• 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.

Why has AMD forced me to go Intel..?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Capitalism 101: "They got it, you want it; Bend Over."

It's going to be a popular chip, why should they sell it cheap?

Let 'em make a little money .... then they can do the R&D to make a newer, neater, cooler chip. The price will drop soon enough.

FWIW

Scott
 
...And the AMD zealots have shown their ugly heads yet again 😀 🙂 😛

Zebo ... Get a clue. You really think AMD "can charge that much" because "they are the best"? I rarely agree with Pariah about much of anything but let us be realistic here. AMD will ship about, oh, maybe 10 dual-core chips whilst Intel will have a few hundred thousand at minimum. The law of supply and demand is in play here, not product superiority.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
...And the AMD zealots have shown their ugly heads yet again 😀 🙂 😛

Zebo ... Get a clue. You really think AMD "can charge that much" because "they are the best"? I rarely agree with Pariah about much of anything but let us be realistic here. AMD will ship about, oh, maybe 10 dual-core chips whilst Intel will have a few hundred thousand at minimum. The law of supply and demand is in play here, not product superiority.
Click to expand...

I think AMD will ship a few more than 10 dual core CPU's😉
 
Originally posted by: Pariah
the reason AMD will be charging so much for their CPU's is because they are only going to be able to make about 8 of them by whatever the release date is.
Click to expand...
😀

*rimshot*

<---AMD user
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
...And the AMD zealots have shown their ugly heads yet again 😀 🙂 😛

Zebo ... Get a clue. You really think AMD "can charge that much" because "they are the best"? I rarely agree with Pariah about much of anything but let us be realistic here. AMD will ship about, oh, maybe 10 dual-core chips whilst Intel will have a few hundred thousand at minimum. The law of supply and demand is in play here, not product superiority.
Click to expand...

Product Superiority is a known fact. Though Supply and Demand determines prices as well, AMD can charge more despite whatever the Supply may be. There'll be much more than 10, accept it.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Seriously! Since when has'nt AMD won price/performance. Tell me when! I can't think of a time. Granted I've only followed closely since thunderbird days, before that I always bought Intel like Joe, but I have no reason to believe this will change. Accross the board AMD has given more bang for da buck. Just keep your shorts on, wait! AMD *will* release lower end dual core chips to compete with the 820's of the world...
Click to expand...

it happened recently . . . last year, February when i built my 2.80c Northwood system, NO ONE was able to price a comparable A64 system as cheaply . . . . in a few months, the AMD system was both cheaper and higher performing.

it happens 😉

and it has happened before
:roll:
 
I find it funny that people would even consider going "backwards" to a DC 2.8Ghz P4. I guess that they don't realize that MOST applications only run single threaded, especially games. For the price, they are MUCH better off with a single-core A64 since the 2.8 P4 DC will not give much more of a boost over a current 2.8 HT enabled P4 chips.

I guess people forget that the only way a P4 is competitive is when the clock speed is jacked up.
 
Originally posted by: mamisano

I guess people forget that the only way a P4 is competitive is when the clock speed is jacked up.
Click to expand...
wow this is news . . . .
can i quote you on this?



:roll:



😀


i was just pointing out . . . just over a year ago . . . the NW was best bang for buck. 😉




(briefly)

before that it was the 2.4c 😛

:roll:

EDIT: NO DC CPU had ANY advantage in games over a single core - yet. 😉
 
Originally posted by: FishTankX
Looking at the prices, it's hard to justify AMD dual core on the desktop for the more value oriented around us. Intel's cheapest dual core CPU is a little under half the price of the nearest AMD one. What's the deal?

The dual opteron motherboards are really expensive too..

So much for a' Cheap' dual Athlon server..
Click to expand...

Give AMD some feedback by buying Intel.
 
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: FishTankX
Looking at the prices, it's hard to justify AMD dual core on the desktop for the more value oriented around us. Intel's cheapest dual core CPU is a little under half the price of the nearest AMD one. What's the deal?

The dual opteron motherboards are really expensive too..

So much for a' Cheap' dual Athlon server..
Click to expand...

Give AMD some feedback by buying Intel.
Click to expand...

++

If AMD isn't offering the better product for your needs and budget, then don't buy AMD.

As has been effectively shown in this thread, Intel's cheap DC option is not particularly attractive from a cost-benefit POV. But if you have an application where DC is more important than the raw speed of either core, and you can get away without too much ram (a quick price check suggests that a 2GB DDR2 vs DDR system, plus the difference in motherboard prices will just about eat up the savings on your CPU), then Intel may deserve your business.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
...And the AMD zealots have shown their ugly heads yet again 😀 🙂 😛

Zebo ... Get a clue. You really think AMD "can charge that much" because "they are the best"? I rarely agree with Pariah about much of anything but let us be realistic here. AMD will ship about, oh, maybe 10 dual-core chips whilst Intel will have a few hundred thousand at minimum. The law of supply and demand is in play here, not product superiority.
Click to expand...

Lemme get this striaght AMD 4400 will beat the 840 like a red headed step child and they should sell it cheaper than a 840? Riiiight! Don't think so. 4400+ value chip but you're too poor or stupid to see that. It is product superiority. If it sucked they'd sell them for $44 like a tbred. Or $240 like a 820. 😉

Read my thread about 4400's being a good deal!


The 4400+ setup will beat any Intel DC price/performance. Y'all are just short sighted afraid of sticker shock... sorry it's a new world with dual cores. You want cheap go buy a celeron or duron: X2 is no place for you. AMD X2 is for power users not for cheap skates.

Oh and I resent being called a zealot. P4 prescott is garbage. I'll call it that everytime. Read though the lines at any review site, they do too, or at ars, or Intel clockers like Thugsrook. Sorry you don't like it and I hurt your widdle feelings but at this point I'm practically looking at everything that comes out of Intel that's not a pentium M as broken. Throttling CPUs that don't run at speeds paid for, doing less work for more power, with loud ass fans on top of them and slower every gen per Mhz. GARBAGE!!!
 
Since we're talking about the Pentium Ds, does anyone else think that this is a horrible name for the dual core chip?

The biggest problem I see is that it is going to confuse the heck out of Joe Sixpack when he is in the store looking at Pentium D and Celeron D systems. Based on the naming scheme, a normal person would think that the Celeron D is a value dual core chip, when it really isn't. It just gets worse when Intel actually tries to introduce a dual core Celeron a year or two down the line and thye D moniker is already taken. AMD actually has a better naming system this time with "X2", which is something I thought I'd never see.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Pabster
...And the AMD zealots have shown their ugly heads yet again 😀 🙂 😛

Zebo ... Get a clue. You really think AMD "can charge that much" because "they are the best"? I rarely agree with Pariah about much of anything but let us be realistic here. AMD will ship about, oh, maybe 10 dual-core chips whilst Intel will have a few hundred thousand at minimum. The law of supply and demand is in play here, not product superiority.
Click to expand...

Lemme get this striaght AMD 4400 will beat the 840 like a red headed step child and they should sell it cheaper than a 840? Riiiight! Don't think so. 4400+ value chip but you're too poor or stupid to see that. It is product superiority. If it sucked they'd sell them for $44 like a tbred. Or $240 like a 820. 😉

Read my thread about 4400's being a good deal!


The 4400+ setup will beat any Intel DC price/performance. Y'all are just short sighted afraid of sticker shock... sorry it's a new world with dual cores. You want cheap go buy a celeron or duron X2 is no place for you. AMD X2 is for power users not for cheap skates.

Oh and I resent being called a zealot. P4 prescott is garbage. I'll call it that everytime. Read though the lines at any review site, they do too, or at ars. Sorry you don't like it and I hurt your widdle feelings but at this point I'm practically looking at everything that comes out of Intel that's not a pentium M as broken.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you budget is $240, the go A64 3500+. I think it will beat the 820 DC in most things....I'm waiting got the dual-core opterons to get cheaper, and multi-threaded apps to get popular. Then I can go to dual-cores, and stomp and DC rig. For $2600, I could have quad power now !
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Pabster
...And the AMD zealots have shown their ugly heads yet again 😀 🙂 😛

Zebo ... Get a clue. You really think AMD "can charge that much" because "they are the best"? I rarely agree with Pariah about much of anything but let us be realistic here. AMD will ship about, oh, maybe 10 dual-core chips whilst Intel will have a few hundred thousand at minimum. The law of supply and demand is in play here, not product superiority.
Click to expand...

Lemme get this striaght AMD 4400 will beat the 840 like a red headed step child and they should sell it cheaper than a 840? Riiiight! Don't think so. 4400+ value chip but you're too poor or stupid to see that. It is product superiority. If it sucked they'd sell them for $44 like a tbred. Or $240 like a 820. 😉

Read my thread about 4400's being a good deal!


The 4400+ setup will beat any Intel DC price/performance. Y'all are just short sighted afraid of sticker shock... sorry it's a new world with dual cores. You want cheap go buy a celeron or duron: X2 is no place for you. AMD X2 is for power users not for cheap skates.

Oh and I resent being called a zealot. P4 prescott is garbage. I'll call it that everytime. Read though the lines at any review site, they do too, or at ars, or Intel clockers like Thugsrook. Sorry you don't like it and I hurt your widdle feelings but at this point I'm practically looking at everything that comes out of Intel that's not a pentium M as broken. Throttling CPUs that don't run at speeds paid for, doing less work for more power, with loud ass fans on top of them and slower every gen per Mhz. GARBAGE!!!
Click to expand...

 
Okay, after a long hiatus due to homework, i've come to clarify my situation.

I'm going to have one server box running torrents, antivirus checking, server tasks, etc... ALL the time. Yet I still want to be able to use my box. Assuming i'm running the main serving off of SCSI discs, I'm assuming that a normal Athlon64 will be complete ass for this kind of environment. And I think prescotts are overrated for server enviornments.

That being said, I want to have a second CPU to dump all of the server tasks onto, while still maintaing system responsiveness across the board. I have yet to see how the HT P4 would react to such a load, but I know that the cheapest intel dual core would likely be able to handle my needs nicely.

This will just be a normal use rig, MSN, CD burning, encoding, serving, etc... and I want to maintain maximum responsiveness and i'm thinking that HT won't cut it no matter how fast the CPU is, if i've always got CPU sucking bats from hell in the background vampiring cycles off my 'Single core' CPU and thus I was looking for a dual core sollution.

I desperatley want to be able to use AMD, as heat *is* an issue and having a quiet server rig would be a dream. But their prices are absolutley prohibitive.

I would even be happy with dual 1.4GHz, but the price diffference isn't huge because dual socket 940 systems are absurdly expensive. I've heard A64s are snappy which is why I want them over dual AthlonXP's.

But in my eyes, for people like me who just want an optimal multitasking enviornment for cheap, AMD has lost the game.

That being said, someone has recently notified me of the absurd costs of intel Pentium-D motherboards. So the prices are more or less equal across the board.

$300 CPU, $250 Mobo
$500 CPU, $100 mobo.. what's the diff?

Intel and AMD in my eyes have both failed to produce something for the *BUDGET* people. AMD has an excuse, because their limited fab capacity means that they can't produce the volumes a cheap budget dual core chip would likely require. But Intel has no excuse for bringing back $250 motherboards back into the 'Performance' desktop scene. I thought we had banished these monstrosities years ago.

Intel and AMD, you both leave me in disgust.

AMD, because I can't afford your processor. I am poor college joe. You might just yet get my business, because of dual AthlonXP's.
Intel, because.... I *HATE* seeing $250 motherboards again. You couldn't design a competent sub 8 layer motherboard sollution?!

Edit: After just being disgusted with prices in general, I need to know something. Do P4 Northwood Xeons require registered DDR? I might go that route..
 
What about dual Opterons mobo,cpu's and memory for $733 ? (I think that was the figure Zebo came up with) And when the prices come down, you can go dual-core for quad core total ! And no mobo upgrade !

Mobo $209
CPU 242 x 2=188x2=$376 (and those are 1.6 gig, not 1.4 which you said you could live with)
memory Corsair 4x256 for 1 gig or 4x512 for 2 gig=$150 or $300
fo Total=$735 or $885, and I venture to say would toast a 820, and is very upgradeable.
 
Well my original goal was going to be $500, but I think I may have to stretch that budget to get anywhere...

I'll probably just end up sucking it up and going AMD dual core for the noise reasons.
 
Noise ? Dual 242 Opterons with the factory HSF (included in the price I quoted ) are VERY quiet. And you can go qual core (as in dual X2 cores) later ! If you went dual core, you got (roughly) $500 CPU (not available yet) $100 mobo and about the same for the memory,so it would be slightly more than 242's. And I don;t know what speed the $500 cpu is. once you go dual, you can never go back...
 
What is the typical CPU load on your present system when doing all that background stuff, FishTankX? And what's your current rig specs?
 
Just have patience. Neither chip from either company is out yet ...lower end X2's will come. AMD historically has released highend offerings first in A64.

For example the first A64's, Clawhammers where 2.2 priced really high, hardly anyone bought them at the time with nforce 3 150 shotty, and via well... it wasnt until alomst 6 months later they released cut clawhammers (disabled 512KB LVL2) and called them newcastles they were much cheaper. Then about three months later they released real newcastles but at high clock; 2.0 2.2 and 2.4. Later they finally released an affordable 2800 (1.8).

Same with 939 socket. I wont go though history but basically high end offerings first then lower speeds later.

Yes it has to do with lack of capacity at AMD. Why not get the "fools" first with highend offerings and pickup trailers later when you can only produce X amount of processors. If limited to 10 (like pasbts says) then I'd rather sell 10@$550 than 10@$200 would'nt you?

Building fab's aint like opening another lemon aid stand or even another MCDonalds franchise resturant. You need years to build, double digits billions of dollars, and time to accure that. AMD is only a moderatly sucessful company relativly with hot real competition to Intel only recent history...they should have second fab, fab 36, online by June 06 and be able to meet all levels of demand out the box like Intel can do with it's 11 fabs.
 
If you are that much in a bind, pick up a used Dual socket-A board and some Athlon XPs. Mod them to MP, and overclock. I had a Gigabyte Dually with XPs running at 2.2Ghz! This is all well within your budget and will definately be able to handle your workload.

Another thing, if this is going to be a "Server", then why will it be used for Encoding, Burning, MSN, etc? You are not building a "Server", you are building a dual cpu workstation. You shouldn't rely on it to perform all of the above functions, other than being a server if thats what you want.
 
You're also talking about SCSI disks in one of your posts - if so, it will not be quiet, no matter what.

If you need a server and a workstation, why not have one of each? You can probably do that more cheaply, set up the server, hide it in another room - it doens't even need any peripherals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top