http://www.silentpcreview.com/news-2011-02-23.htm

* AMD "Ready. Willing. And Stable." (SB alternatives suggested)
* Intel 510-series SSDs due to arrive on March 1
* CEA Study finds dramatic increase in TV energy efficiency
* SSD manufacturers will label 25nm SSDs differently

ready, willing , and able to consume significantly more power that offsets any price difference over the life of the product.

Not everyone leaves their PC on 24/7. There are such things as suspend, hibernate, and even turning off the PC.

edit: can't spell things today

At first I thought - kind of strange the way they're matching those up. They are different CPUs, less performance per core, but more cores on the X6. Not bad, actually I think they're good and they still have the best price/performance at certain prices. But you can't argue with their checklist as it does highlight differences.

sorry for being a little too snarky. I am actually currently running a A64 X2 and am going to migrate to SB. If you are running multi-threaded applications the argument for X6 is strong, but they seem to be advocating X6 chips for serious gaming rigs. AFAIK games don't really benefit much from multi-threading. One of their other big strengths is low cost 3-4 core CPUs for gaming so you have more money left over for the GPU. the copy is taking a swipe at Intel's sandy bridge problems. the only problem is at that part of the market intel destroys AMD.

More cores is less valuable than more cycles per second or doing more work per cycle. Few applications are coded to take advantage of extra cores.

"6 Cores for the price of their 4 Cores" Yeah, but you really need them against their 4.

About the comparison table, I did a quick price check (prices in euros):

X6 1100T + HD 6850: 250+150 = 350
Core i7 2600K: 275

X6 1090T + HD 5750: 195+100 = 295
Core i5 2500K: 195

X4 840 + HD 5670: 85+75 = 160
Core i5 2300: 150

X4 645 + HD 5450: 85+40 = 125
Core i3 2100: 115

So for the high-end the comparison doesn't really match up money wise, but AMD can ofcourse claim that their combination actually allows you to play games. For the low-end the prices do match up and it could be argued that AMD is giving some value for money here. The 5670 is a decent card for not too demanding 1680x1050 gaming, something the i5 2300 can't do. But the i5 2300 is ofcourse a much better cpu than the 840 (which is just a X4 640 iirc). Personally I'd get the i5 2300 and the HD5670 but it all depends on the budget I guess. Choosing between X4 645 + 5450 or i3 2100 is a bit harder. Although, for those kind of systems a dualcore would probably suffice and the single thread performance and power benefits start weighing in again. Also, kinda meaningless without the mobo in the equation.

So just get that Bulldozer out already ok?

Even Intel can't keep up with Intel
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=61642&p=534714#p534714
AMD is grasping at straws. By the time Bulldozer arrives... it will still be behind Sandy Bridge and will be having to play catchup not to Sandy Bridge but to Ivy Bridge.

Did you include motherboard prices? You can't just buy a X4 645 or i3 2100 and let it hang in mid air. AMD and most people that do real world pricing comparisons would do so with total cost in mind.

just grabbing some quick prices in the US

X4 645 $108 + HD 5450 $36 = $144 but there is no motherboard so I'd add say a $57 MSI motherboard and get to $201 (that includes tax and shipping and any other incidental cost the retailer wants to stick me with).

Core i3 2100 $131 but that doesn't cover a motherboard so I'd add say a $103 Asus board. Much more expensive. Is that a fair comparison? Maybe the price is so much higher because there is no supply of fixed motherboards right now? You tell me what motherboard would you put with that i3 2100 if you had to order one today?

Whatever the case you need to include motherboard costs in the comparison or it just isn't accurate.

To quote Lawrence Lee from Sandy Bridge, Part 4:



Those prices are from over a month ago so they aren't current but the concept still applies. Higher costs for Intel complete systems are common if you don't stop your price comparison at just the CPU cost.

Yeah definitely need to include mobo prices like that SPCR article did. Anybody have a actual recent Sandy Bridge build with a 2500 or something? Here's my recent AMD, purchased Jan 18:

CPU - AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz - $130.95 on ebay (shipped from newegg)
Mobo - ASUS M4A89TD PRO USB3/AM3 AMD 890FX - $127.50 on ebay (shipped from newegg)
GPU - HIS Radeon HD 6950 2GB - $280 after rebate on newegg

I don't think there is any Intel equivalent but for just CPU and Mobo mine was $258.45 and it was a pretty good deal. In benchmarks on Tom's Hardware, the X4 965 is up there with the higher end i5s pre-Sandy Bridge, but lower in price. I saved some money to make up a little for that 6950 and my SSD. Hopefully this comp lasts as long as my last, a 2.8GHz Pentium 4 Northwood

Although it would be nice to see a X4 645 or i3 2100 hanging in mid air, I was just trying to find out how AMD decided the matchups in their own table.

The value in AMD is definitely in the 3 and 4 core systems.