Memory is severely overrated, i would get the cheapest DDRII i could find and leave it at that. The performance increase going from 5:4 (ddr440) and 1:1 (DDR533) is about 1%.
Corsair 512MB PC3200 DDRII CAS3 @ newegg
Memory is severely overrated, i would get the cheapest DDRII i could find and leave it at that. The performance increase going from 5:4 (ddr440) and 1:1 (DDR533) is about 1%.
Corsair 512MB PC3200 DDRII CAS3 @ newegg
Who else is gonna wait to see what gains Unreal3 gets from multcore before they go for a dual core proc?
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Can you please show me where you have seen the 955X board for 250.00? I am not being doubtful here. I really want to know so I can buy one for a prototype model for my company. We want to get away from Dual Xeons. And 250.00 is a HELL of a lot cheaper than a Duel Xeon board. Thanks in advance.
I saw that as well.....I will try to find the link but I imagine it is like key is stating....Boards with new chipsets usually are high initially until the lower spec crown get in and help drive it south....I expect 200 soon will be only the high end, and more like 150 for the average....Again until more cpu are out other then the EE model they know only the uber rich and uber stupid are buying so they can jack the rate...the price of being bleeding edge
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2394&p=1
This doesn't give street prices but it gives an idea of the chipset cost...in this case it appears the high end ones may be the nvidia chipset and not the Intel ones.
Maybe this has already been pointed out, but I cant read all these posts!
The situation is I believe best summarized by overclockers in that the dual core amds do outperform the intel chips for the most part, but the problem is that there arent any lower end models to directly compete with intel on price, even if performance is equaled. I think the fundamental problem is that AMD simply cannot make enough processors and so prices them so they wont have to. Sad thing is, this probably wont change for another year when fab36 goes online, unless AMD takes advantage of their deal with chartered to make enough cpus to price them lower. Their lack of production ability is exactly what keeps dell from using amd, even if dell wanted to go half intel/half amd, amd couldnt keep up with production.
The opterons seem correctly priced to me, at least for the 8xx lines, as the type of programs running on these type of high end systems will see a linear scaling of performance with a second cpu per core. They should even be able to save customers money, since instead of a really expensive 8 socket configuration, you could use a much! cheaper 4 socket configuration and still have the same computing power.
The situation is I believe best summarized by overclockers in that the dual core amds do outperform the intel chips for the most part, but the problem is that there arent any lower end models to directly compete with intel on price, even if performance is equaled. I think the fundamental problem is that AMD simply cannot make enough processors and so prices them so they wont have to. Sad thing is, this probably wont change for another year when fab36 goes online, unless AMD takes advantage of their deal with chartered to make enough cpus to price them lower. Their lack of production ability is exactly what keeps dell from using amd, even if dell wanted to go half intel/half amd, amd couldnt keep up with production.
The opterons seem correctly priced to me, at least for the 8xx lines, as the type of programs running on these type of high end systems will see a linear scaling of performance with a second cpu per core. They should even be able to save customers money, since instead of a really expensive 8 socket configuration, you could use a much! cheaper 4 socket configuration and still have the same computing power.
I disagree...AMD I hear is planning on lower speed X2's.....We may hear more by the time June rools around...
The fact as pointed out to me by Dapunisher is that I can get the 580 dollar chip that killed the non EE chip...Perhaps even just get the 531 dollar chip and place it right into my curret system and I am off and runing...
Now lets get an Intel machine...I can get the cheapest one they have 2.8ghz model that would have been throttle by about 15% more in most of those apps tested....So now basically we are not even talking apples and apples here....Get a new board art 150-200 bucks and then new DDR2 which has a premium over DDR...Bottom line...NO cheaper!!!
I agree I will perfer a lower speed one from AMD so hopefully it will be in the 300 dollar range and OC.....but...That being said I see no great offer to go INtel any way I look at it...
Neither company IMO think they will move a lare number of these anyways in the desktop market...gamers dont need them yet ( so much), average joe doens't multitask and has ample computing power now, and ultimately the ppl who need them are the business workstation and server class....That is the market AMD is targeting.....
I am inteested in seeing how INtel markets this...What kind of spin they put on it to get the sheeple to buy into they need to upgrade to one....I am sure they will spin it into some outrageous claims to confuse the masses...AMD would as well if they actually spent any money marketing....
BY THE WAY AMD: I am still waiting on my paycheck for all the marketing I do for you....word of mouth is about all they cont on....I will take a free X2!!!
The fact as pointed out to me by Dapunisher is that I can get the 580 dollar chip that killed the non EE chip...Perhaps even just get the 531 dollar chip and place it right into my curret system and I am off and runing...
Now lets get an Intel machine...I can get the cheapest one they have 2.8ghz model that would have been throttle by about 15% more in most of those apps tested....So now basically we are not even talking apples and apples here....Get a new board art 150-200 bucks and then new DDR2 which has a premium over DDR...Bottom line...NO cheaper!!!
I agree I will perfer a lower speed one from AMD so hopefully it will be in the 300 dollar range and OC.....but...That being said I see no great offer to go INtel any way I look at it...
Neither company IMO think they will move a lare number of these anyways in the desktop market...gamers dont need them yet ( so much), average joe doens't multitask and has ample computing power now, and ultimately the ppl who need them are the business workstation and server class....That is the market AMD is targeting.....
I am inteested in seeing how INtel markets this...What kind of spin they put on it to get the sheeple to buy into they need to upgrade to one....I am sure they will spin it into some outrageous claims to confuse the masses...AMD would as well if they actually spent any money marketing....
BY THE WAY AMD: I am still waiting on my paycheck for all the marketing I do for you....word of mouth is about all they cont on....I will take a free X2!!!
I have to agree with this, the only way i can see Dual core netburst competing is a rapid die shrink (rapid being this year, which isnt likely).
AMDs Dual core is in a class of its own, the price premium is too high for my taste as an enthusiast, and that says a lot.
One thing I can think of as why this AMD DC is priced high is that they have a problem in their manufacturing process which limits the products output.
The problem I see is most AMD'ers look at it from a performance/tech standpoint, because that's where they win. And most Intel'ers look at it from a marketing/sales standpoint, because that's where they win.
Two things should be absolutely clear.
1. Amd's processor is better.
2. Intel's processor will do better.
oh yeah...
3. Death
4. Taxes
Two things should be absolutely clear.
1. Amd's processor is better.
2. Intel's processor will do better.
oh yeah...
3. Death
4. Taxes
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,200
- 32,839
- 146
Exactomundo. Intel plans to ship millions of DC CPUs before the year is out, and they have made no secret of wanting to move the bulk of their desktop market to DC ASAP either. AMD is focused on the enterprise sector until they can ramp production with the new fab so they have an opportunity there, while Intel has a great one in the desktop market, mobile too?
I surmise the marketing blitz will start soon for the P-D, Blue Men as the Vanguard? Perhaps they will use a visual metaphor by having two of them appear as one body with two heads and out perform their mono-cephalic buddy at some inane task?
I don't understand your logic. A X2 4400 is bascially two FX-51's. Do you believe that you would not see a performance difference between an FX-51 and a non hypertreaded Intel 2800 if they were single core? The X2 4400 will destroy the Intel 2800 dualcore on both single and multithreaded apps across the board.
Intel is charging this cheaply for their dualcore because they know they have lost the performance crown for at least 6 months. Their weapon? Marketshare and advertising dollars. Make little or no revenue on dualcores but keep AMD marketshare to a minimum until they have dualcore Xeon's and a real competitive part (performance wise) and then charge more next year.
I for one would see a major difference in performance between an FX-51 and a P4 2800. Their dualcore equivalents will show an even bigger performance gap due to the better dualcore implementation of AMD. Is it worth the price difference? I don't know because neither processor is actually out yet. We will see.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
::sigh:: My logic is: The X2 4400 will destroy the Intel 2800 dualcore on both single and multithreaded apps across the board, only if your sole purpose in life is to have a higher benchmark than the other guy. Its for benchmark nuts. That is fine. In the real world, nobody will tell the difference. Except for people who truly need the most processing power available to complete HUGE tasks in the least amount of time and actually live by the rule "time is money", nobody will care except enthusiasts. From the average Joe Best Buy, Dell, shopper, Dual core Intel machines are going to make an enormous killing. Initially because Intel are the only ones offering desktop dual core CPU's currently. AMD's chips are not ready if they had to send reviewers DC Opteron chips for benches. AMD has only paper desktop X2's currently unless someone has evidence that they are currently available for ordering.. They are however shipping to enterprise OEM's and that is a good thing. Because its all they have currently in the form of DC.
I don't expect anyone to agree or follow my logic. It is after all,my logic.
Not yet.
They send to reviewers Opteron DC for the simple reason DC Opteron is the only DC launch by AMD at this moment (specifically, 8xx series, exactly CPUs they have send). And CPU retail, for sale one week after official launch (ETA april 27, Monarch for example).
No they aren't paper desktops. Not for simple reason they haven't announced any X2 launch right now. They only have told about some features of them (and X2 models will be at launch), and when they'll be launched, at June. Period. No paper launch here. We can't say the same statement about Intel DC, can we?
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,200
- 32,839
- 146
No, you are pretty much on the money Keys You are overlooking that the average Joe Shopper doesn't need DC at all, and one can argue Intel is only pushing so hard because they are out of headroom and it is DC or nothin' new to offer for desktop performance. Intel is in a similar position to what you specualted AMD was in when I pointed out their limited production capabilities
BTW, Celeron is the biggest seller traditionally so I wouldn't be surprised to see adoption of DC systems take some time to get going for the desktop Joe&Jane sixpacks of the world given the price difference involved. AMD is at least making their small initial offering where it should be the most readily adotped, for whatever that's worth
You are overlooking that the average Joe Shopper doesn't need DC at all, and one can argue Intel is only pushing so hard because they are out of headroom and it is DC or nothin' new to offer for desktop performance. Intel is in a similar position to what you specualted AMD was in when I pointed out their limited production capabilities
This is the only thing Intel can do
BTW, Celeron is the biggest seller traditionally so I wouldn't be surprised to see adoption of DC systems take some time to get going for the desktop Joe&Jane sixpacks of the world given the price difference involved. AMD is at least making their small initial offering where it should be the most readily adotped, for whatever that's worth
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
No, you are pretty much on the money KeysThis is the only thing Intel can do
Excellent sum up as usual brudda. :beer:
Let me add few more things.
There is apoint after which techonolgy doesnt matter and Intel has come to that point. AMD preforming even 10 percent wont even put a small dent on intels market cap or sales. For the pas 2 years Intel has reported huge profits. Where as AMD has reported lost this quarter and the sales are not even comparable to intel. SO whats this i hear about Intel lost everything. Do you think the end user cares if MS word loads up half a second faster on an AMD machine . Ther are many factors that you should consider before making a judgement on which company loses or WINS. Intel cares less if AMD wins all the benchmarks by 5 percent. In the end Intel has set a Brand image for themselves that is competitive and has proven quality and preformance tha people have been happy with year after year. So insted of being ingnorant and making comments that Intel, read and think before what you say.
AMD's cpu division posted a profit AS USUAL.....They need to get rif od the money sucking flash memory division...Still yes they are a fraction of the revienues....Intel was actually more flat in desktop cpus then AMD but huge profits in mobile technology rounded it up for them....I expect that opterons dominance and subsequent dual core dominance over no comparable Intel product for at least 6 months is going top pay off huge for AMD in the most lucrative market of them all.....I would rather see them gain acceptance and market share there cause they taps into more profits and ultimately will cut into Intels profit...
I agree the average person (moron) doesn't care jack didly about 3ghz this, 2ghz that, and dual core this....Fact is they surf the net and do some minor apps and they will stay with their beloved celerons until Intel convinces them dual core will make their toaster run faster and wipe their fat arses....
I agree the average person (moron) doesn't care jack didly about 3ghz this, 2ghz that, and dual core this....Fact is they surf the net and do some minor apps and they will stay with their beloved celerons until Intel convinces them dual core will make their toaster run faster and wipe their fat arses....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter