What is Digg?39 Comments
- marvinmatthew, on 10/12/2007, -9/+44I don't see a huge point in the X2 6000. The price point is $600! One of the comment by one of the users from dailytech.com sums it up best:
"For $600, you could pick up an E6600 + a decent motherboard + 2GB PC6400." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29the problem isnt the $600 price point, the problem is it probably still slower than the E6700 at $500.
- LadyBeGood, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29"Even if its not a cost effective CPU, its still pretty impressive that AMD can cram 6000Mhz into a single die. Tell someone 10 years ago that this would be possible in a decade and you'd not have been believed."
Yea, especially some dude named Moore. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Frankly, no. If you make money doing CPU-intensive activites, yes (3D rendering, encoding etc).
- DarkTrancer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Funny how not so long ago the cries were "My Intel 3.2ghz beats your Amd 2.0ghz"
- Egotrippin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Benchmarks or it didn't happen.
- dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@rompom7
Yes, your are correct 2.66 ghz < 3.0 ghz. Congrats on the figuring it out. Unfortunately the clock speed these days has a lot less to do about the actual real world performance of a processor. If this 6000+ is still using the same old architecture as their earlier processors then the Core 2 Duo processor @2.66 ghz will still beat a 3.0 ghz amd proc. - carlhungis, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Read the first response to the article. The Intel Core 2 Duo chips offer quite a bit more performance for your money.
- Blandyman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wow, looks like someone's dad didn't hug them enough when they were a kid.
By the way, you can't explain something slowly in writing. Someone can read it however fast or slow they want. You can explain it in greater detail, but not slower.
Nice try, though. - HMMaster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12@R313453
we are talking bout performance/price ratio and not gigahertz/price ratio - Rosco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Keep an eye on sites like [H]areOCP, Anandtech or Tom's Hardware. Soon they'll review it and benchmark it against the E6600, E6700 and other Core 2 Duo cpu's. Although this is a fast proc from AMD, even at that speed it may be difficult to beat the architecture of the current Core 2 Duo in performance and power usage.
- dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Agreed, the fanboy stuff is kinda lame. People who understand the difference between processors will know that ghz these days don't have the same weight as the use to. My Amd 2800+ was clocked at ~2.0 ghz or so and It could beat a higher clocked P4. On my most recent upgrade I switched back to Intel because their Core 2 Duo arch is faster then Amd's current offering. The 6000+ (3ghz) processor will not beat an e6700 (2.66 ghz) processor on performance, and the higher price on the AMD chip doesn't make much sense at the moment. Oh well..
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I've realized lately that the logic we used to use to get good budget PC gear doesn't exist anymore. My first PC was an Amiga 500 mind you, but even in the Athlon days, I'd buy an XP 2000+ with a board that supports 3200+ processors, and then wait until they're like $100 CPU's, and then top up your MB for cheap.
Nowadays they never drop that much, they just eat them, so that people have to spend more no matter what. Pretty smart move I guess on their parts. It seems they rapidly go out of stock at the end of the cycle, maybe they buy them back at a decent price to the wholesalers to get them off store shelves, I dunno.
Right now I have two Athlon XP's, and a 64 3700+, which has been fine for me. I'm pretty sure if I got a 6600 I'd need to buy new DDR2 ram yeah? I have 2gb of DDR in my main machine. Anyways honestly I think I'm gonna wait for the quad cores to be normal before I even consider upgrading. The Intel chips seem pretty sweet atm, but for what, to save some unrarring time? - brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I feel really bad for the people who moved to AM2.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is a joke. Athlon 64 is now officially the new Pentium 4. The 6000+ has a TDP of 125W and gets whupped by much lower clocked Intel products.
Sadly, AMD's 65nm shrink of these chips doesn't seem to be much good either.
http://digg.com/hardware/AMD_65nm_cores_have_worse_clock_per_clock_performance_than_90nm
It's going to take a new architecture for AMD to get back into this race. And they do have one slated for intro this year. I have high hopes that AMD will get back on track and keep pushing the limits instead of letting Intel slack off and make the same mistakes they did the last times they got in the driver's seat with P2 (pushing expensive RDRAM) and P4 (relying on high clocks and high power usage too much). - metamorfoza, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8@ marvinmatthew
I am not denying your logic, but there was never a huge point when buying latest CPUs, GPUs, Motherboards. For example, few months ago there was no point in buying Ge-Force 8800 for XXX$ when you could bought 7900GT for YYY$ + Memory + motherboard ....(whatever..) - manifestdata, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Actually it seems your logic is moronic. I'm sure when he said 'Read the first response to the article. The Intel Core 2 Duo chips offer quite a bit more performance for your money,' he was speaking about the first comment on the article.
"For $600, you could pick up an E6600 + a decent motherboard + 2GB PC6400." Which is a fair assessment because I have those specs with an ASUS P5B Deluxe mobo and it suits me fine (Mid-Gaming Rig). - Anubis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Would these be worth getting?
- Surefoot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Intel is the new AMD.
- damentz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The next architecture from AMD will be using AM2, so why are you complaining.
- Yashu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am not sure there are many markets where this chip would be worth it.
I mean... if you are on AM2 and you have a low end single core or an x2 3800 and you run it at stock, then this chip would give you a good speed boost.
However, if you are on AM2 and you have a good CPU or you overclock then this chip won't be much faster... and if you are thinking of building a new computer, unless you plan to run windows x64 and alot of 64bit stuff, you would probably do better with an intel core2 system.
So the people buying this chip would be diehard AMD fans and people looking to upgrade their low end AM2 setup to something better. AMD probably knows this. 3.0ghz is not easy for them on their 90nm process, I am sure they don't have as many of these going in the bin as they do 3800s. - GreatDrok, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Depends. If you go by the benchmarks that all the mags use then the Intel Core 2s are very good. If you write your own programs then you might be surprised. I have benchmarked 2.0Ghz Opterons (HP workstation)s versus 2.66Ghz Xeon Core 2 (Mac Pro) along with PIII, Core Duo, P4, PPC G4 and G5s using some of my own integer and floating point heavy code but no SSE type instructures. The results were striking. The Core 2 based Xeon was about 10% faster clock for clock than the previous Core Duo. The Core Duo behaved like a faster clocked PIII, the P4 was very poor (about 30% slower clock for clock than the PIII/Core Duo) and the G4s were a little faster per clock than the Core Duo and G5s a little slower. But the real surprise was the Opteron which was way faster than anything else. Basically, from my testing it would take a 3+Ghz Core 2 to beat a 2Ghz Opteron so I expect these 3Ghz AMD chips will be very swift in practice.
Of course, if all you care about is running games and so on then you probably are better off with the Intel Core 2 system but for proper heavy lifting then AMD still has a serious chip on their hands. The Core 2 benefits from the new implementation of SSE which has improved performance dramatically. I expect this is where AMD is going to be working to catch up. - lowbot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Its basic economics. the newest and highest end product from a line will cost more. time passes, prices drop. This happens every release cycle.
- brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@metamorfoza
There are lots of reasons to buy an 8800 over SLI 7900 - (still) better performance, future DirectX10 compatibility, and the ability to SLI it later, or, no reason for SLI board. Plus the 8800 is a much better gaming upgrade then the similar expense of moving to a DDR2 platform from 939 with the same graphics. - dizzytaz00, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I seen this CPU on zipzoomfly 2 months ago on back order.
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80743 - rompom7, on 11/09/2007, -9/+6@marvinmatthew: Every CPU starts at that price (unless actually developed to be marketed cheaper).
As for power, running a 64bit OS, this would beat the E6700 on an equivalent 32bit OS. Can't wait for some benchmarks.
AMD are coming back, it's time for the power switch again, it happens every year or two so I think its time for AMD to get back on top. - Amadeus2490, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1""For $600, you could pick up an E6600 + a decent motherboard + 2GB PC6400.""
. . .or a PS3! eh he. . .hehe. . he ha. . .hahah. . . .oi
But in all honesty, I think i'll just wait until processors with more cores come out. I heard that they're gonna make processors with 80 cores by like 2012, which would probably be about 40,000 in today's money. - byronm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1You're the doofus. A few years back AMD switched to a rating vs mhz. The rating of the "CPU' is 6ghz but the true clockspeed is 3ghz. Its not a 6ghz becuase its two cpus but because of AMD's "PR" aka Performance Rating - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PR_rating
- xSEED, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0and it'll pwn the x2 6000
- AlbinoRhino, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1GawtMilk: "I'll sum it up for ya' : Two cores of 3.0 GHz = 6.0 GHz = $100 per GHz"
This is the stupidity that runs rampant within society. It's a 3 GHz Dual core?! Then that's 2 x 3Ghz = 6 GHZ ZOMG!
You think they wouldn't market it as a 6 GHz if they could? My god, the common sense that's lacking these days.
Let's get it straight people: there are two cores that together effectively run at 3.0 GHz. - imyke, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1 yeah, haha
- rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1@Emanji: Isn't the E6700 2 x 2.66GHz?
- inactive, on 11/09/2007, -17/+8Believe it or not, some geeks can afford buying that processor for $600. If I had the money, I'd have to reason not to; it's an extremely powerful processor.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5@ marvinmatthew
Looks like someone's a little upset about there being a faster processor on the market... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+0get a pentium
http://virtualmagic.blogspot.com/2006/08/pentium.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4"Read the first response to the article. The Intel Core 2 Duo chips offer quite a bit more performance for your money."
What kind of moronic logic is that? I can buy a 1Ghz processor for £10. Thats £10 per Ghz - better performance for my money. According to you, buying the 1Ghz would be the best of the three. - GawtMilk, on 11/09/2007, -27/+8I'll sum it up for ya' : Two cores of 3.0 GHz = 6.0 GHz = $100 per GHz
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -23/+2@ HMMaster
Oh, gee golly, HMMaster you got me there. I mean, it's not as though I was trying to make a simple explaination so that stupid people like you would understand. Yeah that's right smartass, YOU MISSED THE POINT. I'll explain it very slowly again, just for you, for that small chance you might understand what I was saying.
My point was that you cant scale up or scale down processor performances to compare pricing; performance to price is NOT linear, it's exponential. Got it? - inactive, on 11/09/2007, -32/+10Even if its not a cost effective CPU, its still pretty impressive that AMD can cram 6000Mhz into a single die. Tell someone 10 years ago that this would be possible in a decade and you'd not have been believed.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is