Single Core AMD's to have price drop..

[Rob Williams]

Of course, this was only bound to happen. Sadly, none of the 'truly amazing' chips seem to have a price drop right now, but the regular desktop chips have around a 15% drop.

<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: bold;"><td style="background-color: rgb(1, 106, 150);" colspan="3" rowspan="1">AMD Desktop Processor Price List</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); font-weight: bold;" align="undefined" valign="undefined">Processor (Retail)
</td> <td style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); font-weight: bold; text-align: center;" valign="undefined">Current</td> <td style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); font-weight: bold; text-align: right;" valign="undefined">May 15, 2006
</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" valign="undefined">Athlon 64 3500+ S939
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" valign="undefined">$203</td> <td style="text-align: right;" valign="undefined">$185</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">Athlon 64 3200+ S939
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$154
</td> <td style="text-align: right;" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$135
</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" valign="undefined">Athlon 64 3200+ S754
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" valign="undefined">$154</td> <td style="text-align: right;" valign="undefined">$135</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">Sempron 3400+ S754
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$118</td> <td style="text-align: right;" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$95</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" valign="undefined">Sempron 3300+ S754
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" valign="undefined">$108</td> <td style="text-align: right;" valign="undefined">$91</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">Sempron 3100+ S754
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$93
</td> <td style="text-align: right;" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$81
</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" valign="undefined">Sempron 3000+ S754
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" valign="undefined">$83
</td> <td style="text-align: right;" valign="undefined">$76</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">Sempron 2800+ S754
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$73</td> <td style="text-align: right;" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$65</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: bold;"> <td style="background-color: rgb(1, 106, 150);" colspan="3" rowspan="1">AMD Desktop Processor Price List</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); font-weight: bold;" align="undefined" valign="undefined">Processor (Tray)
</td> <td style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); font-weight: bold; text-align: center;" valign="undefined">Current</td> <td style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); font-weight: bold; text-align: right;" valign="undefined">May 15, 2006
</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" valign="undefined">Athlon 64 3500+ S939
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" valign="undefined">$208</td> <td style="text-align: right;" align="center" valign="undefined">$189</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">Athlon 64 3200+ S939
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$158
</td> <td style="text-align: right;" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$138
</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" valign="undefined">Athlon 64 3200+ S754
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" valign="undefined">$158</td> <td style="text-align: right;" align="center" valign="undefined">$138</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">Sempron 3400+ S754
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$120</td> <td style="text-align: right;" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$97</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" valign="undefined">Sempron 3300+ S754
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" valign="undefined">$110</td> <td style="text-align: right;" align="center" valign="undefined">$93</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">Sempron 3100+ S754
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$95
</td> <td style="text-align: right;" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$83
</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" valign="undefined">Sempron 3000+ S754
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" valign="undefined">$85
</td> <td style="text-align: right;" align="center" valign="undefined">$76</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="undefined" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">Sempron 2800+ S754
</td> <td style="text-align: center;" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$74</td> <td style="text-align: right;" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeeee" valign="undefined">$67</td></tr></tbody></table>
Not too shabby really. I would love to see if the regular S939 Dual Cores will end up having their prices dropped also.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2041

 

[madmat]

That's good to hear. I hope that the 1XX series Optys get a price drop as well.

 

[Jakal]

Single cores are an excellent breed. Even with more and more apps/games/etc leaning toward dual core architechture, the singles still have a market. Average users don't need or won't need a dual core processor for years to come. Most of the pc's being sold today don't do much more than surf the internet or some business type work. The enthusiasts, such as most of us here, push toward the dual cores and high performance gains. Without us wanting and craving more power (think early 60's muscle cars) chip makers wouldn't be where they're at.

Us that do a lot of gaming, those wanting that big score and high fps, practically force the industry to come out with something better. Something that's better or faster than the other brand. The chip makers see that need, they see that market, and they build for that market. Which the average user won't see a need for until a few years or so down the road.

We like the cutting edge performance, the top of the hill hardware, the stuff that makes others drool. We like gloating over that 3dMark score, and laughing when our friends can't even run it. Computers now have become like the muscle cars of the past. There's a market for it and most can get in it without breaking the bank. We work for that new cpu or that new ram like the generations before us worked for that new motor or that awesome intake.

 

[madmat]

I have to disagree that single core doesn't offer help for users. I have been running HT for years now and I saw a night and day difference between my 2.4C and the 2500+ Barton I had been using. HT is a lot smoother for multi-tasking and since dualcore spanks HT it's even smoother. Yes, for an email/word processing/'net surfing machine the single core is fine but for a power user of any merit a dually will be of tremendous value.

With the coming of Vista in the next 8 months single core will be bad bogged just running the OS, Vista is a bad resource hog and we'll likely see users that went single core now end up migrating to AM2 next year with new dualcore rigs.

 

[Jakal]

I think that's what I meant.. Single cores for those who don't do much, dual cores for us that want/need the performance. Sorry if I didn't make that clearer.

 

[fussnfeathers]

I have to disagree that single core doesn't offer help for users. I have been running HT for years now and I saw a night and day difference between my 2.4C and the 2500+ Barton I had been using. HT is a lot smoother for multi-tasking and since dualcore spanks HT it's even smoother. Yes, for an email/word processing/'net surfing machine the single core is fine but for a power user of any merit a dually will be of tremendous value.

That's what Jakal said. Mom and Dad only need a single core, us power-users will want dual-core.

 

[madmat]

In the future with Vista I think mom and dad will want dualcore too. Just like I said in the rest of my first post. Vista won't be years down the road, merely months.

 

[fussnfeathers]

I'm not so sure. Having had experience with the Beta, and having a general idea where MS is heading with Vista, it's not going to be that big an issue.

One, mom and pop aren't going to upgrade their rig that they just bought last year (or even two years ago) for at least three more years, if not a bit longer. Your average joe user will still be using XP in 3-4 years, until they need to go to Wal Mart to buy a new net surfing rig.

Two, MS will undoubtedly tweak Vista again a couple of more times before release, and it's already far less resource-hungry than it was a few betas ago.

Three, the average user doesn't care about "smoothness", as they wouldn't notice the difference any more than they would a new nose hair. TBH, I know what I'm looking for, and I only notice it occasionally.

Remember, most of us couldn't live with less than 3.2ghz, 2gb RAM, and 256mb vid cards, but all of your non-geek friends are running 900mhz P3's with 256mb RAM and built-in video, and are quite happy. This is not going to change with Vista. The majority of computer users won't even SEE Vista until they buy a new machine.

 

[madmat]

Talking with someone who's a Vista beta tester the latest beta is hitting 20% to 30% lower performance than XP with real world apps. That's huge. If this version isn't as much of a resource hog as earlier versions I shudder to think what those were like.

 

[Jakal]

That's one thing I've been thinking about. XP can run on a 233mhz with 128mb ram. I've personally installed it on something even worse than that and with a few tweaks it ran fairly smoothly. Now if MS is going to release an OS that's MORE resource hungry, that just means more cost for pc makers. They'll have to pass those costs onto the consumer. For what? A worse performing pc for more money? If my pc is going to perform slower with a new OS then I don't want it. I'll stick with XP.

I really don't see the selling point for Vista. Browsing around I came across an article.

In the meantime, some homework: why is Vista better than XP?
If your non-techie friend or financial advisor or Mom asked you that question, what are you going say?
I only ask because recently I was watching a video of a speaker at Microsoft. During the Q&A, he asked that question of a lady Microsoftie in the audience. Not only could you tell her brain was momentarily frozen (uhhhhhh), you could feel that the entire crowd hit a panicked brain freeze. The lady then came up with an almost apologetic answer saying the Vista is more stable, safer, and faster than XP.

So that's the selling points? Stability is based on user input, anyone can crash a system. Safety is a key factor here, but most people have heard of or know of pc virii and they'll spend that $30-50 for a good av program. Faster than XP.. Well from you guys here are saying, it's not.

Okay okay.. it looks good and has DirectX 10. I've got StylesXP. I think the biggest thing that will cause most to switch is DX10. Games are going to require it in the future, but I also believe there will be an XP version of it as well. I'm with Fuss on this one. Most users won't want or need Vista until they upgrade. At which point, they will be confused to start with and will have to relearn the new OS. Vista is going to really have to wow for me to switch over.

I'm not saying that dual core is out of the picture, and I'm not saying dual core isn't useful to anyone. I'm saying that the average joe doesn't need that much processing power. They will in the future that's a fact. I just don't see dual core as a neccessity. At least for a few more years.

Look at how long it took the 3500 to go into a mainstream computer. Compaq just a few months ago offered it as the HIGHEST AMD option for their desktops. Here we are using X2 4400's 2.5-3.0Ghz single cores. Oc'ing to our hearts content. We aren't the average joe, we aren't the ones just using our pc's for internet and email. Yet we are the one's pushing chip makers for more.

 

[Buck-O]

I think that's what I meant.. Single cores for those who don't do much, dual cores for us that want/need the performance. Sorry if I didn't make that clearer.

I agree, but disagree.

I will agree that Dial cores are for those that need performance.
But i dont think that single cores are for "those who don't do much".
And more to that end, Dual Cores are more for power users who understand the needs of a SMP setup, and who know how to properly tweak their system to get the most out of it. Generally speaking, a vast majority of the people out there with current dual core technology, arent even utilizing the processor to 50% of its potential, becuase they dont understand it.

Personally, for me, i would be plenty well off, with a nice fast single core processor. Mostly all i do is gaming, and at this stage of the game (hardware wise), there isnt really a NEED for much more then that. But a 3500+ A64, is still alot of processor for most people.

Once Vista hits, and starts to take alot of the guesswork out of dual core SMP usage, then they will truely be for the power hungry user. FOr those that just want to play some games, watch some videos, and encode some MP3's...a singel core will do them just as good.


EDIT:

I guess i should have read a little bit lower where you said...

I'm not saying that dual core is out of the picture, and I'm not saying dual core isn't useful to anyone. I'm saying that the average joe doesn't need that much processing power. They will in the future that's a fact. I just don't see dual core as a neccessity. At least for a few more years.

I agree 100%.