Intel price cuts for august ? wtf

[AnonymouseUser]

I can understand your concerns regarding stability as there were many unstable chipsets (and incapable PSUs) in the original TBird days, but that is a non-issue today. AMD cpus are as stable as any Intel cpus, period (if you do notice a lot of AMD systems being unstable, just remember that these are mostly DIY'er systems where a larger percentage of Intel systems are pre-built Dells, HPs, etc).

I have to ask, though, why are you so concerned about cpu upgradablity? You mention the upgrade from 3.0 to 3.7 GHz P4 or 3000+ to 3500+ A64 as not being worthwhile, but jumping to the 939 platform, upgrading from 3400+ to ~4400+ (939 roadmaps don't show any higher at this time) isn't much better of an upgrade. I recently upgraded my wife's comp from XP1800+ to XP2400+, a 33% increase in CPU speed with the rest of the system remaining unchanged, and have noticed minimal improvement for the $65 spent (though it does run cooler). You are talking about a ~30% increase in the 939 case (o/c capability is disregarded since you are more concerned about stability), but the cost will likely be much higher since AMD is trying to keep their prices up. It seriously doesn't make sense. Upgrading from 32-bit to 64-bit OS would be the better upgrade IMO (hence, A64 over P4).

Finally, the performance difference from 754 (single channel) to 939 (dual channel) is ~4-10%, which again isn't a worthwhile performance gain when cost is an issue, so I personally recommend the 754 A64 now, and a new mobo + cpu for future upgrades (especially with many mobos being <$100).

 

[SneakyStuff]

If you want a rock solid chipset for an A64, look into the nforce 3 motherboards. I've heard great things when compared to VIA's.

 

[InlineFive]

I think I see where you are getting confused. Athlons shut off when they overheat to prevent damage. Pentiums slow down a lot to prevent overheating. In this sense it makes P4s a more newbie easy choice as it always seems to work 100%. In reality both processor families are equally stable if an knowledgable person builds them.

Also, fan noise is also something relating to the builder. Not the processor and what heatsink the manufacturer has decided to include for cost reasons at that time. And K8 based processors have the ability to underclock themselves and reduce voltage so that the motherboard can actually turn the fan off. While still retaining a working desktop environment. And if processor usage escalates again (for games say) the fan comes on and the processor springs back to full speed.

And don't pay attention to nick1985. He has always been a bit blunt with his approaches to explaining things.

 

[mechBgon]

I think we all need to chip in and buy voodoochili's friend a ticket to the year 2004

 

[SneakyStuff]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
I think we all need to chip in and buy voodoochili's friend a ticket to the year 2004

lol well said

 

[carlosd]

This is how "stable" are P4
User experiencing P4 unstability when CPU load is 100%.
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=28&amp;threadid=1375549&amp;enterthread=y

 

[justly]

Voodoochili, you keep mentioning socket 939 and upgrading, so I just want to add my opinion on the subject. In an earlier post you said ?this isnt a primary gaming box? with that in mind I don?t see a need to worry about processor upgradeability. By the time you think your current system isn?t fast enough for general computing needs it is very likely that your motherboard, memory and many other components might be outdated enough to warrant replacement (just like your current 1.4 GHz P4).
Change is the name of the game when it comes to computer hardware, consider yourself lucky if the top performing components are still compatible with a system that is much over a year old. Of course there are exceptions to this but if stability is also a concern then I would have to ask if you think the current top of the line P4 or Athlon 64/Opteron would be stable in a first revision board?

 

[KDKPSJ]

Originally posted by: carlosd
This is how "stable" are P4
User experiencing P4 unstability when CPU load is 100%.
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=28&amp;threadid=1375549&amp;enterthread=y

Please.. that's just one of few exception like those people who say "Barton unstable! BTW I run Win95." And that's more likely P4P800(which I believe the worst ASUS mobo in ASUS history)'s problem. Anyway, back to an issue, no CPU from both brands has much of stablility issue as long as CPU is properly cooled and mobo is made by major brand. So, choose whatever you feel better for you (i.e Multitasking and encoding for P4, faster gaming and 64 bit ability for Athlon64).

 

[HalosPuma]

Only 3 more days until the Intel price cut. Here's an up-to-date article on the Intel price cuts. Hmm.. should I go with the 478 3.4D or 3.4E? To watercool or not?

 

[voodoochili]

booo what about the regular 3.0 c northwoods ?, guess we'lll have to wait and see

 

[Zebo]

LOL Amd unstable???? intel is unstable. Or hav'nt you heard about them recalling thier chipsets many many times just recently with alterwood. Hav'nt you heard about recalling processors? Hav'nt you heard about Northwood sudden death syndrome? Hav'nt you heard about HP Recall Thousands of pentium Notebooks for chipset problems?

It's called FUD, generated by boys at intel when thier chips price to performance ratio is so crappy they have to justify thier overpriced purchase somehow and "instability" is a nice unprovable method to do so.

Now users use the same catch-all BS phrase because thier chips perform so slow compared to A64 to help justify thier overpriced setups and in self-denial to falling victim to marketing.


Don't be a victim! Don't pay more for less! AMD 64 has onboard memory controller. Making it much more stable than any chipet or platform on the planet. AMD 64 runs cool unlike the pentiums. AMD64 uses less power. AMD 64 is what Intel is trying to copy. Get AMD 64.


Anyway find me one professional third party reviewer citing AMD instabiltiy? Then I'll find you 2 instances for intel

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
I can understand your concerns regarding stability as there were many unstable chipsets (and incapable PSUs) in the original TBird days, but that is a non-issue today. AMD cpus are as stable as any Intel cpus, period (if you do notice a lot of AMD systems being unstable, just remember that these are mostly DIY'er systems where a larger percentage of Intel systems are pre-built Dells, HPs, etc).
).

Those were all FUD too at the time. No need to rehash them, I will if you want. But Just look what Intel man, TOM's hardware says way back then. http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/01q1/010122/kt133a-16.html

"The most important finding was the enjoyable fact that each of the tested boards ran 100% stable even at the fastest possible memory timing settings. VIA's upcoming DDR chipsets may not look too impressive right now, but the Apollo KT133A is a matured, fast and solid product that offers good performance."

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q4/001017/athlon-02.html

"AMD Processors are significantly less expensive than Intel processors although they are at least on par in terms of performance. - FACT"

"AMD processors are incompatible. - LIE

Not that the average guy who just heard that phrase would know what the heck 'incompatible' is, but it sounds really bad, doesn't it? Well, even the people who do know that 'incompatible' means that a product wouldn't work reliably with other components (which of course is bad) are wrong if they accuse AMD's Athlon or Duron processors of it. In our labs we are testing all kinds of Athlon platforms with all kinds of different components and I can definitely say that I cannot see any difference between the compatibility of AMD products and platforms compared to the same from Intel."

"Chipsets for AMD processors are inferior to Intel chipsets. - LIE

Yeah, sure, the earth is flat and politicians are honest ... I am still amused when I see people posting the above message in news groups or as their response to articles. How many more times does Intel need to screw up their chipsets (i820, MTH, ...) until you guys get the message? . . . Incompatibilities are more a problem of the motherboard BIOS than of the chipset right now. Thus both chipset makers, Intel as well as VIA, are actually in the same situation."



The second part of your post is inaccurate as well. No, AMD is not "just as stable" it much more stable than intel.

According to Intel the CPU itself has 31 bugs, not the chipset. Although the 915 and 925 chipsets did have multiple bugs and were recalled, this is another story.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;sl=fr&amp;u=http://www.materiel.be/viewnews.php%3Fn%3D5772&amp;prev=/search%3Fq%3D31%2Bbugs%2Bintel%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Where does anybody get the idea Athlon64's are not stable??? I have had mine on for over a month now for 24hrs, not including the times I have had to reboot for SP2 and firmware upgardes.

It was when Via had some crappy chipsets out I think te 266 sucked and the 133 sucked but the A's of both of them were good.

Oh well someday AMD will get out of the hole from this... I hope sooner than later.

 

[Arcanedeath]

If your concerned about stability on the A64 platform you could just got w/ an Opteron you can get a 144 @ 1.8Ghz w/ 1mb of cache for $211 and it's a server chip w/ prolly the best upgrade path later down the road to dual core Opteron's if you buy a decent motherboard, the only cavaet is that you would need to use registered memory and in general the lower end Opterons will tend to stay around the $200 price point.

 

[clarkey01]

"AMD Processors are significantly less expensive than Intel processors although they are at least on par in terms of performance. - FACT"

"AMD processors are incompatible. ? LIE


"Chipsets for AMD processors are inferior to Intel chipsets. ? LIE


The statements by Zebo above are correct. I really don?t know where there BS comes from them being unstable, more expensive and performing less.

If you wanna really pick at a company for screw ups lately try Intel, Motherboards recalled , Presshot, the idea of a dual presshot !, No 4ghz as promised, I am sure there?s more.

Now don?t get me wrong, I like Intel, but for me and in my situation and many others AMD suits me better. The price to performance ratio is more then enough to secure my loyalty along as they keep it up, rite now AMD is packing a punch @ Intel and is getting somewhere , Why do Intel Fanboys cry and just come out with desperation claims such as ? Ermmmm Athlons , ermm All unstable, Errr More Expensive, Perform Cr*p? .

Hell like I said I like Intel, I am not a fanboy but the company that suits me best @ the moment is AMD. Oh BTW can someone please list the AMD screw ups in the last 12 months and compare them to Intels ?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
I can understand your concerns regarding stability as there were many unstable chipsets (and incapable PSUs) in the original TBird days, but that is a non-issue today. AMD cpus are as stable as any Intel cpus, period (if you do notice a lot of AMD systems being unstable, just remember that these are mostly DIY'er systems where a larger percentage of Intel systems are pre-built Dells, HPs, etc).
).

Those were all FUD too at the time. No need to rehash them, I will if you want. But Just look what Intel man, TOM's hardware says way back then. http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/01q1/010122/kt133a-16.html

"The most important finding was the enjoyable fact that each of the tested boards ran 100% stable even at the fastest possible memory timing settings. VIA's upcoming DDR chipsets may not look too impressive right now, but the Apollo KT133A is a matured, fast and solid product that offers good performance."

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q4/001017/athlon-02.html

"AMD Processors are significantly less expensive than Intel processors although they are at least on par in terms of performance. - FACT"

"AMD processors are incompatible. - LIE

Not that the average guy who just heard that phrase would know what the heck 'incompatible' is, but it sounds really bad, doesn't it? Well, even the people who do know that 'incompatible' means that a product wouldn't work reliably with other components (which of course is bad) are wrong if they accuse AMD's Athlon or Duron processors of it. In our labs we are testing all kinds of Athlon platforms with all kinds of different components and I can definitely say that I cannot see any difference between the compatibility of AMD products and platforms compared to the same from Intel."

"Chipsets for AMD processors are inferior to Intel chipsets. - LIE

Yeah, sure, the earth is flat and politicians are honest ... I am still amused when I see people posting the above message in news groups or as their response to articles. How many more times does Intel need to screw up their chipsets (i820, MTH, ...) until you guys get the message? . . . Incompatibilities are more a problem of the motherboard BIOS than of the chipset right now. Thus both chipset makers, Intel as well as VIA, are actually in the same situation."



The second part of your post is inaccurate as well. No, AMD is not "just as stable" it much more stable than intel.

According to Intel the CPU itself has 31 bugs, not the chipset. Although the 915 and 925 chipsets did have multiple bugs and were recalled, this is another story.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;sl=fr&amp;u=http://www.materiel.be/viewnews.php%3Fn%3D5772&amp;prev=/search%3Fq%3D31%2Bbugs%2Bintel%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8

Ok, THG's comments regarding the KT133A chipset were spot on, but the original KT133 was extremely unstable. I owned the original Asus A7V (KT133) so I can vouch for it's instability. Since then, I have owned:

* MSI K7TTurbo (KT133A) - replaced A7V, then developed RAM errors after 1.5+ years @ 24/7
* Shuttle AK31A (KT266A) - damaged by lightning (RIP :brokenheart: )
* Asus A7N266-VM (nforce) - wife's comp
* Matsonic MS8157E (KM266) - replaced K7TTurbo and runs 24/7
* Shuttle AN35N-Ultra (nforce2) - replaced AK32A in my comp

All of those were/are extremely stable, but I learned to avoid Via's original chipsets and went with either their "A" versions or Nvidia's chipsets. Yes, there were/are many stable chipsets available, but there have been several unstable chipsets available for AMD CPUs as well.

The only AMD CPU I have ever had die on me was my original Athlon 750 (which I killed by my own clumsiness). Since then, I have had:

* Duron 750 - ran 24/7 for 1.5 yrs @ 1GHz (133fsb)
* Athlon 1GHz - which ran much of it's life @ > 1.2 GHz (as high as 1.4), and 24/7 for 1 yr
* Athlon XP 1600+
* Athlon XP 1800+
* Athlon XP 2400+ - replaced 1800+
* Mobile Athlon XP 2400+ - replaced 1600+ and is currently running @ 3200+

I will laugh in the face of anyone who says AMD's CPUs and/or (current) chipsets are unstable (they never were, just some 3rd party chipsets and many PSUs were), but their history is somewhat stained by those early chipsets.

As for my statement "just as stable" as Intel: I can't attest to Intel's stability as I have only had one Intel (Celeron - so patheticly slow I started building my own) comp, so I have to go by the consensus. Since there are many in the IT world who only swear by Intel, anytime anyone says "AMD is more stable than Intel", flame wars break out and I didn't want this thread to become yet another flame war.

 

[dripgoss]

If you are having doubts about stability, it might be because you might be hearing the over emphasized problems related to certain AMD chipsets and the problems associated with those. For instance, some people who "have stability issues" with their AMD's fail to realize the actual shortcomings of their mobo chipsets (i.e. nf2, via's 266, etc) versus what they are trying to do (i.e. overclock, play games). I remember the days when I burned up K6-2's left and right because most of the AMD HSF's were crap then. Times have changed for AMD though...

Basically, take the whole picture into account:

Good Ram + A64 + NF3-250 + Good PSU + Good HSF + Proper Cooling/Case = Damn Fine '04 Era System

 

[anthrax]

AMD CPU provide more performance than Intel Processors..

However, I have to say that Chipset and M/B quality for the the AMD Athlon 64 definately needs improvement. Quite bluntly, if you don't do reaserch, you can easily run into trouble. This I guess is the cost of having a on-die memory controller.



There are loads and loads of thread around complaining about the memory capability issues on a A64 system.

I currently have upgraded to a A64 3500+ and yes, I have issues with the MoBo and memory compatability.

 

[CorCentral]

Intel just dropped prices on most of the P4's.

HERE


I was curious when places like NewEgg usually follow suit with the price lowering? They have'nt yet, but noticed alot on Pricewatch did

I was just about to buy a 3.2c/800 but now that the prices dropped, I can pick up a 3.4c/800 for the same price.

P4e (examples)
Pentium 4, 3.4GHz, 1MB L2, 800MHz FSB, 90nm, Socket 478 $417/ new price $278
Pentium 4, 3.2GHz, 1MB L2, 800MHz FSB, 90nm, Socket 478 $278/ new price $218

 

[robertsmcn]

The only time my AMD XP1800+ shut down is when the PSU started going bad. I replaced the PSU with a quality Antec 350W and after that, I was good to go again. In 2.5 years, my XP has been rock solid - no problems whatsoever after leaving it on 24/7 for months. I can't wait to upgrade to a 939 system in a couple of months.

 

[Traveler]

Regardless how well AMD does to its 64bit chip, I'm going for Intel's since I already have the board. It's convenient.

Any rumor if intel will cut price again in the next few months?