AMD planning yet another socket for Athlon64

Spitfire_x86

Splendid
Jun 26, 2002
7,248
0
25,780
<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20108" target="_new">942 or 941?</A>


------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>
 

Worf101

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2004
498
0
18,780
Again they mention AMD's reluctance to "kick Intel in the balls" while they have the upper hand.... My question is why the hell not???!!!!!! Intel can't crush AMD for reasons of anti-trust laws and their own seeming incompetence sooo why is AMD holding back. I'd fire every shot I had then throw the damn pistol at em. You only get but so many shots in life... TAKE IT!!! Or is there collusion going on I don't know about?

Da Worfster

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
 

Flinx

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2001
1,910
0
19,780
Dont forget the link further down the page for the
1207 pin Opteron
<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19729" target="_new">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19729</A>

The loving are the daring!
 

jihiggs

Splendid
Oct 11, 2001
5,821
2
25,780
by staying a little ahead, they can stay ahead longer than they could if they just leaped ahead. soon intel would just pass them up again and amd would have to leap again. its just good business i think.

this is my boomstick!
 

poncho

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2003
79
0
18,630
AMD has a limited production capacity, and they can't possibly hope to compete with intel in terms of market share because they simply couldn't meet the demand. As such, while they have this performance edge, they are releasing and pricing their chips to try and get a balance between meeting full output capacity, while maximising their profits.

I mean why release your latest and greatest chip now that will cost you a lot more to make, because of lower yields etc, when you can produce a slower, cheaper chip, that is still faster then the competitors, and will sell just as well as if you had released your latest and greatest??

It's the game intel has played so well over the years and the reason it is the Chipzilla it is today.
Nice to see the shoe on the other foot for once!

Stupid bug.......you go squish now!
 

Spitfire_x86

Splendid
Jun 26, 2002
7,248
0
25,780
They already have ridiculously priced A64 FX55. For that price, we deserve something that's lot faster than other less expensive AMD/Intel CPUs

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>
 

TechMan

Distinguished
Feb 19, 2004
62
0
18,630
P4EE's price is for prestige, not for marketing. Too bad, AMD copied this for FX55. How many thousands units sold do Intel/AMD actually expect from these products? Your guess will be as good as mine.

Honestly, if the user will ignore the 10-15% performance gain using the highest-performing cpu's and settle for the mid-range, the prices had never been so low. At $150-$250 range, you will never feel short-changed in performance using today's applications.

I'm more concerned on the seemingly high prices of video cards. In some cases, they're even higher than the motherboard-cpu-RAM combined cost. But this is another topic that should be in another section.
 

trooper11

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2004
758
0
18,980
um actually i bet you that neither company makes any predicitons or expectations for sales of p4ee's and fx's. those arent money makers for them, they are ways of boosting thier whole line. each of those are suppoe to representive the best of the best, and so if people see how much one is better over another, that cna be used to describe the whole line.

basically its a marketing tool, saying oyu have the most powerful cpu out, evne if its not the cpu that most people buy. its also a good segment for new enhancements to be tested wihtout having to supply a full line. fx will do it wiht dual core, getting it before athlon 64's go that way.
 

endyen

Splendid
I'm more concerned on the seemingly high prices of video cards. In some cases, they're even higher than the motherboard-cpu-RAM combined cost.
It always amazes me that people are crazy to spend on cpu, mobo, and ram, but get real cheap on graphics. If your primary "heavy usage" (does not include internet or office activities) is gaming, the least you should be spending on graphics is as much as you spend on chip and mobo. After all, most of the work done by your rig will be done by the graphics card. With the graphics card you get a very advanced processor, on a highly specialized motherboard, with some of the latest, fastest, memory available.
 

TechMan

Distinguished
Feb 19, 2004
62
0
18,630
----
It always amazes me that people are crazy to spend on cpu, mobo, and ram, but get real cheap on graphics.
----

Maybe the attitude goes back to the AT/XT days when video adaptors were built into the motherboards. Back then, you gauge the computer by its MHz rating.

Then came ISA, PCI, AGPxx, then PCIe but people still equate computer power to GHz ratings. You want to build a system, you start off with the GHz thing and RAM. I've got a few acquaintances who are system builders and I was surprised that they can't even identify from among the various GPUs. Seems like only enthusiasts and hardcore gamers are actually knowledgable on graphics adaptors. This also explains why there's still a significant market share for integrated solutions (built-in graphics).

The question remains, though, aren't midrange and high-end graphics priced too high?
 

endyen

Splendid
The R9800pro can be had for $200, while the X800XT PE can be had for $500. Seems resonable to me. If I get a s754 board and chip, the R9800pro is a steal, while if I'm goig to blow the whole wad, and get s939 and a 4000+, why quible about the price of the X800?