High-performance SLI or dual-GPU graphics - beware Intel's..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

For those intending to build the ultimate graphics PCIe desktop system
---either 4-head dual-graphics-card, or SLI ( with dual 6800GT, say )
or Ati's proposed dual-GPU system --- and also wish to use a dual-core
CPU, please be very frightened indeed of the power-consumption (and
consequent heat-removal needs) of the upcoming generation of Intel
dual-core CPUs ( 840 and Pentium D ), based on their 90nm technology.
Unless you wish to heavily underclock the processor.... :-( :-( :-(

See the following article:-

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/index.html

especially the last 2 pages : Power Consumption Test, Conclusion.

Personally, I would much prefer to reserve the available core power
(+12V) for video card GPU(s) and/or current/future peripherals than
waste it on an inefficient dual-core CPU+Northbridge with no apparent
redeeming qualities. Seems as if AMD64 X2 may be the ONLY near-term
choice for the highest-end desktop 3D graphics/gamers desiring
dual-core CPU capability. Otherwise, heat-pipe/ water-cooling of the
(Intel) dual-core CPU to avoid a concentrated furnace within the case
heating up everything including the nearest video-card, or a bunch of
turbine(sounding) fans cooling the CPU/ Northbridge directly to the
outside, plus a really hefty power-supply.

Also, please remember that the dual-core Intel CPUs have a pin-out
change on LGA775 requiring a brand-new LGA775 motherboard, while the
dual-core AMD just requires a BIOS update of existing 939-pin
motherboards. By the way, any motherboard capable of taking the
current AMD64 Rev. D 4000+ ( 130nm, Clawhammer) should readily handle
the power requirements of even the AMD 64 X2 4800+ ( 90nm process),
which runs at exactly the same clock speed as the current 4000+ !

John Lewis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

A 600 W Enermax ought to do it, I think.

BTW, if you want to see scary power consumption, check out one of the
Prometeia (sp?) phase-change cooler reviews at Tomshardware. I think it was
the one where they made a video of a 4+ GHz P4. The voltage was cranked up
so high, some capacitors started shifting as the solder softened under
heat...

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:428004fd.25461990@news.verizon.net...
> For those intending to build the ultimate graphics PCIe desktop system
> ---either 4-head dual-graphics-card, or SLI ( with dual 6800GT, say )
> or Ati's proposed dual-GPU system --- and also wish to use a dual-core
> CPU, please be very frightened indeed of the power-consumption (and
> consequent heat-removal needs) of the upcoming generation of Intel
> dual-core CPUs ( 840 and Pentium D ), based on their 90nm technology.
> Unless you wish to heavily underclock the processor.... :-( :-( :-(
>
> See the following article:-
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/index.html
>
> especially the last 2 pages : Power Consumption Test, Conclusion.
>
> Personally, I would much prefer to reserve the available core power
> (+12V) for video card GPU(s) and/or current/future peripherals than
> waste it on an inefficient dual-core CPU+Northbridge with no apparent
> redeeming qualities. Seems as if AMD64 X2 may be the ONLY near-term
> choice for the highest-end desktop 3D graphics/gamers desiring
> dual-core CPU capability. Otherwise, heat-pipe/ water-cooling of the
> (Intel) dual-core CPU to avoid a concentrated furnace within the case
> heating up everything including the nearest video-card, or a bunch of
> turbine(sounding) fans cooling the CPU/ Northbridge directly to the
> outside, plus a really hefty power-supply.
>
> Also, please remember that the dual-core Intel CPUs have a pin-out
> change on LGA775 requiring a brand-new LGA775 motherboard, while the
> dual-core AMD just requires a BIOS update of existing 939-pin
> motherboards. By the way, any motherboard capable of taking the
> current AMD64 Rev. D 4000+ ( 130nm, Clawhammer) should readily handle
> the power requirements of even the AMD 64 X2 4800+ ( 90nm process),
> which runs at exactly the same clock speed as the current 4000+ !
>
> John Lewis
>
>

 

[rms]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

URL:http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=15

also has a nice power consumption graph. In addition the AMD X2 is clearly
superior in games. So if you can afford $600-1000 in the first place, the
choice is clear.

rms

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:54:19 -0400, "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>A 600 W Enermax ought to do it, I think.
>

Indeed, for the A64 2X 4800+ together with a pair of 6800 Ultras.
However, the +12V from the 701-SLI Enermax might have marginal reserve
power to cater for a Intel 840 instead of the 4800+. If I recall
correctly, the 701AX limit on each of the two +12V supplies is 18amps;
remember that peripherals such as DVD burners and hard-disks
all need a chunk of +12 too......

John Lewis


>BTW, if you want to see scary power consumption, check out one of the
>Prometeia (sp?) phase-change cooler reviews at Tomshardware. I think it was
>the one where they made a video of a 4+ GHz P4. The voltage was cranked up
>so high, some capacitors started shifting as the solder softened under
>heat...
>
>--
>"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
>It can therefore be said that politics is war without
>bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:428004fd.25461990@news.verizon.net
> For those intending to build the ultimate graphics PCIe desktop system
> ---either 4-head dual-graphics-card, or SLI ( with dual 6800GT, say )
> or Ati's proposed dual-GPU system --- and also wish to use a dual-core
> CPU, please be very frightened indeed of the power-consumption (and
> consequent heat-removal needs) of the upcoming generation of Intel
> dual-core CPUs ( 840 and Pentium D ), based on their 90nm technology.
> Unless you wish to heavily underclock the processor.... :-( :-( :-(
>
> See the following article:-
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/index.html
>
> especially the last 2 pages : Power Consumption Test, Conclusion.
>
> Personally, I would much prefer to reserve the available core power
> (+12V) for video card GPU(s) and/or current/future peripherals than
> waste it on an inefficient dual-core CPU+Northbridge with no apparent
> redeeming qualities. Seems as if AMD64 X2 may be the ONLY near-term
> choice for the highest-end desktop 3D graphics/gamers desiring
> dual-core CPU capability. Otherwise, heat-pipe/ water-cooling of the
> (Intel) dual-core CPU to avoid a concentrated furnace within the case
> heating up everything including the nearest video-card, or a bunch of
> turbine(sounding) fans cooling the CPU/ Northbridge directly to the
> outside, plus a really hefty power-supply.
>
> Also, please remember that the dual-core Intel CPUs have a pin-out
> change on LGA775 requiring a brand-new LGA775 motherboard, while the
> dual-core AMD just requires a BIOS update of existing 939-pin
> motherboards. By the way, any motherboard capable of taking the
> current AMD64 Rev. D 4000+ ( 130nm, Clawhammer) should readily handle
> the power requirements of even the AMD 64 X2 4800+ ( 90nm process),
> which runs at exactly the same clock speed as the current 4000+ !
>
> John Lewis

There have been two times in the last 20 years when it became incredibly
obvious it is better to use AMD over anyone else. That just became
three times with no reservation.
McG. <lookin to see what's in his savings account...>

 

[Rick]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message news:Ul2ge.67713$hu5.45164@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> "John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:428004fd.25461990@news.verizon.net
> > For those intending to build the ultimate graphics PCIe desktop system
> > ---either 4-head dual-graphics-card, or SLI ( with dual 6800GT, say )
> > or Ati's proposed dual-GPU system --- and also wish to use a dual-core
> > CPU, please be very frightened indeed of the power-consumption (and
> > consequent heat-removal needs) of the upcoming generation of Intel
> > dual-core CPUs ( 840 and Pentium D ), based on their 90nm technology.
> > Unless you wish to heavily underclock the processor.... :-( :-( :-(
> >
> > See the following article:-
> >
> > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/index.html
> >
> > especially the last 2 pages : Power Consumption Test, Conclusion.
> >
> > Personally, I would much prefer to reserve the available core power
> > (+12V) for video card GPU(s) and/or current/future peripherals than
> > waste it on an inefficient dual-core CPU+Northbridge with no apparent
> > redeeming qualities. Seems as if AMD64 X2 may be the ONLY near-term
> > choice for the highest-end desktop 3D graphics/gamers desiring
> > dual-core CPU capability. Otherwise, heat-pipe/ water-cooling of the
> > (Intel) dual-core CPU to avoid a concentrated furnace within the case
> > heating up everything including the nearest video-card, or a bunch of
> > turbine(sounding) fans cooling the CPU/ Northbridge directly to the
> > outside, plus a really hefty power-supply.
> >
> > Also, please remember that the dual-core Intel CPUs have a pin-out
> > change on LGA775 requiring a brand-new LGA775 motherboard, while the
> > dual-core AMD just requires a BIOS update of existing 939-pin
> > motherboards. By the way, any motherboard capable of taking the
> > current AMD64 Rev. D 4000+ ( 130nm, Clawhammer) should readily handle
> > the power requirements of even the AMD 64 X2 4800+ ( 90nm process),
> > which runs at exactly the same clock speed as the current 4000+ !
> >
> > John Lewis
>
> There have been two times in the last 20 years when it became incredibly
> obvious it is better to use AMD over anyone else. That just became
> three times with no reservation.

Your conclusion is premature. The review site in question
is notorious for giving horribly biased nods to whoever is
providing better free product and/or lunches at any given
point in time. This preview is a perfect example.

Note how they used a cruddy nForce chipset for the Intel
test bench. Ok for games maybe, but cruddy for I/O and
just about everything else. The fact is, we won't know
what the Pentium D's advantage will be until it's tested on
an appropriate platform.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005 13:38:34 GMT, "Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Your conclusion is premature. The review site in question
>is notorious for giving horribly biased nods to whoever is
>providing better free product and/or lunches at any given
>point in time. This preview is a perfect example.
>
>Note how they used a cruddy nForce chipset for the Intel
>test bench. Ok for games maybe, but cruddy for I/O and
>just about everything else. The fact is, we won't know
>what the Pentium D's advantage will be until it's tested on
>an appropriate platform.
>

I agree that Tom's Hardware is a bunch of low-lifes, but reviewers
around the globe are coming to the same conclusions. For the best in
unbiased reviews, I recommend the Tech Report, and their review of the
X2 comes to the same conclusions as everyone else.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=1

That review uses an Intel chipset (955XE), but it doesn't make any
difference... AMD is still the superior product.

Intel just glued two cores onto the same die and has them
communicating through a very inefficient common bus. I expect that
will change in the next couple of years, but for right now AMD has the
superior dual core solution. Better power consumption, better
single-threaded performance and now superior dual core performance.
The choice is clear.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:428004fd.25461990@news.verizon.net...
> For those intending to build the ultimate graphics PCIe desktop system
> ---either 4-head dual-graphics-card, or SLI ( with dual 6800GT, say )
> or Ati's proposed dual-GPU system --- and also wish to use a dual-core
> CPU, please be very frightened indeed of the power-consumption (and
> consequent heat-removal needs) of the upcoming generation of Intel
> dual-core CPUs ( 840 and Pentium D ), based on their 90nm technology.
> Unless you wish to heavily underclock the processor.... :-( :-( :-(
>
> See the following article:-
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/index.html
>
> especially the last 2 pages : Power Consumption Test, Conclusion.
>
> Personally, I would much prefer to reserve the available core power
> (+12V) for video card GPU(s) and/or current/future peripherals than
> waste it on an inefficient dual-core CPU+Northbridge with no apparent
> redeeming qualities. Seems as if AMD64 X2 may be the ONLY near-term
> choice for the highest-end desktop 3D graphics/gamers desiring
> dual-core CPU capability. Otherwise, heat-pipe/ water-cooling of the
> (Intel) dual-core CPU to avoid a concentrated furnace within the case
> heating up everything including the nearest video-card, or a bunch of
> turbine(sounding) fans cooling the CPU/ Northbridge directly to the
> outside, plus a really hefty power-supply.
>
> Also, please remember that the dual-core Intel CPUs have a pin-out
> change on LGA775 requiring a brand-new LGA775 motherboard, while the
> dual-core AMD just requires a BIOS update of existing 939-pin
> motherboards. By the way, any motherboard capable of taking the
> current AMD64 Rev. D 4000+ ( 130nm, Clawhammer) should readily handle
> the power requirements of even the AMD 64 X2 4800+ ( 90nm process),
> which runs at exactly the same clock speed as the current 4000+ !
>
> John Lewis
>
>

In that case it might be worth changing your PC case to something like the
Coolermaster stacker with its support for 2 PSUs. Use 2 identicle PSUs and
let each feed 1 SLI card possibly to keep the juice clean?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005 13:38:34 GMT, "Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote:


>Your conclusion is premature. The review site

SITES....

BOTH Anandtech and Tom's Hardware............

John Lewis

> in question
>is notorious for giving horribly biased nods to whoever is
>providing better free product and/or lunches at any given
>point in time. This preview is a perfect example.
>
>Note how they used a cruddy nForce chipset for the Intel
>test bench.

Intel nForce4.... the brand new one.....

>Ok for games maybe, but cruddy for I/O

really.... ??? SATA2 support , Gigabit Ethernet...........

> and
>just about everything else. The fact is, we won't know
>what the Pentium D's advantage will be until it's tested on
>an appropriate platform.
>

You obviously are not well informed.........and very prejudiced.

I have been a totally faithful Intel adherent up to now.
However, I am contemplating building a dual-core desktop system
in about 6 months time and all of the technical analysis so far
point to AMD being by far the best choice. I may have to pay
a little more for the CPU, but the system flexibility and
heat-management are winners for me.

( BTW, I build PC systems and make all of my buying decisions
on sound technical information, not emotion. Comes from my
training as a professional electronics engineer. )

John Lewis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:32:44 +0100, "Les Steel" <a@aolnot.com> wrote:

>
>In that case it might be worth changing your PC case to something like the
>Coolermaster stacker with its support for 2 PSUs. Use 2 identicle PSUs and
>let each feed 1 SLI card possibly to keep the juice clean?
>
>


I won't need to if I don't require the extra 80-100 watts demanded by
the Intel dual-core+Northbridge. No problem using the Enermax
701AX-SLI with AMD duals. Remember that the AMD dual-core processors
have an integrated memory controller and do not require a Northbridge
at all.

The current Intel dual-core "solution" is a hot-house kludge. Hence
the reason why they are scrambling for a new dual-core/multiple-core
CPU/system architecture expected some time in 2006, probably
synchronous with the move to the 65nm process. Meanwhile, as with the
Prescott fiascos, the Intel marketing machine will be working overtime
smoothing the cracks, while the Intel production machine will churn
out their current-generation dual-core processors at near-fire-sale
prices just to keep AMD at bay. Pity AMD is production-capacity
limited. If they had anywhere near Intel's production capacity with
the introduction of desktop dual-core, AMD would likely grab the
lion's share of the desktop-CPU market.

John Lewis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

The retail CPU market, maybe. Dell is still keeping Intel-only. Dell still
sells more PCs than anyone else...

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42810702.5592765@news.verizon.net...
> Pity AMD is production-capacity
> limited. If they had anywhere near Intel's production capacity with
> the introduction of desktop dual-core, AMD would likely grab the
> lion's share of the desktop-CPU market.
>
> John Lewis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:12:58 -0400, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:


>
>I agree that Tom's Hardware is a bunch of low-lifes, but reviewers
>around the globe are coming to the same conclusions.

Sorry, I just quoted Tom's as one of the many that I looked at...

> For the best in
>unbiased reviews, I recommend the Tech Report,

Yes !

and Anandtech...which also frequently includes detailed and
excellently-written tutorials on new technology.......... ?

>and their review of the
>X2 comes to the same conclusions as everyone else.
>http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=1
>
>That review uses an Intel chipset (955XE), but it doesn't make any
>difference... AMD is still the superior product.
>
>Intel just glued two cores onto the same die and has them
>communicating through a very inefficient common bus. I expect that
>will change in the next couple of years, but for right now AMD has the
>superior dual core solution. Better power consumption, better
>single-threaded performance and now superior dual core performance.
>The choice is clear.
>

Indeed.

John Lewis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:38:27 -0400, "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>The retail CPU market, maybe. Dell is still keeping Intel-only. Dell still
>sells more PCs than anyone else...
>

Thoughts about Dell and dual-core also occurred to me as I was writing
my initial posting. I suspect that customer and internal pressure
on Dell to expand into AMD dual-core offerings would be pretty high if
AMD had the production-capacity to satisfy Dell's volume demands near
Intel's price-points.. Maybe it is good for the rest of us that Dell
is an dyed-in-the-wool Intel-only house, and (hopefully) remains so at
least through the early ramp-up of dual-core.

However, I suspect that Gateway and HP will seize on the excellence
of the AMD dual-core solution, and use it both in their marketing and
in shipped product to make some inroads into Dell's desktop dominance.

John Lewis
>--
>"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
>It can therefore be said that politics is war without
>bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
>
>
>"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:42810702.5592765@news.verizon.net...
>> Pity AMD is production-capacity
>> limited. If they had anywhere near Intel's production capacity with
>> the introduction of desktop dual-core, AMD would likely grab the
>> lion's share of the desktop-CPU market.
>>
>> John Lewis
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:38:27 -0400, "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The retail CPU market, maybe. Dell is still keeping Intel-only. Dell still
>>sells more PCs than anyone else...
>>
>
>Thoughts about Dell and dual-core also occurred to me as I was writing
>my initial posting. I suspect that customer and internal pressure
>on Dell to expand into AMD dual-core offerings would be pretty high if
>AMD had the production-capacity to satisfy Dell's volume demands near
>Intel's price-points.. Maybe it is good for the rest of us that Dell
>is an dyed-in-the-wool Intel-only house, and (hopefully) remains so at
>least through the early ramp-up of dual-core.
>
>However, I suspect that Gateway and HP will seize on the excellence
>of the AMD dual-core solution, and use it both in their marketing and
>in shipped product to make some inroads into Dell's desktop dominance.


Why am I suddenly thinking of a spoof Dell ad?

Guy 1: Dude, you got a Dell!
Guy 2: Yeah, now I don't need a space heater anymore.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

John Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:38:27 -0400, "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The retail CPU market, maybe. Dell is still keeping Intel-only. Dell still
>>sells more PCs than anyone else...
>>
>
>
> Thoughts about Dell and dual-core also occurred to me as I was writing
> my initial posting. I suspect that customer and internal pressure
> on Dell to expand into AMD dual-core offerings would be pretty high if
> AMD had the production-capacity to satisfy Dell's volume demands near
> Intel's price-points.. Maybe it is good for the rest of us that Dell
> is an dyed-in-the-wool Intel-only house, and (hopefully) remains so at
> least through the early ramp-up of dual-core.
>
> However, I suspect that Gateway and HP will seize on the excellence
> of the AMD dual-core solution, and use it both in their marketing and
> in shipped product to make some inroads into Dell's desktop dominance.
>

The big sticking point will be pricing. Unless they can give a better
price than Intel a lot of people will not see a reason to change to AMD.
Intel has the ability to quickly create a line of Celeron style dual
processors for far less than any of the AMD offerings. Most people will
hesitate to spend $500 to $1,000 for a new CPU, but might spend $200 to
$300 for the latest Intel offering.
ExtremeTech has a good article comparing the Intel and AMD offerings.



> John Lewis
>
>>--
>>"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
>>It can therefore be said that politics is war without
>>bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
>>
>>
>>"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:42810702.5592765@news.verizon.net...
>>
>>>Pity AMD is production-capacity
>>>limited. If they had anywhere near Intel's production capacity with
>>>the introduction of desktop dual-core, AMD would likely grab the
>>>lion's share of the desktop-CPU market.
>>>
>>>John Lewis
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:23:39 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
<_mwryder@worldnet.att.net> wrote:


>The big sticking point will be pricing. Unless they can give a better
>price than Intel a lot of people will not see a reason to change to AMD.
> Intel has the ability to quickly create a line of Celeron style dual
>processors for far less than any of the AMD offerings. Most people will
>hesitate to spend $500 to $1,000 for a new CPU, but might spend $200 to
>$300 for the latest Intel offering.
>ExtremeTech has a good article comparing the Intel and AMD offerings.

Since when has Intel cpu's cost less than AMD cpu's? AMD make Celeron
like cpu's too, they are called Sempron. You've got it all backwards.
Intel is the company that overcharges on their cpu's.

 

[Shawn]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I have always bought AMD. I dont see what all the hype is about intel. Why
pay more for a cpu when a cheaper one will do the job just as well?
Yeah intel overcharges because i guess people think that you have to pay
more to get more?

Shawn
GA 7N400 pro 2 MB, 1gb pc3200, AMD 2.5ghz 333fsb, gigabyte 6600GT, Raptor
36.4gb HD = plays all the games I want. (not the best system but plays all
the games I want)
"Codex" <no@email.here> wrote in message
news:10q281pcq9pgn36qfsngmm0ul49ookv993@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:23:39 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
> <_mwryder@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The big sticking point will be pricing. Unless they can give a better
>>price than Intel a lot of people will not see a reason to change to AMD.
>> Intel has the ability to quickly create a line of Celeron style dual
>>processors for far less than any of the AMD offerings. Most people will
>>hesitate to spend $500 to $1,000 for a new CPU, but might spend $200 to
>>$300 for the latest Intel offering.
>>ExtremeTech has a good article comparing the Intel and AMD offerings.
>
> Since when has Intel cpu's cost less than AMD cpu's? AMD make Celeron
> like cpu's too, they are called Sempron. You've got it all backwards.
> Intel is the company that overcharges on their cpu's.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Codex <no@email.here> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:23:39 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
><_mwryder@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The big sticking point will be pricing. Unless they can give a better
>>price than Intel a lot of people will not see a reason to change to AMD.
>> Intel has the ability to quickly create a line of Celeron style dual
>>processors for far less than any of the AMD offerings. Most people will
>>hesitate to spend $500 to $1,000 for a new CPU, but might spend $200 to
>>$300 for the latest Intel offering.
>>ExtremeTech has a good article comparing the Intel and AMD offerings.
>
>Since when has Intel cpu's cost less than AMD cpu's? AMD make Celeron
>like cpu's too, they are called Sempron. You've got it all backwards.
>Intel is the company that overcharges on their cpu's.

The downside here is AMD isn't pricing the new Dual-cores under Intel's
prices, they're price matching according to the articles referenced.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:46:59 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
wrote:

>john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) looked up from reading the entrails of
>the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:38:27 -0400, "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The retail CPU market, maybe. Dell is still keeping Intel-only. Dell still
>>>sells more PCs than anyone else...
>>>
>>
>>Thoughts about Dell and dual-core also occurred to me as I was writing
>>my initial posting. I suspect that customer and internal pressure
>>on Dell to expand into AMD dual-core offerings would be pretty high if
>>AMD had the production-capacity to satisfy Dell's volume demands near
>>Intel's price-points.. Maybe it is good for the rest of us that Dell
>>is an dyed-in-the-wool Intel-only house, and (hopefully) remains so at
>>least through the early ramp-up of dual-core.
>>
>>However, I suspect that Gateway and HP will seize on the excellence
>>of the AMD dual-core solution, and use it both in their marketing and
>>in shipped product to make some inroads into Dell's desktop dominance.
>
>
>Why am I suddenly thinking of a spoof Dell ad?
>
>Guy 1: Dude, you got a Dell!
>Guy 2: Yeah, now I don't need a space heater anymore.

Great, apply for a job at Gateway....

ROTFLMAO........

John Lewis
>
>Xocyll
>--
>I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
>a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
>Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
>FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
news:80n181pn9j2get3olp266ogc7fnjs29706@4ax.com
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 13:38:34 GMT, "Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Your conclusion is premature. The review site in question
>> is notorious for giving horribly biased nods to whoever is
>> providing better free product and/or lunches at any given
>> point in time. This preview is a perfect example.
>>
>> Note how they used a cruddy nForce chipset for the Intel
>> test bench. Ok for games maybe, but cruddy for I/O and
>> just about everything else. The fact is, we won't know
>> what the Pentium D's advantage will be until it's tested on
>> an appropriate platform.
>>
>
> I agree that Tom's Hardware is a bunch of low-lifes, but reviewers
> around the globe are coming to the same conclusions. For the best in
> unbiased reviews, I recommend the Tech Report, and their review of the
> X2 comes to the same conclusions as everyone else.
> http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=1
>
> That review uses an Intel chipset (955XE), but it doesn't make any
> difference... AMD is still the superior product.
>
> Intel just glued two cores onto the same die and has them
> communicating through a very inefficient common bus. I expect that
> will change in the next couple of years, but for right now AMD has the
> superior dual core solution. Better power consumption, better
> single-threaded performance and now superior dual core performance.
> The choice is clear.

I can't wait to need to upgrade. From the performance charts I've
seen, the A64 fairly smokes my P4 3.0E. Any A64. Definitely worth a
look!
McG.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:05:43 -0700, Codex <no@email.here> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:23:39 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
><_mwryder@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The big sticking point will be pricing. Unless they can give a better
>>price than Intel a lot of people will not see a reason to change to AMD.
>> Intel has the ability to quickly create a line of Celeron style dual
>>processors for far less than any of the AMD offerings. Most people will
>>hesitate to spend $500 to $1,000 for a new CPU, but might spend $200 to
>>$300 for the latest Intel offering.
>>ExtremeTech has a good article comparing the Intel and AMD offerings.
>
>Since when has Intel cpu's cost less than AMD cpu's? AMD make Celeron
>like cpu's too, they are called Sempron. You've got it all backwards.
>Intel is the company that overcharges on their cpu's.


Now, there's a thought... it would be much easier to get reasonable
performance out of a dual-core Sempron than a dual-core Celeron,
with no external memory-controller either.......... What's the betting

that AMD is going to make Intel even more uncomfortable later
this year... they may have some unannounced surprises up their
sleeves.....

John Lewis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

John Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:05:43 -0700, Codex <no@email.here> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:23:39 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
>><_mwryder@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The big sticking point will be pricing. Unless they can give a better
>>>price than Intel a lot of people will not see a reason to change to AMD.
>>> Intel has the ability to quickly create a line of Celeron style dual
>>>processors for far less than any of the AMD offerings. Most people will
>>>hesitate to spend $500 to $1,000 for a new CPU, but might spend $200 to
>>>$300 for the latest Intel offering.
>>>ExtremeTech has a good article comparing the Intel and AMD offerings.
>>
>>Since when has Intel cpu's cost less than AMD cpu's? AMD make Celeron
>>like cpu's too, they are called Sempron. You've got it all backwards.
>>Intel is the company that overcharges on their cpu's.
>
>
>
> Now, there's a thought... it would be much easier to get reasonable
> performance out of a dual-core Sempron than a dual-core Celeron,
> with no external memory-controller either.......... What's the betting
>
> that AMD is going to make Intel even more uncomfortable later
> this year... they may have some unannounced surprises up their
> sleeves.....
>

The problem is not the technology but the capacity at AMD. If they are
using all their capacity making high margin dual-core 64s and Opterons
they are not going to be able to produce dual-core Semprons to give
away. They may want to build up their cash with the high end chips
before going back into the low cost fray.



> John Lewis
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:08:55 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
<_mwryder@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>John Lewis wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:05:43 -0700, Codex <no@email.here> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:23:39 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
>>><_mwryder@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The big sticking point will be pricing. Unless they can give a better
>>>>price than Intel a lot of people will not see a reason to change to AMD.
>>>> Intel has the ability to quickly create a line of Celeron style dual
>>>>processors for far less than any of the AMD offerings. Most people will
>>>>hesitate to spend $500 to $1,000 for a new CPU, but might spend $200 to
>>>>$300 for the latest Intel offering.
>>>>ExtremeTech has a good article comparing the Intel and AMD offerings.
>>>
>>>Since when has Intel cpu's cost less than AMD cpu's? AMD make Celeron
>>>like cpu's too, they are called Sempron. You've got it all backwards.
>>>Intel is the company that overcharges on their cpu's.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, there's a thought... it would be much easier to get reasonable
>> performance out of a dual-core Sempron than a dual-core Celeron,
>> with no external memory-controller either.......... What's the betting
>>
>> that AMD is going to make Intel even more uncomfortable later
>> this year... they may have some unannounced surprises up their
>> sleeves.....
>>
>
>The problem is not the technology but the capacity at AMD. If they are
>using all their capacity making high margin dual-core 64s and Opterons
>they are not going to be able to produce dual-core Semprons to give
>away. They may want to build up their cash with the high end chips
>before going back into the low cost fray.
>

Yes, indeed...........

AMD is urgently trying to bring a 3rd-party silicon-house on line in
Singapore. Also, I believe that IBM builds some of their chips, so
I'm sure that urgent capacity dialog is underway there too.
For AMD, overall CPU demand is going to be the big problem
for at least the next 12 months. This is their first big window of
opportunity in a very long time to seriously hurt Intel's core CPU
business--- provide they can ramp up the capacity before Intel
can fix their power-hungry x86 desktop/server architectures.

And AMD need to somehow jettison their loss-making
flash-business without a fire-sale.

John Lewis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4283838f.5778422@news.verizon.net
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:05:43 -0700, Codex <no@email.here> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:23:39 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
>> <_mwryder@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The big sticking point will be pricing. Unless they can give a
>>> better price than Intel a lot of people will not see a reason to
>>> change to AMD. Intel has the ability to quickly create a line of
>>> Celeron style dual processors for far less than any of the AMD
>>> offerings. Most people will hesitate to spend $500 to $1,000 for a
>>> new CPU, but might spend $200 to $300 for the latest Intel offering.
>>> ExtremeTech has a good article comparing the Intel and AMD
>>> offerings.
>>
>> Since when has Intel cpu's cost less than AMD cpu's? AMD make Celeron
>> like cpu's too, they are called Sempron. You've got it all backwards.
>> Intel is the company that overcharges on their cpu's.
>
>
> Now, there's a thought... it would be much easier to get reasonable
> performance out of a dual-core Sempron than a dual-core Celeron,
> with no external memory-controller either.......... What's the betting
>
> that AMD is going to make Intel even more uncomfortable later
> this year... they may have some unannounced surprises up their
> sleeves.....
>
> John Lewis

But, that's good news for us, the Lowly Consumer I like it when
things heat up between major competitors like AMD/Intel, ATI/Nvidia,
M$/*ANY*thing else!
McG.