Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Sep 2007 15:54 UTC, submitted by Josh Graham
AMD AMD has unveiled its first set of quad-core processors, three months after its original launch date. This 'complicated' design that resulted in the delay and puts the chip maker a full generation behind its archrival in terms of chip manufacturing processes.
Thread beginning with comment 270647
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Steven
Member since:
2005-07-20

At the time, Intel's Core2Duo range where the best chips on the market as far as performance, power efficiency and price where concerned.

Erm... the E6600 is more expensive than an X2 5000+, and uses more power?

At the time it was more expensive than the X2 5000+.

At the time, you would have compared E6600 to 5000+, E6600 using 33w/hr average, 5000+ using an average of 26w/hr for the same work. The 5000+ even has a lower "max power draw" than the E6600, with 5000+ sitting at 63w and E6600 sitting at 66w. Am I the only one here who knows how to do math?

average 33>26
max 66>63
min 15.78>7.73

It gets even worse if the computer just sits there all day, E6600 would use 379w just sitting there doing nothing, while the 5000+ would use only 186w.

Even that aside, the X2 5000+ is practically equal in performance to the E6600 for most tasks, and better at molecular research and other science related tasks. Given that the "lower performing" 5000+ beats or comes close to matching the E6600 in everything other than video games, I'm not sure claiming that "the E6600 wins in performance" is a proper statement to make?

Certainly the E6600 excels in games, but most CPUs being produced aren't stuck into gaming rigs, they are put into computers used to do other things... things that, frankly, AMD is still better at, even with their old design.

Other than "I don't know how to read power dissipation tables, and only bother to read game-related benchmarks" and "I want to whore out my bad purchase as an awesome idea" what was your point in suggesting the E6600 was the best at the time?

I'm sorry my friend, but you did not buy "the best CPU at the time" if those three things were your factors in deciding a purchase. You bought the CPU that the market hype told you to buy, and nothing more. Even as a gamer, the 5000+ won (at the time) in two of the three categories, hands down... not to mention that, as of right now, it is 1/2 the price.

Hell, I could build a dual CPU opteron 270 box for only a little more than a single E6600, and less than an E6700. I'd end up with 4 cores and still have better power usage since most of the cores would be close to idle all day.

Reply Parent Score: 1