If any of you took the time to read the THG review, you'd see that most websites have inflated prices right now because they didnt have actual numbers in the first place. In fact, the 9700 isnt even shipping yet. So in comparison with like-models from Intel, the performance/price ratio should be the same, with AMD being a less expensive choice. Also, in the long run, the AMD platform will be cheaper than the intel, because even when processors go to an AM3 platform, you won't have to upgrade from AM2 if you so choose. So for once, unless the VPU interface changes by 2009, we have a long-term solution from a CPU manufacturer. Also, AMD has done alot with power consumption and overclocking, very impressive things that Intel can't even hope to do (no onboard memory modifier).
I think we all knew AMD wouldn't be able to match the C2D with this launch. I think AMD is also trying to move on to 45nm as quickly as possible. I just hope they can do that sooner than later.
I *was* an AMD fanboy until the Core2Duos and sadly AMD hasn't done anything to bring me back. I am currently looking to build a new PC and i was really waiting to see what AMD had in store, giving that they were using HyperTransport3 + new instructions along with the first *true* quad core CPU. In the end it doesn't matter what technology the CPU uses it's how it performs in relation to it's price. You are right the prices in the article are inflated I can get Q6600 much cheaper.
The Q6600 is faster than the ( as yet available ) 9700, while being cheaper and using less power, thats all that needs to be said.
The new FiOS HD DVR, arguably the biggest update since Verizon released a DVR, thanks to its external storage support, enhanced multi-room functionality and slick new 16x9 HD user interface.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
If any of you took the time to read the THG review, you'd see that most websites have inflated prices right now because they didnt have actual numbers in the first place. In fact, the 9700 isnt even shipping yet. So in comparison with like-models from Intel, the performance/price ratio should be the same, with AMD being a less expensive choice. Also, in the long run, the AMD platform will be cheaper than the intel, because even when processors go to an AM3 platform, you won't have to upgrade from AM2 if you so choose. So for once, unless the VPU interface changes by 2009, we have a long-term solution from a CPU manufacturer. Also, AMD has done alot with power consumption and overclocking, very impressive things that Intel can't even hope to do (no onboard memory modifier).
I think we all knew AMD wouldn't be able to match the C2D with this launch. I think AMD is also trying to move on to 45nm as quickly as possible. I just hope they can do that sooner than later.
I *was* an AMD fanboy until the Core2Duos and sadly AMD hasn't done anything to bring me back.
I am currently looking to build a new PC and i was really waiting to see what AMD had in store, giving that they were using HyperTransport3 + new instructions along with the first *true* quad core CPU.
In the end it doesn't matter what technology the CPU uses it's how it performs in relation to it's price.
You are right the prices in the article are inflated I can get Q6600 much cheaper.
The Q6600 is faster than the ( as yet available ) 9700, while being cheaper and using less power, thats all that needs to be said.
Oh yeah, expect 45 nm chips from AMD in '09 as per there roadmap.