• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pentium4 3.2 Ghz with 2 MB Cache is out!!!!

$1025 for a CPU. That is just crazy. That makes the A64FXs look cheap. Plus you get better performance
from the FXs. Oh well, I am sure some Intel zombies around here will buy it.......
 
it is cheaper than the msrp though.

suppose to be $1300+ but still a grand for a cpu...crazy. Anyways, if someone do buy it, post your results or better, overclock that monster 🙂
 
Originally posted by: meson2000
$1025 for a CPU. That is just crazy. That makes the A64FXs look cheap. Plus you get better performance
from the FXs. Oh well, I am sure some Intel zombies around here will buy it.......
Click to expand...


I don't think so! The benchmarks from the FX release proved that. But we shall see. If the FX beats the EE w/2meg cache than Intel is in trouble and I don't think that is going to happen.
 
Originally posted by: orion7144
Originally posted by: meson2000
$1025 for a CPU. That is just crazy. That makes the A64FXs look cheap. Plus you get better performance
from the FXs. Oh well, I am sure some Intel zombies around here will buy it.......
Click to expand...


I don't think so! The benchmarks from the FX release proved that. But we shall see. If the FX beats the EE w/2meg cache than Intel is in trouble and I don't think that is going to happen.
Click to expand...

I think FX is much better than EE because the memory bandwidth is better. and also EE is too expensive. so the price/performance wise, FX beats EE out of the hair. wuahahahaha...................INTEL is in trouble
 
I saw some benchmarks with the A64FX and Intel's new "gaming" processor and AMD came out on top except for one.

Super6
 
Personally, as long as the war rages on and provides me with high quality at a good price, Im not too bothered with the leading edge.

Strapping yourself to a nose-cone of a Concorde then flying at supersonic speeds isnt smart. Spending thousands on the latest chip only for it to be dwarfed within weeks isnt what Id call smart either.... unless you have the cash to spare.
 
Originally posted by: Super6
I saw some benchmarks with the A64FX and Intel's new "gaming" processor and AMD came out on top except for one.

Super6
Click to expand...

Seen the same thing....

I think AMD will put Intel to shame in near future. I mean they already have done an exellent job over past few years and its only getting better. Once more people reliaze how much Intel is ripping them off they will turn to AMD.....

 
Ok, so its expensive. But, how much would it cost say for a FX51, Motherboard to support it, and ECC Registered DDR to get the FX working? When I can just plop the P4EE in My existing 865 board with current ram. Didn't look at it that way, did yaz...

Just my 2 cents.
 
But why would you want to plop down $1025 for a mere 6-10% speed improvement over current P4C 3.2 Systems?

The message is clear: both A64 and P4 EE have failed.

Face it, there is little to 0 reason over current setups to spend ~$1000 on these *revised* architectures (granted the A64 is brand new).
 
I thought it was supposed to be $925.

This cpu makes the Athlon XP2500 for $85 look like a dream cpu.🙂 (BTW I heard all new XP2500 are multiplier locked, is that true?)
 
Originally posted by: Overkiller
But why would you want to plop down $1025 for a mere 6-10% speed improvement over current P4C 3.2 Systems?

The message is clear: both A64 and P4 EE have failed.

Face it, there is little to 0 reason over current setups to spend ~$1000 on these *revised* architectures (granted the A64 is brand new).
Click to expand...

seti times lol 😉:beer:😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top