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.
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.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Isn't competition great?
Microsoft definitely needs some of this....
Depends
Hopefully, Intel is playing this honestly, and the lower prices represent a chip that is simply cheaper to produce.
Not hard to under price chip costs
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
Plus
What on earth are you talking about?
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.
and then...
but then...
I don't think it will be that much
hmmm
win95 $35
win98 $98
winMe $145
win2K $199
winXP $899
winVisa $1,600 is not that far from a good guess.
$899 for WinXP?
I pulled it out of my stinky toadlife hole.
You are joking, right?
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.
Actually the pricing is in on Vista
Put the crack pipe down...!
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...
What? Ha! Boy...you should get an education
I know what he was talking about
Because the prices haven't come down
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?
Even though it doesn't have it on the list...
^^^--- More reliable.
I am queueing up orders at work
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?