Replies to post #73195 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[Snowrider2]

But most base their decision on price and features.

Hmmm, tough choice. Do I buy an FX62 based system where the CPU alone costs $1000 or do I wait a few weeks and get a Core 2 E6700 based system and save $500 on the CPU alone? Good luck trying to make up the $500 in lower chipset and mobo prices!

Snow

[chipguy]

Motherboards for an A64 are probably cheaper because there are less packages required to build a motherboard, it will have less layers for a given form factor and so on.

Yeah whatever.

http://tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/1095155036.jpg

[wbmw]

Re: For the OEMs, those metrics hold more of a sway. But power consumption is only one factor in the overall equation. Other factors are there, such as chipsets and motherboards. Motherboards for an A64 are probably cheaper because there are less packages required to build a motherboard, it will have less layers for a given form factor and so on. nVidia's chipset, for example, is a single chip for desktops. And it shows. Since HP lets you do an apple to apple comparison, you can configure identical AMD or Intel systems that differ only in processor and motherboard. For equivalent performance, the AMD solution is cheaper for all the ones I have checked. Try it some time.

So the argument has come down to pricing once again, has it? That's of course nonsense, and you know it. AMD didn't win the market with K8 because they underpriced Intel. They had a performance and a performance/watt story that they sold, and people bought it. Now Intel is playing the same game, with a product that does better in both regards, AND it's being priced under AMD's entire product line. What advantage do they have left? Conroe beats them in everything.