AMD vs. Intel: Entry Dual Core Edition

We all drool over the latest FX from AMD, and Intel's EE (“Extremely Expensive”) edition chip. However, when it is time to part with the greenbacks, these flagship chips are simply too expensive for the average consumer to purchase. A cool grand is a nice desktop to most of us whose last name is not Trump, and not merely a processor. No, most of us will buy more of a midrange, or lower range processor, and put the money saved towards more RAM, a better video card, or a bigger hard drive. The flagship processors serve the role of the Dodge Viper on the sales floor: they generate excitement and buzz in the brand name, to make us feel better as we drive away in the latest minivan.

Over the last year, dual core chips have been introduced from both Intel and arch competitor, AMD. After the chip makers hit a wall of clock speed just under 4 GHz, and they added cache and increased the front side bus speed, it was clear that in order to increase the performance in chips, more processors were needed. While the early benchmarks were less than completely impressive, in real world performance, the dualies really shine. Most of us run multiple windows simultaneously, with antivrus, antispyware, and networking applications all running in the background. With a dual core chip, we can finally write a disc, and surf the internet with no system slow down. For those looking to build or buy a desktop above the very budget segment, a dual core processor is clearly the way to go. It also sshould have plenty of muscle to run the upcoming Windows Vista for 2007.

Much has been done comparing the AMD, and Intel offerings. AMD has the better developed chip in that there is a crossover that allows the two cores to communicate. While this kept our own Bill up a few nights, it clearly is the superior way to design the chip. By allowing the cores to communicate directly, the processing load can be more evenly shared. This makes the AMD X2 processors some of the better choices for a performance system out there today with cost not as a primary consideration. Intel, eager to bring the product to market, put their dual cores on the chip, but did not engineer a way for them to directly communicate.

Having a better design does not guarantee sales in the ultracompetitive computer marketplace. This is where the rivalry gets really intriguing. The most inexpensive AMD X2 processor goes for just under $300. (I'm not counting the Opteron as that is for servers, and runs at a slow 1.8 Ghz.) What does Intel do? Well, they give the higher ground to AMD, and they price their cheapest dual core offering at a bargain price of around $130 for the Pentium D 805. The chip one up from this is the Pentium D 820, and it retails for just under $200. The Pentium D 920 is $238. Do you see a trend here? They all go for less than AMD's 3800+ processor by a healthy margin. Now I'm not trying to say that the Intel offerings are better chips, but rather that they are more cost effective chips. Is the AMD X2 3800+ really twice as good than the Pentium D 805 to justify that price? Not in my mind, and not in many others I'm sure.

So where does AMD go from here? For the short term, they need to cut the price on the X2 3800+ to keep it competitive. For the longer term, they need to keep the prices on their processors in a much more competitive range. Anyone for an X2 3500+ at around a $200 price point. That would be a big seller in the Fall if it came to market. Longer term, AMD will need a true entry level dual core processor at a $125 price point to match Intel's popular 805. I eagerly await a dual core Sempron versus Pentium D 805 matchup! For AMD to remain in this game, they must produce a competitive chip at this more affordable price point.

--Jonas