@ marvinmatthewI 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..)
Depends. 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.
I 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.
Closed AccountJan 28, 2007
@ marvinmatthewI 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..)
dizzytaz00Jan 28, 2007
I seen this CPU on zipzoomfly 2 months ago on back order. <a class="user" href="http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80743">http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80743</a>
lowbotJan 28, 2007
Its basic economics. the newest and highest end product from a line will cost more. time passes, prices drop. This happens every release cycle.
greatdrokJan 28, 2007
Depends. 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.
yashuJan 28, 2007
I 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.
damentzJan 29, 2007
The next architecture from AMD will be using AM2, so why are you complaining.