Athlon X2 Pricing.... Ouch!

[Swanny]

Well, I won't be buying one for a while anyway. We'll just hope the prices drop by then.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
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.

Sure, the X2 4200+ is amazing, but it's simply out-of-reach for most mainstream consumers. Meanwhile, the Pentium D 820 (2.8 GHz) is set to sell for about the same price (or perhaps less) than the Athlon 64 3500+. As you can see from anandtech's benchmarks, the 820 out-performs the 3500+ in several different areas, and may rightly be considered an overall better processor: http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2389&p=4

By the way, why are you calling me a "noob"? I've been building PCs for years.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

Originally posted by: JackBurton
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.

Sure, the X2 4200+ is amazing, but it's simply out-of-reach for most mainstream consumers. Meanwhile, the Pentium D 820 (2.8 GHz) is set to sell for about the same price (or perhaps less) than the Athlon 64 3500+. As you can see from anandtech's benchmarks, the 820 out-performs the 3500+ in several different areas, and may rightly be considered an overall better processor: http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2389&p=4

By the way, why are you calling me a "noob"? I've been building PCs for years.

If that is the case, $1000 for the top of the line CPU should come to no surprise to you. That is pretty much the set standard for AMD AND Intel. It's been like this for a loooong time.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: JuanT
All that I care about is whether or not the non X2 chips will go down in price soon.

price drop for something that hasnt even hit hte shelves yet? i think not.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
If that is the case, $1000 for the top of the line CPU should come to no surprise to you. That is pretty much the set standard for AMD AND Intel. It's been like this for a loooong time.

It's not a surprise. Intel's dual-core offerings are what surprised me.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: Mik3y

Originally posted by: JuanT
All that I care about is whether or not the non X2 chips will go down in price soon.

price drop for something that hasnt even hit hte shelves yet? i think not.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure those prices are staying for as long as the FX-55 remained 1000 dollars.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

Originally posted by: JackBurton
If that is the case, $1000 for the top of the line CPU should come to no surprise to you. That is pretty much the set standard for AMD AND Intel. It's been like this for a loooong time.

It's not a surprise. Intel's dual-core offerings are what surprised me.

Same. Everyone was so excited about AMD's dual-core solution a few months ago, and all of a sudden *bam* out of no where Intel throws their dual-core CPUs out within weeks. That was a quick move on Intel's part, without them they would've been doomed.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

Originally posted by: JackBurton
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.

Sure, the X2 4200+ is amazing, but it's simply out-of-reach for most mainstream consumers. Meanwhile, the Pentium D 820 (2.8 GHz) is set to sell for about the same price (or perhaps less) than the Athlon 64 3500+. As you can see from anandtech's benchmarks, the 820 out-performs the 3500+ in several different areas, and may rightly be considered an overall better processor: http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2389&p=4

By the way, why are you calling me a "noob"? I've been building PCs for years.

The Pentium D is NOT a better all around processor. It depends what you are going to use it for. If you are multitasking/video encoding mainly, it is a better CPU (compared to teh 3500+). If you are primarily gaming, the 3500+ slaps it around. Intel priced their CPUs right where they should be because it is not a very well rounded CPU. You'll have to make a decision, do you multitask/encode or do you want to game. And I'm not going to even go into power consumption. AMD's dual core has it ALL. It's just an AWESOME chip all the way around. BUT, you'll have to pay for it. It's really that simple. I'm glad to see AMD not giving their chips away. They have the TOP CPUs on the market now, and they should price them accordingly.

 

[Zebo]

AMD is smoking crack I want my $40 chips back.

They have the lead and think I'm in need.

But I'm gonna wait till they Bleed red ink.

and get my $40 chips back.

I'll settle for 5% less performance like XP's

Half price or less was meant to please.

 

[imported_Starman]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

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.

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.

"Workstation" simply implies that productive achievement is the primary purpose of your system, whether used at home or not. What I meant then by referring to the X2 as a "workstation chip" is that it's primarily aimed at those who seek to build a workstation to engage in productive activity (as opposed to play games or simply browse the web in which case dual processing power is unecessary). Eventually the X2 will become AMD's mainstream chip and eventually mainstream apps will be multi-threaded as a standard (once dual-core CPUs become standard). Right now, however, the X2 is best suited for those who actually need it: those who at the moment rely on using multi-threaded applications to get work done. Dual-core Opterons are an option and so are dual processor systems. The choice of which system to build will depend on each individual (on his financial capacity and technical requirements).

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
The Pentium D is NOT a better all around processor. It depends what you are going to use it for. If you are multitasking/video encoding mainly, it is a better CPU (compared to teh 3500+).

From preliminary benchmarks and not real-world tests, the X2 appears to have the D spanked for video encoding too. I love my Xeons, but I think I have found a replacement if I were building a new system (cost is an object).

Yes, this is a workstation replacement. BUT 'consumers' are doing things that were limited to workstations only about 5 years ago (computer graphics/animation, non-linear video editing). The line always blurs. Consumer HDV is almost here, so it will get even blurrier.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: JackBurton
The Pentium D is NOT a better all around processor. It depends what you are going to use it for. If you are multitasking/video encoding mainly, it is a better CPU (compared to teh 3500+).

From preliminary benchmarks and not real-world tests, the X2 appears to have the D spanked for video encoding too. I love my Xeons, but I think I have found a replacement if I were building a new system (cost is an object).

Yes, this is a workstation replacement. BUT 'consumers' are doing things that were limited to workstations only about 5 years ago (computer graphics/animation, non-linear video editing). The line always blurs. Consumer HDV is almost here, so it will get even blurrier.

That's what I'm saying. The X2 does EVERYTHING well.

 

[imported_Skorpio]

Actually the X2 4400+ is a good deal... I read from anandtech review that it does gaming up to as 90% as good as the FX-55....but it doesnt cost as much as the 55.

 

[dukdukgoos]

Originally posted by: Skorpio
Actually the X2 4400+ is a good deal... I read from anandtech review that it does gaming up to as 90% as good as the FX-55....but it doesnt cost as much as the 55.

Yup, 4400 seems to be the sweet spot, at least from Monarch. only $40 more than 4200 for the extra L2 cache...

 

[shud]

My buddy seems to think that you are supposed to buy two X2's and run them in a dual setup.

Um, isn't the whole point of the X2 that you DON'T have to run dual processors? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[imported_Starman]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

That's what I'm saying. The X2 does EVERYTHING well.

I expect it to do everything well, but to answer the question of whether or not someone should buy it involves researching whether they should spend the premium for those things that it's going to do better than single core CPUs. If you have no multi-threaded applications nor do you plan to in the near future then it's not good business to spend the hefty premium that's required to own an X2 right now.

 

[Continuity27]

Originally posted by: shud
My buddy seems to think that you are supposed to buy two X2's and run them in a dual setup.

Um, isn't the whole point of the X2 that you DON'T have to run dual processors? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Your buddy has no clue.

The X2 is two cores already, 2 physical processors - that bypasses the limitations of two discrete processors - such as using slow registered, buffered memory on expensive motherboards.

 

[imported_Starman]

Originally posted by: shud
My buddy seems to think that you are supposed to buy two X2's and run them in a dual setup.

Um, isn't the whole point of the X2 that you DON'T have to run dual processors? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Perhaps he's confusing them with dual processor systems that will feature dual core Opterons? I doubt it, but at least he'd be right to think you could run two dual-core CPUs together.

 

[lansalot]

All those thinking those chips are out of reach for most should pay a bit more attention to people's sigs around here. Sometimes it seems like everyone is running a pair of SLI'd 6800 Ultra's - which I think would cost more than these chips..

People will buy them. I'll be among them, but not initially.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: Continuity27

Originally posted by: shud
My buddy seems to think that you are supposed to buy two X2's and run them in a dual setup.

Um, isn't the whole point of the X2 that you DON'T have to run dual processors? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Your buddy has no clue.

The X2 is two cores already, 2 physical processors - that bypasses the limitations of two discrete processors - such as using slow registered, buffered memory on expensive motherboards.

Technically it's not 2 physical procs, just a single one with two cores.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
The Pentium D is NOT a better all around processor. It depends what you are going to use it for. If you are multitasking/video encoding mainly, it is a better CPU (compared to teh 3500+). If you are primarily gaming, the 3500+ slaps it around.

First of all, I said it "may" be a better processor. I fully understand that others might have different needs.

That said, though, everyone multitasks, which is why the Pentium D is such a wonderful offering. Did you see the multitasking gaming scenarios? It's kind of funny to see a 2.8-GHz Pentium outmuscle an Athlon 64 3500+ even in games! http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2389&p=11

Intel priced their CPUs right where they should be because it is not a very well rounded CPU. You'll have to make a decision, do you multitask/encode or do you want to game. And I'm not going to even go into power consumption. AMD's dual core has it ALL. It's just an AWESOME chip all the way around. BUT, you'll have to pay for it. It's really that simple. I'm glad to see AMD not giving their chips away. They have the TOP CPUs on the market now, and they should price them accordingly.

Like I said, most folks don't want to shell out $600 for a CPU. If your budget is $250-$350, the Pentium D is an excellent choice, even for gamers.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

Originally posted by: JackBurton
The Pentium D is NOT a better all around processor. It depends what you are going to use it for. If you are multitasking/video encoding mainly, it is a better CPU (compared to teh 3500+). If you are primarily gaming, the 3500+ slaps it around.

First of all, I said it "may" be a better processor. I fully understand that others might have different needs.

That said, though, everyone multitasks, which is why the Pentium D is such a wonderful offering. Did you see the multitasking gaming scenarios? It's kind of funny to see a 2.8-GHz Pentium outmuscle an Athlon 64 3500+ even in games! http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2389&p=11

Intel priced their CPUs right where they should be because it is not a very well rounded CPU. You'll have to make a decision, do you multitask/encode or do you want to game. And I'm not going to even go into power consumption. AMD's dual core has it ALL. It's just an AWESOME chip all the way around. BUT, you'll have to pay for it. It's really that simple. I'm glad to see AMD not giving their chips away. They have the TOP CPUs on the market now, and they should price them accordingly.

Like I said, most folks don't want to shell out $600 for a CPU. If your budget is $250-$350, the Pentium D is an excellent choice, even for gamers.

Not at all. The Pentium D requires a complete brand new setup. Not only the chip, but a new board as well. Memory too unless your already using an Intel ddr2 setup. And it is very inferior especially for a gamer. And I don't know too many gamers who game while doing other things on the pc. If your primary focus is to game you would have to be a fool to buy an Intel Pentium D chip.

 

[bluestrobe]

I'l hold off for a year or so. My AMD XP +3000 Barton does everything I need or want.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: gsellis
From preliminary benchmarks and not real-world tests, the X2 appears to have the D spanked for video encoding too. I love my Xeons, but I think I have found a replacement if I were building a new system (cost is an object).

I was talking about the Pentium D 820 vs the Athlon 64 3500+ (not the X2). But since you brought it up...

The Athlon X2 4800+ is better than the Pentium D 840 (3.2 GHz), as shown in the THG benchmarks: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-15.html
However, the 840 is set to sell for about $550, a mere fraction of the 4800+'s $1,006 pricetag. I'd like to see the 840 matched up against the similarly-priced X2 4200+.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
ouch indeed

the 4400 is expected to be £440 here inc vat

thats pretyy much $800 USD

I have seen it for £300 or so.

£373.95 for a 4400+ 2.2GHz 1MB each 2MB total
Or 912,722,556.91 TRL (Turkish Lira)

As of Right Now that is 678.945 USD. Otis you would be better off ordering yours from here iin America and Paying for the extra shipping costs. I know one place that is selling them (4400+) for around $550 US, but that is my secret because I want one before they sell out.