StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Shinova wrote:When sites list the various Intel Core 2/quad core chips and list their clockspeeds,

does that number mean the total CPU speed or the speed of each core?

Uraniun235 wrote:Does it boggle anyone else that you can buy Intel's top-clocked dual-core processor for a mere $266?

Uraniun235 wrote:Does it boggle anyone else that you can buy Intel's top-clocked dual-core processor for a mere $266?

Count Dooku wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:Does it boggle anyone else that you can buy Intel's top-clocked dual-core processor for a mere $266?

It makes me wonder what they're putting out next year...

The brewing price war between Intel and AMD will continue at least until the end of the summer, when Intel will respond to AMD's most recent round of price cuts with even deeper cuts to the bottom end than previously expected. But Intel may not have to keep cutting prices into the fall, because it looks like AMD has had enough for now.

Taiwanese motherboard makers are telling DigiTimes that Intel's July 22 price cuts are still on track and that the company will keep the pressure on AMD by not ceding even the very lowest end of the market. Intel's bottom-end, Conroe-based Pentium E2140 (1.6GHz) will drop to $64 instead of facing cancellation as had previously been planned. In August, the Pentium E2180 (2GHz) will debut in the previous processor's place at the $74 mark.

Intel's deeper cuts at the bottom end are a response to last week's Athlon 64 x2 price drops, and they may well mark the end (for now) of the summer price war, if AMD's statements to CRN are to be believed. In an interview, an AMD spokesperson insisted that no new price cuts are planned in the near future. "We haven't announced our next price move yet, so take that at face value—another one is not imminent," the company told CRN.

I, for one, believe AMD when it says that no new price cuts are imminent. The price war with Intel has been brutal to AMD's bottom line, and it has depressed Intel's earnings a bit, as well. Neither company wants to keep cutting prices, but AMD is the least able to do so. Intel can bite the bullet and cut more if they have to, but AMD is unlikely to stomach seeing its margins shrink any further.

As for Intel's newfound aggression in the budget space, this is an example of kicking the other guy while he's down. With its 65nm process at a mature (and high-yield) stage and its 45nm process slated to come online very soon, Intel has the fab capacity to supply the low-end segment right now. So they're going to use that strength to keep whacking a battered AMD by undercutting them in every corner of the market. It's ugly, but that's business.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Do these chips require DDR3 explicitly or work on the older motherboards?

Ace Pace wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Do these chips require DDR3 explicitly or work on the older motherboards?

All the new chips currently work on the old 975x and 965 chipsets.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Do these chips require DDR3 explicitly or work on the older motherboards?

All the new chips currently work on the old 975x and 965 chipsets.

Cool. I'm sold!

Ace Pace wrote:Obviously, double check when you buy.
My recall:
Many of the motherboards do not offer out of the box support for the new processors(due to their wanting 1333FSB) but offer BIOS flashs. Motherboards which do not offer new BIOSes, are NOT compatible.

Ace Pace wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Ace Pace wrote: All the new chips currently work on the old 975x and 965 chipsets.

Cool. I'm sold!

Obviously, double check when you buy.
My recall:
Many of the motherboards do not offer out of the box support for the new processors(due to their wanting 1333FSB) but offer BIOS flashs. Motherboards which do not offer new BIOSes, are NOT compatible.