Um, Anandtech's scenarios are damn close to what I do. If you don't multitask, then get a single core CPU. AMD will still be producing them. For others that are capable of doing more than one thing at a time, dual core CPUs are very welcome.
EXACTY. The 4800+ gives GREAT performance in games, and give AWESOME performance in multitasking or multi-threaded apps. It's just a bad ass CPU all the way around. And for that power and flexibity, you'll have to pay for it. When the FX55 came out, it was around the $900-1000 mark. Like I said, the top end CPU usually runs around that price. This should not come as a surprise. Another point, AMD has given socket 939 users the luxury of just dropping their dual core CPU right into people existing socket 939 motherboard. With Intel, you better price out a new motherboard with that nice new Pentium D processor.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Um, let's see. Did you read the title of this thread?
It seems that most of the reviews are focusing on the dual-core Opteron, seeing as how the A64 X2 won't be seen for ... oh, I'm not even going to make any predictions
The point is that (as usual) people are griping about high prices. Well guess what, you ALWAYS pay a premium for the latest technology. Always has been that way and always will be. If you want to be a dual-core geek and you just gotta have it, you're gonna pay for it. And I don't care if you are referring to an Opteron or A64 X2 -- people are "shocked" apparently by the pricing scheme of both. I'm not.
Yes, I read the title. So what? Did you read this thread? Let's quote you again:
Who whined about the Opteron prices in this thread? And once you see that no one did, why did you bring this point up in the first place?
As for the price premium. I'm not paying for it (or at least, not nearly as much) if I go with Intel. If Intel was charging in the same stratosphere as AMD, there wouldn't be any room for complaints, but that isn't the case here. The lower 2 speed grades are relatively speaking bargains on Intel's side, while they are price gouging on the 3.2Ghz variant which is perfectly acceptable on the highest end of anything (I have no problem with the $1000 4800+). AMD's lowend is already more expensive than Intel's price gouged 3.2. AMD must be expecting very low yields for their initial run of X2's, which is about the only logical explanation of why they would charge that much.
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Another point, AMD has given socket 939 users the luxury of just dropping their dual core CPU right into people existing socket 939 motherboard. With Intel, you better price out a new motherboard with that nice new Pentium D processor.
That's my take. I'm currently planning to get the 4400+ X2 when they come out. Because I am already running a Socket 939 board, my cost is going to be cheaper than going for even the cheapest intel Dual Core because I won't need a new Motherboard or 2GB (what I currently run) of Registered RAM.
I think, inititally, the AMD Dual cores will appeal more to people like me that built their Single Core system with Upgrading to Dual Core in mind.
[/b]
Oh, you want me to cut and paste a bunch of whiners, eh?
...Maybe. Or just maybe AMD needs the cash and can't sell cheap-arse CPUs anymore?
Seriously this entire thread is laughable. A64 X2 of any flavor won't be available for AT LEAST 2 more months, likely longer. What is the point of debating the price of a processor(s) you can't even buy?
Intel's dual core is ready AND shipping. Now you can whine about the price and performance, but at least that's a sensible debate since systems with the chip are already available to purchase.
Originally posted by: Zebo
Look up
I did and that's not bad considering the Intel DC 3.GHz costs over $1K US and runs no faster then the 3.8 GHz single core Pentium
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Duvie- I was going to pay, and you seemed interested too, in $220x2 for two CG stepped 244's and an estimated $250 for the ABIT board that never came? Making for a total of $690!!!
Well I don't see the difference besides X2 being a little better value. Get a 4400+ for $~500, which is already faster stock due to 2.2 vs 1.8 Ghz, And faster when both overclocked to our 2.6ish anticipation due to lower latency on the dual core. We already got the mobo, saving right there, or could get a good board for $100-$160 if you did'nt have.
Eitherway cheaper for more. Quieter. Less power.
Finally ALL Y'ALL don't FRET, you worse than a old ladies sewing circle, AMD will realse 1.8 & 2.0 chips, AMD will lower prices, AMD Will be competive price wise with Intel (anyone remeber the $1000 Thunderbird? I got mine for $75 haha In reality.. it sold for ~550 street on release and plunged to about $230 shortly after when 1.2 came out) Bottom line AMD has always offered more for less. From the FX's out right now all the way down to Sempron they win at every price point. Quit yur whining.
Well I don't see the difference besides X2 being a little better value. Get a 4400+ for $~500, which is already faster stock due to 2.2 vs 1.8 Ghz, And faster when both overclocked to our 2.6ish anticipation due to lower latency on the dual core. We already got the mobo, saving right there, or could get a good board for $100-$160 if you did'nt have.
Eitherway cheaper for more. Quieter. Less power.
Finally ALL Y'ALL don't FRET, you worse than a old ladies sewing circle, AMD will realse 1.8 & 2.0 chips, AMD will lower prices, AMD Will be competive price wise with Intel (anyone remeber the $1000 Thunderbird? I got mine for $75
haha In reality.. it sold for ~550 street on release and plunged to about $230 shortly after when 1.2 came out) Bottom line AMD has always offered more for less. From the FX's out right now all the way down to Sempron they win at every price point. Quit yur whining.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Expect at least 15% more performance when real X2 is released.
Anand crippled/misrepresented it by running a 175 in his tests... Which has ECC memory, 2T, and my guess is 3-3-3 (most all ECC ram is 3-3-3 since he does'nt say I must go with the odds).
Talk about hamstringing a A64. Anands own tests show just how crippleing 2T is for A64 upwards of 10% alone less performance. I've shown 3-3-3 vs 2-2-2 to be signifigant in my mem matrix tread about 5% since A64's love low latency. ECC knocks out about 3-5% more performance due to extra wait state. Would the "real" X2 debuting at 18% faster be unfair?? I don't think so when paired with proper desktop memory.
It's going to get REAL ugly on the desktop for Team Blue no matter how you slice the numbers when a real live X2 comes with un-buffered mem, LL and 1T since Intel already loses to a unadventurous server chip right now.
Anand crippled/misrepresented it by running a 175 in his tests... Which has ECC memory, 2T, and my guess is 3-3-3 (most all ECC ram is 3-3-3 since he does'nt say I must go with the odds).
Talk about hamstringing a A64. Anands own tests show just how crippleing 2T is for A64 upwards of 10% alone less performance. I've shown 3-3-3 vs 2-2-2 to be signifigant in my mem matrix tread about 5% since A64's love low latency. ECC knocks out about 3-5% more performance due to extra wait state. Would the "real" X2 debuting at 18% faster be unfair?? I don't think so when paired with proper desktop memory.
It's going to get REAL ugly on the desktop for Team Blue no matter how you slice the numbers when a real live X2 comes with un-buffered mem, LL and 1T since Intel already loses to a unadventurous server chip right now.
Geez....that's a hell of a lot of money. I'd like a dual-core CPU if I could overclock it reasonably high, but if they don't do so well, it may just be better for my purposes to get a "cheap" Venice (whenever they actually show up) and overclock the crap out of it...
Originally posted by: Zebo
Duvie- I was going to pay, and you seemed interested too, in $220x2 for two CG stepped 244's and an estimated $250 for the ABIT board that never came? Making for a total of $690!!!
Well I don't see the difference besides X2 being a little better value. Get a 4400+ for $~500, which is already faster stock due to 2.2 vs 1.8 Ghz, And faster when both overclocked to our 2.6ish anticipation due to lower latency on the dual core. We already got the mobo, saving right there, or could get a good board for $100-$160 if you did'nt have.
Eitherway cheaper for more. Quieter. Less power.
Finally ALL Y'ALL don't FRET, you worse than a old ladies sewing circle, AMD will realse 1.8 & 2.0 chips, AMD will lower prices, AMD Will be competive price wise with Intel (anyone remeber the $1000 Thunderbird? I got mine for $75
I know...But this one was supposed to be fro my desktop PC...I was going to build a separate work opteron system for the other.....I was hoping not to have to spend that much at the desktop level.....We already knew we were paying the premium with the opterons versus same speed A64's...but at the time it was the only dual way to play......I was hoping dual core opterons would be 1.5-1.6x premium so that I woudl try to get some 265's and not have to pay more then 2x current 244's....being 2x 203 dollars = 406 x1.5 = 610ish.....1 265 is 800+ dollars or 2x.....
AMD in the opteron range is bumping them up to the pricing of the next line of chips....265's are better but closer to 4x848's...each way for the business model they are looking at what was 4 cores then and 4 cores now. IN that light the new chips seems to be a bargain. 200's are more comaprative to the 800's of yesterday....100's to the 200"s of yesterday....
I guess at the desktop level they are fine to comparing anyone coming from a dual cpu setup now likely would have paid
2x248s (2.2ghz)= 878.00 + board premium
1x A64 4400+ x2 = 581.00 + cheaper boards and memory
I see the numbers now and this is the way I am going to go...opterons out for the meanwhile and all efforts to getting the dual core A64 X2 chip.....
Hopefully if we can OC them effectively I can gain some more....
And I was looking forward to building myself a nice Dual 275 comp next month.
Guess I'll have to wait.
Guess I'll have to wait.
Originally posted by: JackBurton
$1000 for the fastest processor a company has to offer? I think that is the normal going rate. A 4800+ does AWESOME in games (performance VERY close to an FX55) and AWESOME in multitasking. The best of both world. I think $900-1000 is a fair price. The Intel CPUs are cheaper, but they only do one thing pretty well, multitasking. I'd rather have a chip that can do everything well. And I'm willing to pay for it.
If you are willing to drop a grand on a CPU and think that is a fair price, then you have more money than common sense.
Not being funny, but...........
What is the difference between a "server" and "desktop" chip? The clock speeds look similiar, so what makes the Opteron viable for server solutions, whereas A64 are for desktop solutions? Is it just the ability to make multi-processor configurations?
What is the difference between a "server" and "desktop" chip? The clock speeds look similiar, so what makes the Opteron viable for server solutions, whereas A64 are for desktop solutions? Is it just the ability to make multi-processor configurations?
If you think the performance increase won't be very much for you and the chips cost too much, then you're probably right, in your situation. If you don't multitask, then dual core is not worth the upgrade, but for people who frequently multitask and run apps that are optimized for dual processors/ht, then it will make a big difference. If you game, dc is not for you, at least not until they have games optimized for it. If you game, get a fx if you have the $$$, or get a low end chip and oc it. Don't compain about dual core just because it won't benefit you, it will benefit many users, the ones who multitask and run heavy duty apps designed for mulitple processing. I think many people just want to complian, if amd came out with a dual core 3000+(1.8ghz) and priced it comparable to intel, then you'd still complain, "not fast enough", "where's our dual core fx-55?". Amd listens, makes the dual core fast enough, now people are like "too expensive", well news flash, performance costs $$$, especially when it's new.
They are validated to run in certain setups and I belive they have more HTT links for use in multi cpu systems....They do as mentioned above tend to run slower clock for clock against desktop solutions due to slower board chipsets, use of ECC ram, and sometimes use of 2t.....
I guess Zebo states AT which ran a "simulated" A64 X2 test using an opteron chip uased cas 3-3-3 an 2t timings which will definitely hamper performance a bit. Also the board is likely slower as well...
I guess Zebo states AT which ran a "simulated" A64 X2 test using an opteron chip uased cas 3-3-3 an 2t timings which will definitely hamper performance a bit. Also the board is likely slower as well...
Yep way too expansive... But hey... if those x2 4400 were close in games performance with the FX 55... than of course the high price...
What i dont understand is.... why the hell didnt AMD make a 1.8ghz or 2.0ghz Dual core... !!!! That of course would be more affordable for every1 else...
I guess they only caring for the RICH Entusiasts right now
What i dont understand is.... why the hell didnt AMD make a 1.8ghz or 2.0ghz Dual core... !!!! That of course would be more affordable for every1 else...
I guess they only caring for the RICH Entusiasts right now
The game performance should be equal of a 2.2ghz 1mb san diego core....basically...not a 2.6ghz FX55....
That's just something poor people say.Originally posted by: deanx0r
Originally posted by: JackBurton
$1000 for the fastest processor a company has to offer? I think that is the normal going rate. A 4800+ does AWESOME in games (performance VERY close to an FX55) and AWESOME in multitasking. The best of both world. I think $900-1000 is a fair price. The Intel CPUs are cheaper, but they only do one thing pretty well, multitasking. I'd rather have a chip that can do everything well. And I'm willing to pay for it.
If you are willing to drop a grand on a CPU and think that is a fair price, then you have more money than common sense.
Wow, this is the first time I am have excited about a CPU release for over two years since I bought my last sytem. I am now running a P4 3.2C which I have had since the spring of 2003. In my opinion, there really hasn't been a system/CPU that has really provided much of a substantial performance upgrade. The Prescott core Intel chips are NOT at all impressive, and the Athlon64 did not provide good media-encoding performance and lacked good muli-tasking performance--which are musts.
I was slightly impressed with the dual core Intel chips but again, two Prescott cores were not all that thrilling. I guess I would find it difficult for example to upgrade to a dual P4 3.2 which would be faster overall but would still have slower single threaded app performance than my P4C.
BUT, the Athlon64 x2 provide a now desirable AMD platform in terms of both "gaming" and productivity/media-encoding performance. As many articles have stated, AMD will have a very elegant dual core implementation with the Athlon64. For the past two years, I can't say that I have been eager to upgrade to any other new CPU until now.
I know that this upgrade is roughly a year away for myself and that the chip will be released in the later part of this year. And I know that it will be expensive. But when you compare that to the cost of a dual CPU platform that is the only alternative now; it is a steal. I am very excited about dual core chips whether it be AMD or Intel.
The past two years in terms of increasing CPU performance has been downright depressing compared to the years prior. I always used to be able to upgrade on roughly a two year cycle and would get roughly a 2x performance increase with the new system. As you can tell, there are NO CPU's avaliable that would offer anywhere near a 2x performance increase over a P4 3.2C. I am glad that both Intel and AMD are now again rasing the performance bar and making the computer industry exciting again.
I was slightly impressed with the dual core Intel chips but again, two Prescott cores were not all that thrilling. I guess I would find it difficult for example to upgrade to a dual P4 3.2 which would be faster overall but would still have slower single threaded app performance than my P4C.
BUT, the Athlon64 x2 provide a now desirable AMD platform in terms of both "gaming" and productivity/media-encoding performance. As many articles have stated, AMD will have a very elegant dual core implementation with the Athlon64. For the past two years, I can't say that I have been eager to upgrade to any other new CPU until now.
I know that this upgrade is roughly a year away for myself and that the chip will be released in the later part of this year. And I know that it will be expensive. But when you compare that to the cost of a dual CPU platform that is the only alternative now; it is a steal. I am very excited about dual core chips whether it be AMD or Intel.
The past two years in terms of increasing CPU performance has been downright depressing compared to the years prior. I always used to be able to upgrade on roughly a two year cycle and would get roughly a 2x performance increase with the new system. As you can tell, there are NO CPU's avaliable that would offer anywhere near a 2x performance increase over a P4 3.2C. I am glad that both Intel and AMD are now again rasing the performance bar and making the computer industry exciting again.
On the bright side, it is possible that the introduction of dual core Opterons could spur a lot of corporate server upgrades from the 200-series single core chips, so chances are you might be able to get some good deals on Opteron pulls from online liquidators, similar to the flaming hot Xeon deal that came around about six months ago (where you could get a pair of HT enabled 1.6 GHz Xeons - which could easily OC close to 2.4-2.6 GHz range - for around $150 or so).
This could potentially lower the entry price of a dual Opteron rig significantly. If you chose a nice board like the new nForce 4 Pro, you could even leave yourself open to a dual core upgrade in the future once prices drop to eventually give you an affordable four-way system down the road.
This could potentially lower the entry price of a dual Opteron rig significantly. If you chose a nice board like the new nForce 4 Pro, you could even leave yourself open to a dual core upgrade in the future once prices drop to eventually give you an affordable four-way system down the road.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter