Athlon X2 Pricing.... Ouch!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

JuanT

Member
Aug 13, 2004
91
0
0
All that I care about is whether or not the non X2 chips will go down in price soon.
 
C

cirrhosis

Golden Member
Mar 29, 2005
1,337
1
0
What's surprising about this? These were the prices that AMD has advertised for nearly a month. It should be no surprise given the availibility of the X2. Nothing new here.
 
S

Silversierra

Senior member
Jan 25, 2005
664
0
0
It actually equals out if your comparing to intel's dual core. With intel the cpus are cheaper(and less powerful), but you also need a new motherboard(which effectively adds $150-200) to the price for them. With amd, it works on current boards with bios update, is faster than intel, but costs more.
 
RichUK

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,341
678
126
Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
ouch indeed

the 4400 is expected to be £440 here inc vat

thats pretyy much $800 USD
Click to expand...

£440, what is the 4800+ going to be.. i intend to purchase the 4400+ anyway and OC that
 
M

MobiusPizza

Platinum Member
Apr 23, 2004
2,001
0
0
Originally posted by: RichUK
Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
ouch indeed

the 4400 is expected to be £440 here inc vat

thats pretyy much $800 USD
Click to expand...

£440, what is the 4800+ going to be.. i intend to purchase the 4400+ anyway and OC that
Click to expand...


Well you have to note that hardware prices in UK are on average 20% higher than US
 
L

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Originally posted by: Silversierra
It actually equals out if your comparing to intel's dual core. With intel the cpus are cheaper(and less powerful), but you also need a new motherboard(which effectively adds $150-200) to the price for them. With amd, it works on current boards with bios update, is faster than intel, but costs more.
Click to expand...

Dude, shut up. Please don't repeat this cack over and over.
 
W

wchou

Banned
Dec 1, 2004
1,137
0
0
Originally posted by: JackBurton
$1000 for the 4800+ is just about right for the top of the line CPU.
Click to expand...

More cache = more performance??? This is like in the old days of onboard cache of 1mb-2mb. I wonder if you can put the same cache on a duron 1800mhz and called Pr3600?
 
W

wchou

Banned
Dec 1, 2004
1,137
0
0
Originally posted by: JuanT
All that I care about is whether or not the non X2 chips will go down in price soon.
Click to expand...

So far they have all gone up except for duron processor, such as the applebred 1600 and 1800.
 
gsellis

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Originally posted by: wchou
Originally posted by: JuanT
All that I care about is whether or not the non X2 chips will go down in price soon.
Click to expand...

So far they have all gone up except for duron processor, such as the applebred 1600 and 1800.
Click to expand...
But considering some of the workstation class dual configurations, this is cheap. Top of the line Xeon or Opteron for the workstation space are near 1k USD EACH. So, one chip with 2 processors, that cache, and that speed is a deal if you compare it to duals. But, the performance gain above duals does not yet have me dying to switch. There is temptation, but the checking account balance quickly snaps me back to reality. :D

 
G

ginfest

Golden Member
Feb 22, 2000
1,927
3
81
And so we come "full circle"!
Although I agree that AMD hold the perf crown and I intend to eventually migrate to an AMD/NF4/PCI-E setup, it appears that AMD has become what enthusiasts have been decrying for years.:eek:
People continually crowed about Intels pricing, even though the perf advantage was at least as great then as is AMDs now.
Now that X64/X2 have taken the crown suddenly outrageous pricing is OK?
I look forward to seeing the usual suspects justify these prices;)

Mike G
 
H

hurtstotalktoyou

Platinum Member
Mar 24, 2005
2,055
9
81
This could be Intel's chance to steal away the price-performance ratio crown. AMD may have made a big mistake by pricing their dual core offerings so steeply.
 
I

imported_Starman

Senior member
Jun 1, 2005
281
0
0
This is meant as a workstation chip, as an alternative to someone buying a dual-processor system which would require expensive registered memory modules. The pricing on these dual-core CPUs is actually attractive when compared to the dual-processor alternatives and everything they require (expensive motherboards, expensive RAM, expensive CPUs). Now with dual-core, you get to just throw in a single CPU on a regular (inexpensive) S939 motherboard and use regular (inexpensive) RAM. You have to look at the overall picture ;)
 
Mrvile

Mrvile

Lifer
Oct 16, 2004
14,066
1
0
Ok guys. First of all, those are the first prices from Monarch, they looked about right to me. Take the 4000+ or the 3800+ for example, they aren't far behind. The FX-55 at release was about 1000 dollars, which is on par with the 4800+. I don't even expect those prices to go down for a while, they all sound about right to me.
 
I

imported_Starman

Senior member
Jun 1, 2005
281
0
0
I want to emphasize this point again: this is a workstation chip. This is not meant for the mass market or Joe Gamer (not yet). It is a revolutionary way of offering dual-processor performance in a single chip solution that doesn't require custom components to operate (like special motherboards or registered memory modules, both of which cost an arm and a leg). Basically, if you were a candidate for a dual-processor system, AMD has come along and said, "hey, build such a system for less!". The overall cost for building a dual-core system is awesome when you consider what it's meant to replace.
 
Mrvile

Mrvile

Lifer
Oct 16, 2004
14,066
1
0
Originally posted by: Starman
I want to emphasize this point again: this is a workstation chip. This is not meant for the mass market or Joe Gamer (not yet). It is a revolutionary way of offering dual-processor performance in a single chip solution that doesn't require custom components to operate (like special motherboards or registered memory modules, both of which cost an arm and a leg). Basically, if you were a candidate for a dual-processor system, AMD has come along and said, "hey, build such a system for less!". The overall cost for building a dual-core system is awesome when you consider what it's meant to replace.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,120
4,771
126
Originally posted by: Ginfest
And so we come "full circle"!
Although I agree that AMD hold the perf crown and I intend to eventually migrate to an AMD/NF4/PCI-E setup, it appears that AMD has become what enthusiasts have been decrying for years.:eek:
People continually crowed about Intels pricing, even though the perf advantage was at least as great then as is AMDs now.
Now that X64/X2 have taken the crown suddenly outrageous pricing is OK?
I look forward to seeing the usual suspects justify these prices;)
Click to expand...
That "full circle" was just 5 years long. Mar 6, 2000 1 GHz Athlon costs $1299.
AMD always has been and always will be a high priced chip company when they have the clear-cut winning chip.
 
J

JackBurton

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
15,993
14
81
Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
This could be Intel's chance to steal away the price-performance ratio crown. AMD may have made a big mistake by pricing their dual core offerings so steeply.
Click to expand...

WTF is wrong with you noobs? When AMD anounced their Athlon 1GHz CPU waaaaaay back when, it was $1000+. $1000 is the norm for the fastest CPU. Nothing has changed. Intel's dual core is cheaper, but the performance is definitely not on par with AMD's offering. With Intel, you have to make the choice, do I want the power to be in multitasking (dual core) or straight away speed (single core). With AMD's offering, you don't have to make that choice. AMD's dual core offers the best of both worlds, and THAT is what you are paying for. A VERY well rounded CPU. And I for one am willing to pay for it.
 
H

hurtstotalktoyou

Platinum Member
Mar 24, 2005
2,055
9
81
Originally posted by: Starman
I want to emphasize this point again: this is a workstation chip. This is not meant for the mass market or Joe Gamer (not yet). It is a revolutionary way of offering dual-processor performance in a single chip solution that doesn't require custom components to operate (like special motherboards or registered memory modules, both of which cost an arm and a leg). Basically, if you were a candidate for a dual-processor system, AMD has come along and said, "hey, build such a system for less!". The overall cost for building a dual-core system is awesome when you consider what it's meant to replace.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "workstation chip." Do you mean it's not meant for home users? Because it is. The pricing makes it a high-end processor, just like the FX-55 and 4000+, but it is definitely targeted at ordinary, albeit somewhat wealthy, consumers. The dual-core Opteron is the CPU intended for professional "workstations," not the Athlon X2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom