Prices released on Conroe, AMD may need to slash 70% on FX62

Prices released on Conroe, AMD may need to slash 70% on FX62

Summary: It's noteworthy that the C2D E6600 2.4 GHz dual core Conroe which has a list price of $316 is able to beat the fastest AMD AM2-based FX-62 processor which costs around $1000. There have been rumors of large price drops on AMD processors but it will be interesting to see what AMD's response will be. In order for the fastest AMD desktop processor to compete on a price/performance ratio, it would have to be slashed by 70% which would be very hard for AMD to swallow.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Processors
92
Since the announcement of the Core2 products at the Intel Developer Forum in March, AMD has seen their stock price nearly halved.

The word is out on Intel Core2 Conroe processors.  The price and model numbers have been set on the new Intel processors while the price on older Pentium D processors have been slashed.  Even the dual core Pentium D 945 running at 3.4 GHz has been slashed to $163 on July 23rd which is cheaper than the slowest C2D E6300 at 1.86 GHz.

It's noteworthy that the C2D E6600 2.4 GHz dual core Conroe which has a list price of $316 is able to beat the fastest AMD AM2-based FX-62 processor which costs around $1000.  There have been rumors of large price drops on AMD processors but it will be interesting to see what AMD's response will be.  In order for the fastest AMD desktop processor to compete on a price/performance ratio, it would have to be slashed by 70% which would be very hard for AMD to swallow.  Since the announcement of the Core2 products at the Intel Developer Forum in March 2006, AMD has seen their stock price nearly halved.

The new Conroe processors will have a devastating effect on current inventory from AMD or Intel.  It's kind of like a scorched earth tactic where Intel's own legacy "Netburst" inventory will suffer collateral damage in the war against AMD.  Anyone who's buying computers right now should definitely hold off for 2 more weeks since there will be massive price drops on current AMD and Intel CPUs.  A reader of mine asked me if he should be building the cheap dual core 4 GHz machine I blogged about two months ago and I told him to hold off on it.  The good news is that no matter what you buy 2 weeks from now, it will be a lot cheaper or it will be a lot faster.

There's little doubt that even the cheap 2.4 GHz Conroe will deliver a lot of performance, but what I'm really curious to see is if will actually clock to 4 GHz.  Even if it clocks to 3 GHz it will be a huge achievement and I'm going to be putting together a system based on this CPU by the end of this month.  I've got plenty of personal 1080i HDV footage that I need to re-encode and shrink and the new dual core processors will come in handy.  It's also going to be nice to dump my power hogging 3.45 (that's overclocked from 3.0) GHz Pentium 4 system that's eating up 250 watts in idle.  The newer Conroe Dual Core CPUs take up 65 watts at peak power levels though that will undoubtedly go up when I overclock it but still be much lower than my current setup.

Topic: Processors

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

Talkback

92 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Isn't competition great?

    Unlike the PC OS environment where prices stay high, these guys like to duke it out. Go AMD! Go InHell! Get me the cheapest, best solution out there!
    Roger Ramjet
    • Microsoft definitely needs some of this....

      'nuff said.
      jinko
    • Depends

      If Intel is selling their chips below cost for the purpose of putting AMD out of business, then they're likely to find themselves in the dock, just like Microsoft.

      Hopefully, Intel is playing this honestly, and the lower prices represent a chip that is simply cheaper to produce.
      John L. Ries
      • Not hard to under price chip costs

        Production of chips actually run pretty low, I heard only a few dollars. $50 or so. The majority of Chip cost is R&D.

        If Intel is able to flood the market with chips, they should be able to recoup that cost quicker by putting out provided that the chips move like they think they would. Meanwhile if AMD happens to be playing the secret game and throw something out on the table that Intel isn't expecting, Intel could be up the creek. I doubt AMD has a card up their sleeve. Their marketing against Intel would suggest that they don't and so they want to question the benchmarks that Intel is getting with the new chips.

        As for the chips. basically they are tested up to a speed and then if they fail, they are rated at the speed at the rate below that. This is based off of samples from a lot. This is why some chips are able to be overclocked 50% of their "Determined" clockspeed. Just FYI
        nucrash
        • Plus

          Your no longer paying for 1000 chiefs. and that is a substancial savings on a per chip basis. Now the indians can get busy without fear of upseting one of the 1000's of bosses. I think that firing 1000 usless employees was a good move by intel and it is super that finally they are going to put a little pressure on AMD. AMD has been comforatable for too long. There hasn't been a major markdown on the lower end chips in a long time the 2600xp chip has been around $70 for the last 3 years and really is so old it should be around 35 - 40 or less. As for my next cpu Probably Intel and I am a AMD fanboy.
          IceTheNet@...
    • What on earth are you talking about?

      [i]Unlike the PC OS environment where prices stay high[/i]

      Linux is free. It doesn't get any cheaper than $0 so I don't know why you think that prices are high in the PC OS environment.
      NonZealot
      • and then...

        ... you wake up and found only geeks run Linux on most home computers and realizes he was talking about Microsoft's WinXP, the OS on 99% of home computers.....
        Da Compu Geek
        • but then...

          you fell asleep again and woke up in 2007 and find that your OS requires a $1,600.00 upgrade to vista......
          IceTheNet@...
          • I don't think it will be that much

            I'm sure Vista will cost more than XP but $1600 is a little bit of stretch unless you talking about the server version.
            voska
          • hmmm

            maybe but considering micro corps record.

            win95 $35
            win98 $98
            winMe $145
            win2K $199
            winXP $899
            winVisa $1,600 is not that far from a good guess.
            IceTheNet@...
          • $899 for WinXP?

            So what cavern of your body did pull that price out of?
            toadlife
          • I pulled it out of my stinky toadlife hole.

            I am sure you have severe memory loss due to swamp gasses. but that was the original release price for WindowsXP Professional Full of course "YOU" could purchase the $499 upgrade version for "YOUR" hacked version of win98se because you couldn't afford the $98 price tag. As time went by then you could find better and better prices now you can get XP Professional full for $299 but then vista will be out in about a year so it would be insaine to purchase it now.
            IceTheNet@...
          • You are joking, right?

            DOS $60
            3.11 $99
            Win95 $199
            Win98 $199
            WinMe $199
            Win2k $299
            WinXP Home $199
            WinXP Pro $299
            Vista TBA

            Knock off $100 for upgrade versions on Win95 and up.

            OEM XP Home $99
            OEM XP Pro $149

            Non transferable

            OEM bulk for XP Home is $30 at Dell by comparing a naked PC to one that comes with XP home. Same exact model. That was some guess.
            osreinstall
          • Actually the pricing is in on Vista

            the upgrade list price for Vista Ultimate (the equivalent of XP Pro) is going to 499.99. the price to purchase the full OS for the same version is going to be 949.99. Per Microsoft's bulletin to their beta testers. Whether that is the actual pricing when the thing is finally released or not I don't know.
            maldain
          • Put the crack pipe down...!

            [b]you fell asleep again and woke up in 2007 and find that your OS requires a $1,600.00 upgrade to vista......[/b]

            Uh.. News flash. Hardware's cheap.

            I built a complete Vista premium capable box 6 months ago for under $500. That's including a GB of RAM, an Athlon64 3400+ chip, a 200 GB SATA2 HDD, DVD ROM, Case w/400 watts of power AND a nice set of Altec Lansing speakers.

            So... If I can get all that 6 months ago for the money I spent, you'd think you could get upgraded to a Vista capable box for a lot less.

            And the price tag will be even lower in a couple of weeks after AMD and Intel drop prices...
            Wolfie2K3
          • What? Ha! Boy...you should get an education

            I did a crappy little $350 (CND) 4 months ago and the Microsoft Vista compatability tool says I can run Vista Ultimate just fine. So either you are just spreading FUD and you do not really have a clue, or you do know the truth and your just a lier.
            Cayble
        • I know what he was talking about

          but it doesn't change the fact that [b]PC OSs[/b] are not expensive. Two of them are but Linux isn't. It isn't my fault that Microsoft and Apple don't reduce their prices to match.
          NonZealot
      • Because the prices haven't come down

        Sure Linux is free if you want to do the work or you can pay Disto for thier packaged version that usually but no always is easier to set up. Still with all this competition on the PC you don't see Microsoft lowering prices to compete now do you.

        Still, think of Intel back in the 90s when AMD was just coming up with a processor that could compete. Intel didn't lower prices, if anything the raised prices.

        So until Linux has 35% of the market don't expect Microsoft to lower prices. Will it ever happen?
        voska
  • Even though it doesn't have it on the list...

    http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

    ^^^--- More reliable.
    ju1ce
  • I am queueing up orders at work

    I would like to get as many in the door as possible.

    I am tired of dealing with 3 GHz foot warmers and want some serious power on the desks of my engineers.

    From what I understand, July 27th is the actual launch date of the CPUs. I am pretty sure ZDnet said that in an earlier article. Could you verify this?
    nucrash