HAHAHA Had to laugh Intel sad :( Need cookie.

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: ksherman
Just wait until FAB36 goes operational... MeThinks that we will see huge price reductions when it opens, assuming they dont plan to shut down their current plant...

And how do you think they are going to pay for Fab36? Price reductions? Don't count on it.
The more overhead a company has, the more revenue it has to generate.

By the way everybody, although AMD has proven faster than intels dual cores, there is nothing wrong with buying Intel. It will do just fine. I personally feel I can wait til end of 2006 til I upgrade now that I think about it. Hopefully the Pentium M "relative" dual core for desktop will be around. That is when I will consider my upgrade. These Pentium D's are mini heaters. I can deal with one core. P4 3.0E should last me a while. We'll see. I sure as hell am not paying 530 bucks for a low end X2.

 

[Duvie]

If they can migrate to a larger wafer the yields will be more thus the manufacturing cost should be reduced...Right???

As it has been stated on a few sites the prices currently are not the type of prices that push adoptions...It is billed as a revolutionary step but just one that may not be needed at this moment...I have to agree only handful of power users versus all the average joes and their PCs worldwide need that type of multi-core power....This may be why the prices are not that aggressive at the moment.....

I will cough up the cash for one but I will buy the lowest speed one they have....L2 cache means little for my apps so I will be looking at the 5340 one which hopefully will be sub 500 at actual release...I haven't spent that much for a cpu since my pentium pro 200 back in like 1996...

 

[Aenslead]

Well, plataform wise, you cannot beat the nForce PRO (whatever number); I am aware that it has one of the very best I/O performance, something that might be much more helpful with your current usage of computer; also, you are right: twin Opterons, right now, are far more affordable than Dual Core Opterons (Opteron 2X?), giving you the possibility tu upgrade to... err... Dual Core Opterons later on... when the price is right.

Good day.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Intel 955 and Intel Nforce are no more expensive than AMD Nforce, im not seeing the argument here unless you are talking about drop-in upgrades for people with exsisting systems. The truth of the matter is the only people who need to upgrade now, when its not matured, and the prices are terrible, are businesses that actually need the power.

Home users typically dont upgrade from one gen to the next (I do, and im sure many of us do here, but we make up about 0.1%).

Really, now!? fancy that...

Lets see... last time I checked, the Foxcon nForce 4 motherboard was priced at about... $89USD; then we go to (not on market yet) prices of nF4 IE and i955x that, according to reports, will be shipped on prices of $200USD per motherboard.

Lets do the math:
nForce 4 SLI Intel Edition chipset(ery) costs: $80USD (hmm... almost the price of the nForce 4 for AMD motheboard)
Intel i955X chipset(ery) costs: $55USD; well, $25USD cheaper than the nF4SLI-IE, so maybe the motherboards will come out at 175USD and not 200USD as I said before... but anyways...

There you go. I hope you check your math better later.

Oh, and before you start complaining about the comparassion:
We are looking at base systems here... and the only thing you'll be able to run a Pentium D on is on a i955/nf4slie-ie with DDR2 memory;
You can run an A64-x2 on basically anything with socket 939, so I guess I do have an argument here.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I have to give props to AMD for impressive performance from their dual-core parts. Also, I think we need to keep a little perspective here when considering the reported prices on AMD's new dual-core offerings. Nobody's forcing us to use these chips, especially not AMD. There will still be plenty of nice, overclockable single-core chips based on Venice and San Diego that will be marvelous performers in many respects.

The dual-core chips, at least from AMD's camp, seem not to be priced against supposedly-equivelant single-core processors, but dual-proc solutions. These chips are squarely aimed at enthusiasts and professionals in need of multitasking power. Intel's approach is obviously different. Unlike AMD, they do not have the luxury of ramping their current single-core flagship CPU much higher, so they must push dual-core processors on everyone. In order to do this, Intel will price their CPUs aggressively. As result, Intel's dual-core procs will primarily be competing against AMD's single-core procs. AMD's dual-core procs will be competing against dual-cpu Xeon and Opteron rigs(and dual G5s I guess).

In the end, I think AMD's solutions will hold up well, even with the listed prices. They are the top-performing dual-core chips, and that's worth a lot. OEMs and system-builders will catch wind of this. And, while Intel does have Dell, the fact that Intel does not have the top-performing dual-core OR single-core CPU on the market will cheapen Dell's reputation(again) and make it harder for them to sell systems to the very enthusiasts willing to pay top-dollar for the top performer. I'm sure the short supplies of Intel's dual-core EE sure aren't helping things over at Dell, either.

Another thing: the power consumption of the new dual-core Opterons is impressively low. That alone will likely help dual-core Opterons find homes in many servers. Power is money.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: ksherman
Just wait until FAB36 goes operational... MeThinks that we will see huge price reductions when it opens, assuming they dont plan to shut down their current plant...

And how do you think they are going to pay for Fab36? Price reductions? Don't count on it.
The more overhead a company has, the more revenue it has to generate.

FAB36 = 300mm wafer at 90nm
FAB30 = 200mm wafer at 90nm

Basically they will more than double their production capacity. Bear in mind they are probably already considering financial implications, and have said their dektop line will go fully dual core, I think they will reduce prices, and they have already factored in the economics.
You knowing more than AMD about their own capabilities? Don't count on it.
(And they may also outsource to Chartered in Taiwan for some extra production capacity)
They will have production capacity. That means more chips to sell. More chips to sell means more money, more money means more profit. They are already going to be paying for FAB36, so that will not be a true issue, it will almost certainly already be factored into current pricing.

Oh, and the main point to say you are talking FUD:

THG: Dual-core (two CPUs on a single chip) nearly doubles a processor's surface. What happens to the yield rate in this case?

Wallers: Dual-core in 90 nm takes up roughly the same space as a single-core manufactured with a 130 nm. But that doesn't impact the yield rate or error rate on the wafer.

Wallers = Ken Wallers, Director Of Production Planning At AMD

 

[Zebo]

You aiiint see nothin' yet:music:

Wait till real ram is used not crippled additional wait state ECC running at a 2T command with crap arse latency (3-3-3) Anand was forced to use in this X2 simulation. Mark my words 15% minimum increase!!!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Let me submit this for everyone's edification; The simulated 4400+ 2.2ghz 1mb cache does damned good against the P-D 840 3.2ghz, the real one will likely perform slightly better due to ram. Now, the 3.2ghz 840 is listed in that chart for $530 and the X2 2.2ghz 1mb cache 4400+ $581

Where is the fvckin' problem with the pricing there?????? The difference is Intel will bring in even lowered clocked, lowered priced offerings, that's great! But most will need a new board and ram for the P-D eh? 😉

Problem? Where's my $241 dual core like Intel has. Where 99.954% of the buyers are looking to spend? (actually they'd prefer even less, but that's about it) THAT's a problem.

with THAT outta the way, It's mute. As I've said in other threads on this subject.
1. AMD Always wins price/perfomance for as long as I can remember.
2. I see no reason to believe that will change. Do you?
3. These are MSRP which are hardy are street prices, $1000 t-birds anyone? I paid $75.
4. AMD will release 1.8 & 2.0Ghz X2 chips so don't fret.
5. AMD, smartly, has a patten of releasing top shelf A64 parts 1st nothing new here. AMD wants those buyers first, higer margins. Not cheap arses like me who will take thier low margin, 1.8Ghz X2 release and make it a 5000+.😀
6. Budget buyers will wait out the price storm.

 

[Bateluer]

I gotta start saving for my DC A64X2 setup. For everything I want, its just shy of 3 grand. 🙁

 

[StrangerGuy]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You aiiint see nothin' yet:music:

Wait till real ram is used not crippled additional wait state ECC running at a 2T command with crap arse latency (3-3-3) Anand was forced to use in this X2 simulation. Mark my words 15% minimum increase!!!

Thanks Zebo. Didn't knew Anand's A64 X2 is actually "simulated" from a DC Opteron until I had seen your post, and the chip was used with a crappy board, according to Anand, as well.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: jbh129
How could AMD expect to compete when people can by a dual core from a brand they trust (Intel) at a higher speed (ignoring the fact that it means nothing) for less money. Regardless of performance, this is a losing proposition for AMD in the mass market.

If AMD was turning out Intels jokes they'd be flat out bankrupt , chapter 7 not 13. I mean chip recalls, chipset recalls, overheating, less performance, hotter than a tea kettle, Power hogs, Throttle sloth nobody would dream of buying AMD. Intel continued sales domination presents a pretty interesting case study for marketing and psychology don't you think? I sure do.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy

Originally posted by: Zebo
You aiiint see nothin' yet:music:

Wait till real ram is used not crippled additional wait state ECC running at a 2T command with crap arse latency (3-3-3) Anand was forced to use in this X2 simulation. Mark my words 15% minimum increase!!!

Thanks Zebo. Didn't knew Anand's A64 X2 is actually "simulated" from a DC Opteron until I had seen your post, and the chip was used with a crappy board, according to Anand, as well.

Ya that board and non-x2 bios was a BIG POS, who knows how it adversly affected the tests when the machine can barley boot or shut down. It's waaaaaaaay to premature to look at any of these results IMO dispite AMD's triumph, however tempted.

 

[clarkey01]

FAB 30 will be kept online and be retooled when needed, the plan was to turn it into flash but thats out the window. AMD also hase subtractors coming into play this year too.

Not to mention thier testing happens mostly in east fishkill/Dresden deisgn centre and the one in boston.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: ssvegeta1010
Now the question is; how well do they OC? (dual 2.6 cores 😀)

The intel made it to 3.8ghz but they said the heat was insane.

Got a link to that??? I thought the one at toms made it to 4ghz or someplace did....

Toms said 4.0ghz was unstable on air, they got it but couldnt cool it.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Aenslead

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Intel 955 and Intel Nforce are no more expensive than AMD Nforce, im not seeing the argument here unless you are talking about drop-in upgrades for people with exsisting systems. The truth of the matter is the only people who need to upgrade now, when its not matured, and the prices are terrible, are businesses that actually need the power.

Home users typically dont upgrade from one gen to the next (I do, and im sure many of us do here, but we make up about 0.1%).

Really, now!? fancy that...

Lets see... last time I checked, the Foxcon nForce 4 motherboard was priced at about... $89USD; then we go to (not on market yet) prices of nF4 IE and i955x that, according to reports, will be shipped on prices of $200USD per motherboard.

Lets do the math:
nForce 4 SLI Intel Edition chipset(ery) costs: $80USD (hmm... almost the price of the nForce 4 for AMD motheboard)
Intel i955X chipset(ery) costs: $55USD; well, $25USD cheaper than the nF4SLI-IE, so maybe the motherboards will come out at 175USD and not 200USD as I said before... but anyways...

There you go. I hope you check your math better later.

Oh, and before you start complaining about the comparassion:
We are looking at base systems here... and the only thing you'll be able to run a Pentium D on is on a i955/nf4slie-ie with DDR2 memory;
You can run an A64-x2 on basically anything with socket 939, so I guess I do have an argument here.

Foxconn... lmao 😉

 

[Xayd]

Originally posted by: Lithan
Meh, Intel's dual core chips are cheap but get their asses kicked in everything single threaded and most multithreaded.
Amd's are a ripoff and get beat by A64's in the single threaded stuff (except encoding), and the EE's in about half the multithreaded stuff.
And the benchmarks they use for multitasking are STILL assinine, vividly pointing out how useless Multiproc/multicore is for desktop systems. Lord knows I always am sure I start compressing a video file before I start playing some Doom 3. That's just common sense.
The one good thing that will come of this? All the Hyperthreading pushers will finally shut up about how much they NEED to play video's, mp3's, surf the web, burn cd's, and compress avi files in the background while they game because now AMD beats Intel at it. And we will return to the days where anyone who complains about not being able to burn cd's while they play video games get's ridiculed and (hopefully) sterilized.

I know fanboy eyes have trouble seeing it, but Hyperthreading actually works.

For those that use their computers for more than refreshing hardware review pages and benchmarks, it's quite nice.

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: Xayd

Originally posted by: Lithan
Meh, Intel's dual core chips are cheap but get their asses kicked in everything single threaded and most multithreaded.
Amd's are a ripoff and get beat by A64's in the single threaded stuff (except encoding), and the EE's in about half the multithreaded stuff.
And the benchmarks they use for multitasking are STILL assinine, vividly pointing out how useless Multiproc/multicore is for desktop systems. Lord knows I always am sure I start compressing a video file before I start playing some Doom 3. That's just common sense.
The one good thing that will come of this? All the Hyperthreading pushers will finally shut up about how much they NEED to play video's, mp3's, surf the web, burn cd's, and compress avi files in the background while they game because now AMD beats Intel at it. And we will return to the days where anyone who complains about not being able to burn cd's while they play video games get's ridiculed and (hopefully) sterilized.

I know fanboy eyes have trouble seeing it, but Hyperthreading actually works.

For those that use their computers for more than refreshing hardware review pages and benchmarks, it's quite nice.

It'll be gone once Intel shift all production to dual cores, and even then to use that feature your goona have to pay big $$$ and maybe even more for a copy of XP pro (4 threads), xp home can only perform 2 threads I believe.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Xayd

Originally posted by: Lithan
Meh, Intel's dual core chips are cheap but get their asses kicked in everything single threaded and most multithreaded.
Amd's are a ripoff and get beat by A64's in the single threaded stuff (except encoding), and the EE's in about half the multithreaded stuff.
And the benchmarks they use for multitasking are STILL assinine, vividly pointing out how useless Multiproc/multicore is for desktop systems. Lord knows I always am sure I start compressing a video file before I start playing some Doom 3. That's just common sense.
The one good thing that will come of this? All the Hyperthreading pushers will finally shut up about how much they NEED to play video's, mp3's, surf the web, burn cd's, and compress avi files in the background while they game because now AMD beats Intel at it. And we will return to the days where anyone who complains about not being able to burn cd's while they play video games get's ridiculed and (hopefully) sterilized.

I know fanboy eyes have trouble seeing it, but Hyperthreading actually works.

For those that use their computers for more than refreshing hardware review pages and benchmarks, it's quite nice.

I take it you forgot to look at the Pentium D 840EE numbers compared to the regular 840?
Hyperthreading CAN work, but sometimes it's harmful.
I'd also like to see Pentium 4 single cores with and without Hyperthreading on some of Anandtech's multitasking benchmarks, because when the old HT comparisons were done, no one seemed to go that far in terms of putting together multi-task benchmarks, unlike now with dual core.

 

[jbh129]

It is rumored that Pentium D's will run on the 865/875 boards such as the DFI 875, P5P800 and the AS8. That would be sweet.

 

[Xayd]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Xayd

Originally posted by: Lithan
Meh, Intel's dual core chips are cheap but get their asses kicked in everything single threaded and most multithreaded.
Amd's are a ripoff and get beat by A64's in the single threaded stuff (except encoding), and the EE's in about half the multithreaded stuff.
And the benchmarks they use for multitasking are STILL assinine, vividly pointing out how useless Multiproc/multicore is for desktop systems. Lord knows I always am sure I start compressing a video file before I start playing some Doom 3. That's just common sense.
The one good thing that will come of this? All the Hyperthreading pushers will finally shut up about how much they NEED to play video's, mp3's, surf the web, burn cd's, and compress avi files in the background while they game because now AMD beats Intel at it. And we will return to the days where anyone who complains about not being able to burn cd's while they play video games get's ridiculed and (hopefully) sterilized.

I know fanboy eyes have trouble seeing it, but Hyperthreading actually works.

For those that use their computers for more than refreshing hardware review pages and benchmarks, it's quite nice.

I take it you forgot to look at the Pentium D 840EE numbers compared to the regular 840?
Hyperthreading CAN work, but sometimes it's harmful.
I'd also like to see Pentium 4 single cores with and without Hyperthreading on some of Anandtech's multitasking benchmarks, because when the old HT comparisons were done, no one seemed to go that far in terms of putting together multi-task benchmarks, unlike now with dual core.

No, it's not harmful. AFAIK my computer has never blown up from use of SMT, Hyperthreading, or anything else people wanna call it.

Hardware has outpaced software in the past 5 years or so. People don't get drastic performance increases like they did in the 90s with every upgrade.

And with that in mind, an idea like Hyperthreading goes a long way. What good is another 10 FPS when FPS in everything is over the refresh rate on my monitor anyways? None, is the answer.

Making my computer usable while encoding video, rendering 3D images, etc? That's an idea I'll listen to, and that's why Hyperthreading is valuable.

Timeline:

I've built my own PCs since the K6-2. Intel was the performance leader hands down back then, the K6 series was only an option due to price. I eventually switched to coppermines when the coppermine Celerons came out, as did many people, due to their overclockability. Later, I switched to a Duron for the same reason, and later the Athlon line. However the general horribleness of Via got me looking to switch back to Intel when the 1.6A came out, as did many people at the time. That's still one of the greatest overlcocking CPUs ever made, virtually every single one produced would OC by 30-50% with the stock HSF and stock voltage. TBH, with a current video card CPU and chipset technology from 3 years ago is still very close to performance that you get with stuff produced last year, there's not much compelling need to upgrade that often anymore.

And when I do upgrade, something other than a tad more FPS in a doom benchmark is gonna have to be there for me to spend the money. Hyperthreading is that something.

Maybe dual cores with Hypertransport will be the next big thing, and AMD will completely overshadow Intel in the next year. I think the potential is there for it to do so, but that technology isn't here yet, because the only producers of mobos that can utilize it are at the moment, VIA ALI and SIS. And the very reasons I was happy to be rid of AMD when I got a 1.6A and an 845 board 3 years ago are....(drumroll), VIA ALI and SIS. Until such compontents are actually produced, sold, and tested for all to see, there's very little that will sway someone who has a practical use for Hyperthreading away from Intel. When you don't upgrade nearly as often as you used to anymore, the stability and longevity of Intel chipsets also goes a long way in determining what you buy. Intel also has the better history there, from the BX boards up thru the 800 series P4 boards.

PS I'm not a fan of the Prescott cores either. I don't own one and won't upgrade again until that core is done with anyways.

 

[Keysplayr]

The actual truth is, the days of AMD being the bargain CPU company are over. Sure, they will release slower DC cpu's, but currently AMD's slowest DC chip is priced almost equivalently to Intels fastest DC chip. Fab 36 cost AMD billions. Which in turn will cost AMD buyers billions collectively.

AND!!!! When it all comes down to it, you will not notice much difference between and Intel DC powered computer and an AMD DC powered computer if they were side by side.
Its really true. 80 fps vs 110? who can tell which system it AMD or Intel.

2 minutes to encode cetain files as opposed to 2:30? Not a big deal really.
I noticed a lot of you in here were throwing coats of sugar on Anand's review. To be honest, the performance all of you are arguing about, I mean the reality of it, will pretty much only effect people who use computing 24/7. Scientists, Bioinformatics, Geneticists, etc. People who have HUGE data farms of data to crunch.

Not us gamers. Encoders. Word Processors. CD/DVD burners.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Originally posted by: jbh129
It is rumored that Pentium D's will run on the 865/875 boards such as the DFI 875, P5P800 and the AS8. That would be sweet.

Highly unlikely IMO.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Let me submit this for everyone's edification; The simulated 4400+ 2.2ghz 1mb cache does damned good against the P-D 840 3.2ghz, the real one will likely perform slightly better due to ram. Now, the 3.2ghz 840 is listed in that chart for $530 and the X2 2.2ghz 1mb cache 4400+ $581

Where is the fvckin' problem with the pricing there?????? The difference is Intel will bring in even lowered clocked, lowered priced offerings, that's great! But most will need a new board and ram for the P-D eh? 😉

Problem? Where's my $241 dual core like Intel has. Where 99.954% of the buyers are looking to spend? (actually they'd prefer even less, but that's about it) THAT's a problem.

with THAT outta the way, It's mute. As I've said in other threads on this subject.
1. AMD Always wins price/perfomance for as long as I can remember.
2. I see no reason to believe that will change. Do you?
3. These are MSRP which are hardy are street prices, $1000 t-birds anyone? I paid $75.
4. AMD will release 1.8 & 2.0Ghz X2 chips so don't fret.
5. AMD, smartly, has a patten of releasing top shelf A64 parts 1st nothing new here. AMD wants those buyers first, higer margins. Not cheap arses like me who will take thier low margin, 1.8Ghz X2 release and make it a 5000+.😀
6. Budget buyers will wait out the price storm.

The word you wanted was moot 🙂 And you forgot to mention you have to buy a new board and DDR2 ram for that 2.8ghz P-D too. 939ers get to drop one in, not too mention you will need to overclock to catch what the 4400+ performs like stock with warranty in tact. Read my other posts and I cover most of the above too, so I hope that was for other peoples benefit and not directed at me specificly 😉 All that time in P&N is making you a combative bastage ain't it? 😛

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
The actual truth is, the days of AMD being the bargain CPU company are over. Sure, they will release slower DC cpu's, but currently AMD's slowest DC chip is priced almost equivalently to Intels fastest DC chip. Fab 36 cost AMD billions. Which in turn will cost AMD buyers billions collectively.

AND!!!! When it all comes down to it, you will not notice much difference between and Intel DC powered computer and an AMD DC powered computer if they were side by side.
Its really true. 80 fps vs 110? who can tell which system it AMD or Intel.

2 minutes to encode cetain files as opposed to 2:30? Not a big deal really.
I noticed a lot of you in here were throwing coats of sugar on Anand's review. To be honest, the performance all of you are arguing about, I mean the reality of it, will pretty much only effect people who use computing 24/7. Scientists, Bioinformatics, Geneticists, etc. People who have HUGE data farms of data to crunch.

Not us gamers. Encoders. Word Processors. CD/DVD burners.

side by side.? Wha?? Is there such a thing? You must notta seen this graph 😉
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/athlon64x2/preview/table8.gif

True. Intel fanatics have no reason to switch. The interested in performance OTOH....😀

Seriously, I made these exact same aruguments back in XP vs. P4C days. XP was signifigantly cheaper but performed less to the point of indescerable really to the average user or w/o using benchmarking tools.

If AMD does'nt release a DC around $240 or less, I have no problemo with those smartly buying the Intel offering if they need Dual Core.

 

[sbuckler]

Hyperthreading is mostly great but when you want one app to be able to run a processor flat out it hurts - problem is that even though the second thread is able to run in the background taking none of the main threads cpu time it still takes half the cache so for that reason the main thread runs slightly slower.