Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NicoV who wrote (237559)	7/28/2007 4:37:28 PM
From: aleph0	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Slightly on this topic : investorvillage.com .. in that processor speed alone is IMO no longer so important. Cool, Quiet , Fast and Cheap I think are the things I want ! i.e. which is actually why I've always stuck with AMD for years now !

To: NicoV who wrote (237559)	7/28/2007 5:17:08 PM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: So it's clear that Intel's low end offering doesn't provide better perf/$ and perf/watt than AMD's parts. Maybe, if you base it on the limited review you used (mostly synthetics, and some games that were fairly neck and neck), as well as your single datapoint in terms of pricing. This review has a far more comprehensive testing suite: matbe.com Celeron 430 (1.8GHz) delivers slightly better blended performance as Sempron 3800+ (2.2GHz). And Celeron 420 (1.6GHz) delivers close to the blended performance of Sempron 3600+ (2.0GHz). Look at power consumption as well. matbe.com Sempron 3600+ system: 67-112W Sempron 3800+ system: 67-116W Celeron 420 system: 75-79W Celeron 430 system: 76-81W AMD has better idle power (by <10W), but Intel is clearly the winner under load (by >30W!). Looking at a U.S. search engine, I see the following lowest prices: Sempron 3600+ = $42.50 computers.pricegrabber.com Celeron 420 = $44.40 computers.pricegrabber.com Celeron 430 = $52.75 computers.pricegrabber.com Sempron 3800+ = $57.68 computers.pricegrabber.com Interesting that the Celeron 430 offers a slight edge in performance, and at the same time costs less than the Sempron 3800+. The Sempron 3600+ is slightly better performing and slightly lower priced than the Celeron 420, but they are close. Either way, it's a huge improvement over last quarter's situation with Celeron D. And when you look at Pentium Dual Core, Intel is even more competitive in that segment, far more so than when they had Pentium D and Pentium 4 competing in this space. I'm sure you can pick nits at the results. Reviews are usually subject to scrutiny, and you are welcome to do so. But at least this shows that Intel has a much better solution with Celeron 400 and Pentium 2000 series than they did in Q2 with Celeron D 300 and Pentium D 900 series. Enough better, in fact, that I anticipate Intel gaining share in the low end this quarter.