AMD pricing....Bang for the buck Title anyone???

[Duvie]

That said, AMD can still compete on price with Intel. Here's a rundown of AMD's new pricing down through its processor lineup:
2800+ $397 (each in quantities of 1,000)
2700+ $349
2600+ $297
2400+ $193
2200+ $183
2100+ $174
2000+ $155
1900+ $139


With these prices listed a comparable P4 at each line is very comparable in price to its amd counterpart...Who would have thought we would have seen this....

A 2.53ghz versus a 2600+ is about 60 bucks cheaper and that is for a retail P4 chip....

The 2.4P4 and 2400+ are about dead even at 193 but again the 2.4 is a retail chip...

The 2700+ likley comparable to the 2.66ghz p4 and the p4 is about 40 bucks more...

Add in the 2.8ghz p4 dropping big over the last month and we are starting to see some equality in pricing...

NOte: all the pirces listed above probably do not reflect retail cost in single cpu buying like most of us do so numbers are likely much closer....


Ofcourse by the time one can actually buy the 2700 and 2800 chip their prices better be lower and no doubt Intels will be lower as they will have the 3.06ghz pushing the 2.53 and 2.66 to even lower levels and maybe a 3.2ghz offering....

 

[mechBgon]

Heck of a jump from 2400+ to 2600+ there. I hope they get the 2400+'s rolling in quantities soon.

 

[Swanny]

AMD list prices are always much higher than street prices. I think bang for buck is still AMD's.

 

[Duvie]

Except for the fact in this case you seem to be wrong....

The best price for a 2600+ right now, since I am not talking the mythical world of AMD launches...is 312 and is higher then the 297 listed....

PLus lets remember I am comparing retail p4s with 3 year warranties and more then adequate heatsink fan combos....

I think bang for the bug is there in the low end by the 1600-1900 xps but starts to fail in the real meat of the order and only comes back in at the flagship cause intel always extremely over iflates there top 2 chips....

 

[PlatinumGrill]

AMD RULEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz

 

[CrazySaint]

I think at in the <$200 segment AMD still has the bang/buck title, starting at $200+ they're about even.

Originally posted by:

PlatinumGrill
AMD RULEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz

Thank you for that clear and insightful contribution to this thread.

 

[Duvie]

I imagine it is just another 13 year old lives with mommy and daddy, jacks to internet porn and only social interaction is his make believe life in everquest!!!

 

[rogue1979]

XP1600+ AGOIA-Y @1800MHz 1.90v for $54 shipped. Enough said....

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
XP1600+ AGOIA-Y @1800MHz 1.90v for $54 shipped. Enough said....

I have to agree here...although 1.9v is a bit too high. I've got two $52 AGOIA 1600+'s. The first one does 166mhz FSB, 1.75ghz @ default vcore (1.75v) with a $15 Taisol and no case fans, and the second does 172mhz FSB, 1.8ghz, 1.80v with an Alpha/Panaflo combo and no case fans.


$52 for a 333mhz FSB 2100+ - 2200+ is a hell of a "bang for the buck"deal to me.


I liked them so much, I put my P4, i845G and i845D boards up for sale..

 

[Duvie]

Yeah that is all good and point taken, but in the new chip range and frankly since we beat this point like a dead horse "overclockers make up a very very small portion of the buying public"...that being said the new flagship processors where amd has long held the title is where they seem to be losing it....

I spent 130 bucks on a 1.6a "retail chip" back when it was still 60+ plus for an "oem chip" 1600+ I would have to spend another 20 bucks to get a decent hsf for and I got 2.736ghz prime tested stable at 1.71v and it runs flawlessly at 2.77ghz with 1.71v but didn't pass my prime95 standards. Runs at 2.8ghz fine as well but needs 1.75v which I view as the edge. I think this borders on as good an oc as your amd chips though clearly not the commonplace as the good oc of the 1600+. I can only imagine what it would take for you to equal that in performance with an amd chip...maybe one of those paper launched 2700 or 2800+ which you sure as sh^t wont get from that 1600+....

By the way it runs 2.54ghz at default vcore and with retail hsf.....


I agree hands down the low end chips is amds domain regardless if one does not oc....

IN the upper mid range is starting to look good for Intel ocing aside though I imgine the 2.4 and 2.53ghz hit 2.8-3ghz regularly with new stepping and since we can only really speculate on ocing results of 2400 and 2600 chips in the ocing realm it is too early to tell...

Flagship for intel is always the highest but at least you can buy it!!!

 

[mechBgon]

Right, so join the AnandTech SETI team already We're 8th in the world and still climbing!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Right, so join the AnandTech SETI team already We're 8th in the world and still climbing!

Duvie would have some sweet times on WU's! BTW nothing to add to the discussion as it's been covered well I think

 

[Soulkeeper]

i'm gonna go down and pick me up a 1700+ and a GF4 ti4200 today

 

[blade2]

over in the UK, well ok ill be more specific, here in Scotland, AMD are still better for bang per £ although recent sharp price drops have led to Intel being a lote more cheaper but still:

AMD Athlon XP 2100+ Socket A 266 ......................................£99.00
Intel Pentium 4 - 1.7GHz - 400 MHz - 256K Cache ..................£95.00

thats the nearest comparison i can make with products at the local comp store, the XP being midrange, the P4 being bottom of the range;cheapest in other words and its like this throughout Scotland

 

[Soulkeeper]

i changed my mind i'm gonna wait another week then pick up an xp 2400+
this will be fun
can't wait to see how/if it runs on my kt133 chipset heh

 

[Crankydog]

Over here in Canada, here's a comparison price sheet from one of my local computer (AMD XP rating vs Intel Mhz speed):
Athlon XP
1800 : 128$
2000 : 163$
2200 : 249$

P4 Northwood
1800 : 243$
2000 : 278$
2200 : 331$

For now, AMD is cheaper for comparable power.

Where's the XP 2400+ ?!:|

 

[Duvie]

The 2400 to 2600+ level is where I am talking about the price comparison...The lower speed amd chips are hands down the best value....

 

[Zebo]

Really, and just throw stablity and overclockablity out da window?


1.8a @ 2..3 , 2.5 and 2.6 fairly reliably is $140, and is still cheaper than any t-bred 2000+ or better. Then you still have to overclock it to get similar performance. I donno seems at the mid and high end intel owns price/performance right now if you overclock at all. And you get Intel chipsets as an added bonus. Low end I'm not so sure with that 1600+ deal going on right now. Am waiting on one now perhaps I'll get simlilar results as Insane did.

 

[railer]

Hey I jack to internet porn....

I've said before that if I was going to drop a couple hundred bucks on a CPU it would be a P4.

But for us cheapskates, there' nothing like a 30 some dollar Newegg refurb MB that will support Athlons was up over 2000, and an XP 1600 for 50 some bucks. Ya just can't beat it. Speaking of which....I've got um....something to do....

 

[Insane3D]

and just throw stablity and overclockablity out da window?

Oh man...are we back to the Intel is more stable crap again? That is bullsh*t, plain and simple. A properly setup Athlon/Via setup is no less stable than an Intel/Intel one. How long will the stability argument keep up...I thought we were passed that now...

:disgust:

Oh, and as to overclockability, the $52 1600+ that will run 1.8ghz, 172mhz FSB with little to no added voltage will hang in there with 2.4ghz P4 in most applications.. IMO, that's damn impressive for a $50 CPU. Will a 1.8A @ 2.4ghz+ be faster? Of course it will, but is it that much faster to justify the extra $100 or so the CPU costs? I mean you can get a top of the line Athlon board like the Epox 8K5A2+ with RAID, USB 2.0, ATA133, 5.1 sound, onboard LAN, and a ton of o/c options with a CPU for about the same as a 1.8A costs by its self. I had a 1.6A @ 150mhz FSB, 2.4ghz, DDR 400 and it was a bit faster than what I have now, but not that much...that's why I chose to sell it off.

I will more than likely go back to a P4 down the line, but not until I can easily get over 3Ghz without spending a ton of cash and be able to use dual channel DDR so there will be enough of a difference to be worth my time. I don't run benchmarks all day, so until I see the "real world' difference, it's not worth my time.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

and just throw stablity and overclockablity out da window?

Oh man...are we back to the Intel is more stable crap again? That is bullsh*t, plain and simple. A properly setup Athlon/Via setup is no less stable than an Intel/Intel one. How long will the stability argument keep up...I thought we were passed that now...

:disgust:

It is more stable, period. Just like Linksys, netgear, d-link network cards and switches/routers are inferior to their Intel, 3Com, Seven, Cisco counterparts. Do you see any LinkSys switches in your ISP's central plexus? No or rarely. Do you see any VIA/SiS chipsets being passed along as an Enterprise server/high end workstation solution? No or rarely.

 

[mechBgon]

Doesn't the exception disprove the rule here? My AMD systems are stable. Crashes on the 12 I've built for my work fleet so far: zero, as far as I know. Of course, I didn't skimp on the parts either: Crucial RAM, beefy Antec TruePower330 power supplies, good ventilation, and Asus motherboards. And I've abused VIA-based systems, both AMD and dual-Intel, in marathon 3D rendering sessions of up to 36 hours. No crashes there either. You say Intel's more stable, period? Where do you go from up?

Perhaps I should add that both Tyan and SuperMicro make entry-level server boards based on VIA as well as 760MP and 760MPX, the latter of which are powering these Forums.

 

[Mikewarrior2]

Man, stability is a non-issue between AMD and intel setups. Properly setup systems under either platform will be stable, Period. My current p4 setup is totally stable. My prior AthlonXP setup with a supposedly crappy VIA chipset was likewise totally stable.



mike

 

[rogue1979]

I agree with Mikewarrior2, I have two Intel and three AMD systems running, all are equally stable. Now an AMD/Via solution sometimes takes more work to get set up, but once everything is configured properly it is rock stable.

 

[Insane3D]

It is more stable, period.

You just keep telling yourself that to make yourself feel better.....