Intel (daddy)

[fatty4ksu]

ComputerBase.de has reported that on august,14 all 6xx series processors shall become cheaper:

Pentium 4 670 (3.8 GHz): $851 -> $605 (-29%);
Pentium 4 660 (3.6 GHz): $605 -> $401 (-34%);
Pentium 4 650 (3.4 GHz): $401 -> $273 (-32%);
Pentium 4 640 (3.2 GHz): $273 -> $224 (-18%);
Pentium 4 630 (3.0 GHz): $224 -> $183 (-18%).

Q4 2005 some processors will be available with Vanderpool technology :
Pentium 4 662 (3.6 GHz): $401;
Pentium 4 672 (3.8 GHz): $605.

There is information that next 6xx series processors - CedarMill core will be available with(6x3) or without(6x1) Vanderpool.
Finally, dual-core Presler processors line will include these models:
Pentium D 950 (3.4 GHz);
Pentium D 940 (3.2 GHz);
Pentium D 930 (3.0 GHz);
Pentium D 920 (2.8 GHz).

 

[DaveSimmons]

Of course even without matching AMD price cuts a $270 June price A64 3500+ will outperform the $401 August price P4 660 in games, so enjoy your $130 "intel tax" and keep funding those Blue Man Group commercials.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Of course even without matching AMD price cuts a $270 June price A64 3500+ will outperform the $401 August price P4 660 in games, so enjoy your $130 "intel tax" and keep funding those Blue Man Group commercials.

Not exactly. Thanks for playing!

Prescott 660 will walk over the 3500+ in many areas. And we know in multithreaded stuff (high-end audio and video, for example) the 660 will walk away.

PS why the AMD zealots always have to crap on any thread that even mentions Intel? Your beloved AMD wasn't even mentioned.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Prescott 660 will walk over the 3500+ in many areas. And we know in multithreaded stuff (high-end audio and video, for example) the 660 will walk away.

PS why the AMD zealots always have to crap on any thread that even mentions Intel? Your beloved AMD wasn't even mentioned.

Actually my main system uses a P4 3.2C and I'm quite happy with it. My music server uses a Tualatin Celeron 1.3, another good processor for its time. My previous desktops were P3-933 and P3-550e.

The thread title was "Intel (daddy) ... strikes back!" and was posted by intel zealout (and anti-"rig" zealot) fatty4ksu so I thought I'd point out that even after "daddy strikes back" the P4s will still be a bad deal for gamers.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Of course even without matching AMD price cuts a $270 June price A64 3500+ will outperform the $401 August price P4 660 in games, so enjoy your $130 "intel tax" and keep funding those Blue Man Group commercials.

Not exactly. Thanks for playing!

Prescott 660 will walk over the 3500+ in many areas. And we know in multithreaded stuff (high-end audio and video, for example) the 660 will walk away.

PS why the AMD zealots always have to crap on any thread that even mentions Intel? Your beloved AMD wasn't even mentioned.

So who exactly was intel (daddy) striking back against, as said in the topic summary?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
The thread title was "Intel (daddy) ... strikes back!" and was posted by intel zealout (and anti-"rig" zealot) fatty4ksu so I thought I'd point out that even after "daddy strikes back" the P4s will still be a bad deal for gamers.

You're right, the thread title is provocative. Seems to be common around here lately.

I'd be careful about saying "bad deal". Some people aren't going to notice the few extra FPS (or care). Remember when Intel used to own Quake benchies and the AMD people cried "Who cares! 180fps is enough, we don't need 240?" ...

A more appropriate thread title would have been "Intel August Price Cuts Announced" or something to that effect.

 

[fatty4ksu]

6600>>>>3500+ in everything but games.


t=a

 

[CheesePoofs]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
6600>>>>3500+ in everything but games.


t=a

wrong.

3500>>>>>6600 in everything but encoding and multitasking. (notice how I used 5 arrows and you only used 4, meaning my coment is obviously better than yours)

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Pabster
You're right, the thread title is provocative. Seems to be common around here lately.

I'd be careful about saying "bad deal". Some people aren't going to notice the few extra FPS (or care). Remember when Intel used to own Quake benchies and the AMD people cried "Who cares! 180fps is enough, we don't need 240?" ...

A more appropriate thread title would have been "Intel August Price Cuts Announced" or something to that effect.

True, "bad deal" depends entirely on why you're buying a fast computer in the first place.

If your primary need for speed is gaming, and video encoding is something you do once in a blue moon, then AMD is a better deal since their $275 processor outperforms the $400 intel.

If your primary need is media encoding, intel is still a good choice since then a $275 P4 will outperfrom a $400 AMD.

For most other tasks, a $200 CPU from either one will offer all the performance you need.