$300 Gaming CPU's: AMD 5000+ Versus Intel E6600

[sladesurfer]

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/365/1/

Our testing showed that when gaming at high resolutions the limiting factor is not the processor, but is actually the graphics card. This was shown to be true in three out of the six games that we benchmarked. We used the ATI Radeon X1900XTX graphics card, which is the fastest single card GPU on the market (not counting the NVIDIA 7950GX2) and comes priced at a healthy $499 so it's not like we put in a weak video card by any means. The reason we didn't run X1900 CrossFire is because how many people can really afford it to start with? Most gamers we know still run a single GPU and no physics card! We tried to make our testing go along with what marketing data has shown in recent months.

[onewingedangel]

amd loses at stock, and the intel overclocks far further whereas you'd be very lucky to get an extra 400mhz from the amd 5000+.

I do have to say I'm very impressed by amd's price cuts though, as in the uk, you'd be lucky to get a socket 939 3800+ for the us price of an am2 5000+.

Shame that if your willing to upgrade a whole system,you may as well go conroe - a socket 939 5000+ at that price would be very appealing however for those of use with 939 stuff still lying around - make a very nice secondary system for a htpc.

[yaddam205]

amd loses at stock, and the intel overclocks far further whereas you'd be very lucky to get an extra 400mhz from the amd 5000+.

65nm > 90nm obviously

Yup, thats gotta be painful for AMD, mind you they are in some ways like intel: They were basicly out of gaming for about 3 years mean while they were updating FABs, and new Tech. AMD: Was basicly out of new tech, and creating new fabs for about 3 years, but now both companies are doing just that.

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

well, they probably should have benched 64-bit farcry.

besides that nothing new.

[CPLB]

amd loses at stock, and the intel overclocks far further whereas you'd be very lucky to get an extra 400mhz from the amd 5000+.

I do have to say I'm very impressed by amd's price cuts though, as in the uk, you'd be lucky to get a socket 939 3800+ for the us price of an am2 5000+.

Shame that if your willing to upgrade a whole system,you may as well go conroe - a socket 939 5000+ at that price would be very appealing however for those of use with 939 stuff still lying around - make a very nice secondary system for a htpc.

I totally agree with that last part...

[Verisimilitude]

To both companies credit, They make incredible cpus for gaming at the high end. It is just that with conroe you have more overhead to cover.

GPU prices just plain suck.

[Kunaak]

that was a damn fine review if I do say so myself.
simple, to the point, and best of all... no crazy graphs that are impossible messes to read (think Hard OCP or some of Anandtechs latest reviews, where it's just a series of squiggly lines on the screen and hard to deceifer what what means)

nice review.

it looks like, when it comes to low resolutions, the conroe seems to have a definate advantage, but at higher resolutions, it would be hard pressed for someone to be able to tell the difference between a good AM2 system and a good Conroe set up.

[BlackX]

that was a damn fine review if I do say so myself.
simple, to the point, and best of all... no crazy graphs that are impossible messes to read (think Hard OCP or some of Anandtechs latest reviews, where it's just a series of squiggly lines on the screen and hard to deceifer what what means)

nice review.

it looks like, when it comes to low resolutions, the conroe seems to have a definate advantage, but at higher resolutions, it would be hard pressed for someone to be able to tell the difference between a good AM2 system and a good Conroe set up.

So the main advantage of conroe is the insane OCing potencial.

[J-Mag]

GPU prices just plain suck.

The chip itself is more complex, plus you have to factor in other material costs (memory, voltage circuitry, PCB, etc..). Also more production cost on the employment side and higher shipping.

Anyway from what I recall Intel has larger profit margins than nvidia, but don't quote me on this.

[Verisimilitude]

The chip itself is more complex

plus you have to factor in other material costs (memory, voltage circuitry, PCB, etc..)

Also more production cost on the employment side and higher shipping.

I could argue with you on this one; first off nVidia doesn't manufacture these, they have sister companies do it. So it varies.

Anyway from what I recall Intel has larger profit margins than nvidia

In % margin yes, but Intel has been in the game alot longer.

GPU prices just plain suck.

I don't see how any of the above change this. It is companies job to meet the market, not the markets job to meet the company.

[J-Mag]

I don't see how any of the above change this. It is companies job to meet the market, not the markets job to meet the company.

Wasn't really arguing... Just posting

(slow at work here today)

[BlackX]

The chip itself is more complex, plus you have to factor in other material costs (memory, voltage circuitry, PCB, etc..). Also more production cost on the employment side and higher shipping.

Anyway from what I recall Intel has larger profit margins than nvidia, but don't quote me on this.

Of course. Just compare prices of Intels and nVidia's High-End products.

X6800 = 1300$ (lets say 1000$)
7900GTX (whole card not only GPU) = 450$

I think we need to compare like this:

X6800 + mobo = ~1250$
7900GTX = 450$

lets say nvidia has 50$ profit from 1 card (not sure if it has so much...)
while Intel has ~800$ from a piece. (without advertisments cost and etc.)

one more thing. Conroe is 65nm product, 7900GTX is 90nm.

difference is huge!

[nn_step]

In % margin yes, but Intel has been in the game alot longer.

If I remember their 4004 was the thing that actually started the game