hothardware.com — With this transition, cost is a major factor, of course, but not just from a manufacturing perspective. With the change over to 65nm, AMD has also sharpened their focus on power consumption and energy efficiency, which translates to lower operating costs as well. What AMD has not worked into the transition are any core performance enhancements.
Feb 1, 2007 View in Crawl 4
moducFeb 2, 2007
@j37hr0, Thanks. I think the site only has performance comparison. I would be nice if they can do a different segments, like desktop, laptop, high end, etc. Then for each, benchmark them, and some how calculate a norm value for these bench mark (weighted average of the benchmark). Then take publish manufacturer prices and calculate performance ratio. They can additionally take sample of popular site for single chip cost (not OEM cost), and take average, then also calculate the price/performance.I actually don't care who has a better performance. For laptop, I can who has a better battery life for a same performance (or similar) as long as the price is not hugely difference. For desktop, I only care about price/performance, since I am not into the fastest chip out there.
benowFeb 2, 2007
Yes, Core 2 is good, but don't even begin to count AMD out. Their processors are very well designed, ie with the memory interface on die, are quite energy miserly. If they maintain their focus on optimal tech design, the quads+ at 45nm- should be great (at least as great as software will let them be). I'm still after an AMD chip for my next box... the 35W 2GHz Dual Core 3800+ EE drinks only a trickle... less with powersaving, is silent with passive cooling, and has enough grunt to be the core of a nice workstation. It should be light enough to be powered for 8hrs/day in a small (mobile) solar/battery setup, including a 24" lcd and laptop HDs.
lilrabbit129Feb 2, 2007
"i think its a smart decision to make their products better, not just faster."For a processor, what is "better" if not "faster" ? The only thing I can think of is power consumption, which has been discussed in the comments above.
stoppedcode12Feb 2, 2007
Yikes, this sounds like intel 6xx series vs intel 5xx series. Except the the Brisbane we have now doesn't have more cache, just slower cache.
elranzerFeb 2, 2007
"I'd have to agree that Core 2 is better right now. Though I tend to prefer AMD chips (root for the underdog) I also buy whoever has a noticable performance/cost ratio for what I work on. In the end I hope the competition keeps up as we win with them making newer/better stuff."I wouldn't "root for the underdog" just for the sake of an underdog. I root for whomever has the best product out (for any industry, not just chip makers). AMD still makes billions, you know.
schoate09Feb 3, 2007
I currently have a Core 2 Duo. Against any AMD i compared it against in the price range, it blew them away. I couldn't see getting AMD unless you bought into it before the Core 2 came out, and have a mobo/ram etc. for it. And now performance is going down? Maybe AMD is attempting to capture some other audience.