of 16GB 677MHz DDR2 RAM. I don't know whether this is a loss leader!

            Dell's Redhat system doesn't even come with the option of 667MHz RAM (but there is still the option to remove Outlook Express!)
          • Message has been deleted.

          • I think I found something different

            I tried using 2 AMD 64 Computers, yet in each one in the 32 mode, they were slow, took over 30 minutes to use trend software sysclean scan yet only 4-6 minutes with Intel T2400 Duo Computer.
  • What else is new?

    Every time Intel has something that can deliver a killer blow to AMD they have supply issues that prevent it from happening. What made you think this time would be different?
    Michael Kelly
    • Not really, this situation is unique

      This is a massive change for Intel and they're ramping up Core 2 faster than any chip company in history. It's such a big change that it will take some time to make the full conversion.
      • Still this is an issue

        They manage to launch a product without any real product.

        The only comparison I have to this is the XBox 360. Although Microsoft produced a number as quick as they could, they still didn't produce nearly enough when they launched. Their main goal was to get the product out by Christmas.

        Intel's only driving factor was to get the chip out so that they could claim they took the speed crown back from AMD. Granted, they now have the faster processor, but they still don't have much in way of quantity of processor.

        Dear Intel,

        Build some Inventory before a product launch. Especially when your product is about to take the top spot in the market.
      • Ramping up faster than ever???

        What planet are you on? They are obviously *not* ramping up faster than ever...or they wouldn't have this going on. People always talk about whether AMD has the capacity to meet demand...Intel's is never questioned. There are 2 key points regarding this:
        1) AMD has fewer fabs, but they have a more flexible manufacturing process and control system, which allows them to change the product being output pretty much on the fly.
        2) This shortage may not be accidental: Intel distributers have *alot* of Netburst inventory to get rid of and have been letting Intel know in no uncertain terms that they are not happy with what the new pricing following the Core 2 rollout has meant thus far. The solution: a deliberate slowdown in distribution of Core 2 until some inventory is burned off. Keeps the distributors extra happy - they can charge higher prices for Core 2 due to the higher demand vs. supply curve (artificial)...*and*, they can burn off some of their inventory. The problem is...this is costing Intel dearly, even though they are keeping their distributors from suffering huge losses by inventory writeoffs.
        • 1 million in 7 weeks is the fastest ever

          Ramping up 1 million Core 2 processors in 7 weeks is the fastest ever. Problem is that the demand far outstrips supply. 1 million simply is not enough when 10 million or more are needed in the first month.
          • Nice, except...

            It's only been 2 weeks, George. And it will take a bit longer than 7 weeks to unload all the old Netburst inventory that distributors/resellers have built up. They are hollering back at're seeing these prices because of a deliberate trickle out, not because of demand for Core 2, but because the distributors told Intel in no uncertain terms not to undercut Netburst until they can burn off some inventory.
          • Don't think so

            No doubt the supply situation with Netburst is a BIG problem for Intel, but there is no trick here. It's hard to ramp up a brand new CPU at this scale. 1 million new CPUs in 7 weeks is unheard of yet it still isn't close to being enough.
          • No offense, but have they heard of...

            Building up Inventory?

            I know it costs money and spike interest, but what are the manufacturing costs of a CPU? Around 50 dollars or so. Surely they could recooperate from that in like the first week that the Core 2 when on sale. Instead of letting the vendors charge an arm and a couple toes for a CPU that isn't out in volume yet.
  • Detailed Supply Problems

    Dell XPS 700: Oct. 18

    Alienware A51 ALX: Sep. 12 6300: not available

    ZipZoom 6400: no stock

    NewEgg 6600: No stock

    NewEgg 6700: No stock

    ZipZoom 6800: No stock

    Evesham 6300: Mid-October

    Velocity DCX Raptor: Aug 29
  • Wiser people will wait until the 1st chip revision is out...

    This is a fairly different implementation and a completely new chip. I cannot believe that Intel in its hastening to release something ASAP, has worked out all the bugs. Wiser people should wait until the first revision is out.

    If prices are artificially inflated due to shortage, there is even more reasons to wait.

    "Best bang for the back"? I sure DOUBT that for the previous two reasons.

    What else can one expect from OU? "WIntel or bust" ...