Tech Link (Industry): "Newest AMD 6000+ processor still slower than Intel"

It's an old article from ITWire so you might be guessing why post this. But hey, had it Intel themselves posted it on their website, I wouldn't even bother. I am not sure if you'll catch it since it seems to be a dynamic page of updates, so visit it now.

Cheaper than Intel’s fastest E6700, it might be AMD’s fastest yet at 3Ghz, but it consumes more power, is slower on just about every benchmark and is based on older 90nm technology – as Intel ramps up its 45nm capability. Will anyone buy them?
A performance review of AMD’s new dual core processors against Intel’s Core 2 Duo range from Hot Hardware shows how far Intel has come in beating AMD in the performance stakes in the post Core 2 Duo era.

Although AMD is steadily moving to 65nm processors which will minimize the gap in power consumption but not affecting speed too greatly, AMD’s new processors will challenge Intel from a price perspective if nothing else, as they’ll still give everyday consumers plenty of power to compute almost anything they want to.

The AMD 6000+ was due to arrive in November last year, but were delayed until now, with the AMD X2 6000+ at 3Ghz and a 2Mb L2 cache, the 5600+ at 2.8Ghz with a 2Mb cache, the 5400+ at 2.8Ghz with a 1Mb cache, the 5200+ at 2.6Ghz with a 2Mb cache and finally the 5000+, a 2.6Ghz processor with a 1Mb cache.

The 6000+ uses 125 watts of power, which is a no-no in today’s energy conscious world, with a 89-watt model due around September or October this year.

The 6000+ costs computer manufacturers US $464 each in batches of 1000, compared with Intel’s Core 2 Duo E6700 at US $530 each in batches of 1000, which certainly makes the Intel attractive – less than $100 more will get you a faster processor that uses less energy.

AMD has a lot of work to do ahead of it to catch up to Intel in the performance stakes, and Intel in turn to trump any AMD advances – with both companies feverishly working on advancing their quad core designs and pushing for even more cores on desktop processors to become standard. Intel’s recent 80 core prototype is a prime example.

But given that plenty of people are still stuck in a single core world, waiting to upgrade soon to a new dual core computer, thank goodness dual core processors have advanced in leaps and bounds over the last two years. AMD will no doubt compete on price and do all they can to keep Intel in check – with you, me and all other consumers the prime beneficiaries.

Source:"Newest AMD 6000+ processor still slower than Intel"