AMD launches six-core desktop chip price war with Intel

[JMH]

Advanced Micro Devices is trying to beat Intel on price with its latest six-core desktop Phenom II X6 processors that were unveiled today.

AMD is shipping two X6 processors that are substantially less pricey than Intel's latest six-core Core i7-980XM desktop processor, which was announced last month. The Phenom II X6 1090T processor runs at 3.2GHz and is priced at $295, while the 1055T, which runs at 2.8GHz, is priced at $199. Intel's Core i7-980XM desktop processor is priced at $999, according to a price list on Intel's Web site.

The X6 chips are targeted at gamers and buyers looking for high-performance desktops, said Adam Kozak, platform marketing manager at AMD. The chips are the fastest yet in AMD's desktop processor lineup.

Source -
AMD launches six-core desktop chip price war with Intel - Computerworld

 

[pparks1]

There we go.....that is typically how AMD competes with Intel on CPU's. It's not usually $50 price differences we are talking about. It's hundreds of dollars. And the Core i7-980x is over $1,000 which is insane Now to start reading the benchmarks.

 

[Kipper]

TigerDirect has the new 6core 1090T with 50.00 rebate so that makes it 249.00.

This new chip is a nice over clocker, seen a review today where it was stable on air cooling at 4.2

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

There we go.....that is typically how AMD competes with Intel on CPU's. It's not usually $50 price differences we are talking about. It's hundreds of dollars. And the Core i7-980x is over $1,000 which is insane Now to start reading the benchmarks.

Doesn't the i7-980x also have 12mb L3 Cache, while the Phenom II X6 has only 6mb L3 Cache?

 

[pparks1]

Doesn't the i7-980x also have 12mb L3 Cache, while the Phenom II X6 has only 6mb L3 Cache?

It probably does and AMD expects the Core i7-980x to out perform their chip. But considering that you can get the AMD chip for around $700 LESS than the Intel...I'd be VERY willing to accept a little less performance.

Edit: yes, the Intel has 6 x 256K L2 and 12MB of L3, while the AMD has 6 x 512k L2 and 6MB of L3.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

Doesn't the i7-980x also have 12mb L3 Cache, while the Phenom II X6 has only 6mb L3 Cache?

It probably does and AMD expects the Core i7-980x to out perform their chip. But considering that you can get the AMD chip for around $700 LESS than the Intel...I'd be VERY willing to accept a little less performance.

Oh of course. Everyone that builds computers should be (if not already) well aware that AMD is for cheaper prices while still getting good performance, and Intel is for great performance but at a cost.

 

[Everlong]

There we go.....that is typically how AMD competes with Intel on CPU's. It's not usually $50 price differences we are talking about. It's hundreds of dollars. And the Core i7-980x is over $1,000 which is insane Now to start reading the benchmarks.

It pretty much just performs against Intels and falls in place like AMD processors have been doing previously with Phenoms. There are a few places where the x6 doesn't scale that well against an x4 965 too, but I guess the lack of added cache over an x4 is the problem.

But still, it's still a nice price for a hexacore CPU if you're running AMD processors.

 

[pparks1]

Oh of course. Everyone that builds computers should be (if not already) well aware that AMD is for cheaper prices while still getting good performance, and Intel is for great performance but at a cost.

Right, but lately the Athlon X4's haven't been as fast as the Intel CPU's, nor have them been significantly cheaper either. Sure, they are cheaper...but comparatively speaking, it's been 25-33% cheaper. However in this case, it's much, much, much, cheaper. It's been awhile since AMD has done something like this, at this significant of a difference.

Now the question is whether the $300 6 core AMD out paces the quad core Intel i7's or the i5's and nearly the same price point.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

Oh of course. Everyone that builds computers should be (if not already) well aware that AMD is for cheaper prices while still getting good performance, and Intel is for great performance but at a cost.

Right, but lately the Athlon X4's haven't been as fast as the Intel CPU's, nor have them been significantly cheaper either. Sure, they are cheaper...but comparatively speaking, it's been 25-33% cheaper. However in this case, it's much, much, much, cheaper. It's been awhile since AMD has done something like this, at this significant of a difference.

Now the question is whether the $300 6 core AMD out paces the quad core Intel i7's or the i5's and nearly the same price point.

While you can compare the price of Intel and AMD CPU's. You need to consider the motherboard cost for either one as well.

 

[Everlong]

Oh of course. Everyone that builds computers should be (if not already) well aware that AMD is for cheaper prices while still getting good performance, and Intel is for great performance but at a cost.

Now the question is whether the $300 6 core AMD out paces the quad core Intel i7's or the i5's and nearly the same price point.

They don't, according to benchmarks.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

Oh of course. Everyone that builds computers should be (if not already) well aware that AMD is for cheaper prices while still getting good performance, and Intel is for great performance but at a cost.

Now the question is whether the $300 6 core AMD out paces the quad core Intel i7's or the i5's and nearly the same price point.

They don't, according to benchmarks.

How about real world usage?

 

[pparks1]

They don't, according to benchmarks.

Well then, there you go. This will just sucker in the people who believe without proof that more cores = better always.

If they really are no better than $300'ish dollar Core i7's and Core i5's...that's disappointing as more competition just increases performance and lowers prices for us all.

How about real world usage?

Hard for any of us to say...as we don't have one and don't see the real world performance results. But generally speaking, for me, they tend to follow the benchmarks fairly well. Probably not as dramatic in real world...and if that's the case...I don't see the advantage to go 6 core AMD if you could get a slightly cheaper 4 core Intel that was faster.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

They don't, according to benchmarks.

Well then, there you go. This will just sucker in the people who believe without proof that more cores = better always.

If they really are no better than $300'ish dollar Core i7's and Core i5's...that's disappointing as more competition just increases performance and lowers prices for us all.

How about real world usage?

Hard for any of us to say...as we don't have one and don't see the real world performance results. But generally speaking, for me, they tend to follow the benchmarks fairly well. Probably not as dramatic in real world...and if that's the case...I don't see the advantage to go 6 core AMD if you could get a slightly cheaper 4 core Intel that was faster.

As I said in an earlier post (http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/81171-amd-launches-six-core-desktop-chip-price-war-intel.html#post707188) you still need to factor in the price of the AMD Motherboard VS the price of an Intel Motherboard.

 

[A Guy]

Tom's has tested.

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T And 890FX Platform Review: Hello, Leo : AMD Can Do Six Cores, Too

A Guy