P4 Extreme Edition discontinued

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

This article states that the original P4EE is being discontinued. It doesn't
mention whether all further EE's will be discontinued or not, but it seems
to be the implication.

I wonder if that means AMD will also discontinue its FX line of Athlon 64's
now?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040807015441.html

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> I wonder if that means AMD will also discontinue its FX line of Athlon 64's
> now?
>

Huh ? Why would you think the two things are related at all ?

P4-EE was Intel's answer to the Athlon FX. Just
because Intel has decided they now have a better
"answer" than the EE, it does not follow that AMD
should roll over and play dead.
 

jk

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
652
0
18,980
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

It looks like just the P4 3.2 EE is being cancelled. I wonder if we will soon
see a P4 3.6 EE? The 3.2 EE was priced too close to the 3.4 EE, so I
doubt it sold well. I don't know how well the P4 3.4 EE is selling, however
Intel needs something to try to compete against the Athlon 64 FX-53. The EE
chips are probably also quite expensive to produce. Let's see what Intel
comes up with for the holidays. I guess AMD is supposed to come out
with the FX-55 in October?

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> This article states that the original P4EE is being discontinued. It doesn't
> mention whether all further EE's will be discontinued or not, but it seems
> to be the implication.
>
> I wonder if that means AMD will also discontinue its FX line of Athlon 64's
> now?
>
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040807015441.html
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
> --
> Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
> Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:53:25 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
>
>This article states that the original P4EE is being discontinued. It doesn't
>mention whether all further EE's will be discontinued or not, but it seems
>to be the implication.
>
>I wonder if that means AMD will also discontinue its FX line of Athlon 64's
>now?
>
>http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040807015441.html

My reading of things is that it's JUST the 3.2GHz model that's being
discontinued, which would make sense. People paying a HUGE premium
for these top-end chips aren't going to be too worried about an extra
$80 to get the top-end, so it makes no sense to have a bunch of
different speed grades. FWIW current price of the P4EE 3.2GHz is $915
while the P4EE 3.4GHz is $995, ie less than a 10% difference in price.

Same reason why AMD has discontinued their Athlon64 FX-51 after the
FX-53 arrived.. though I suppose you can still kinda-sorta buy an
FX-51 under the Opteron 150 product name.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 

jk

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
652
0
18,980
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
$1,000 P4 3.4 EE. Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.


Tony Hill wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:53:25 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >This article states that the original P4EE is being discontinued. It doesn't
> >mention whether all further EE's will be discontinued or not, but it seems
> >to be the implication.
> >
> >I wonder if that means AMD will also discontinue its FX line of Athlon 64's
> >now?
> >
> >http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040807015441.html
>
> My reading of things is that it's JUST the 3.2GHz model that's being
> discontinued, which would make sense. People paying a HUGE premium
> for these top-end chips aren't going to be too worried about an extra
> $80 to get the top-end, so it makes no sense to have a bunch of
> different speed grades. FWIW current price of the P4EE 3.2GHz is $915
> while the P4EE 3.4GHz is $995, ie less than a 10% difference in price.
>
> Same reason why AMD has discontinued their Athlon64 FX-51 after the
> FX-53 arrived.. though I suppose you can still kinda-sorta buy an
> FX-51 under the Opteron 150 product name.
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 

jk

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
652
0
18,980
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In reconsidering the Athlon 64 3800+ vs FX-51 benchmarks, I now
realize that the Athlon 64 3800+ seems like a much better performer
overall than the FX-51. So the FX-51 doesn't really make sense for
AMD to continue to produce, since imo the Athlon 64 3800+ is also
probably much cheaper to make.

JK wrote:

> I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
> $1,000 P4 3.4 EE. Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
> the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
> FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.
>
> Tony Hill wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:53:25 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >This article states that the original P4EE is being discontinued. It doesn't
> > >mention whether all further EE's will be discontinued or not, but it seems
> > >to be the implication.
> > >
> > >I wonder if that means AMD will also discontinue its FX line of Athlon 64's
> > >now?
> > >
> > >http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040807015441.html
> >
> > My reading of things is that it's JUST the 3.2GHz model that's being
> > discontinued, which would make sense. People paying a HUGE premium
> > for these top-end chips aren't going to be too worried about an extra
> > $80 to get the top-end, so it makes no sense to have a bunch of
> > different speed grades. FWIW current price of the P4EE 3.2GHz is $915
> > while the P4EE 3.4GHz is $995, ie less than a 10% difference in price.
> >
> > Same reason why AMD has discontinued their Athlon64 FX-51 after the
> > FX-53 arrived.. though I suppose you can still kinda-sorta buy an
> > FX-51 under the Opteron 150 product name.
> >
> > -------------
> > Tony Hill
> > hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
> I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
> $1,000 P4 3.4 EE. Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
> the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
> FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.

I guess that the EE stands for 'Expensive Edition'.
 

jk

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
652
0
18,980
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

The P4 EE chips are also probably very expensive to make, so I
doubt that Intel would want to keep making the P4 3.2 EE, especially
if they felt they might soon need to drop the price to well under $600.
Perhaps it might also mean that there might be a P4 3.6 EE?
I wonder if there will be a P4 3.8 ghz before the end of the year, or
if Intel plans some 3.6 ghz chips with other enhancements besides
clock speed (and besides a huge cache) to boost performance before
the end of the year.

The Athlon 64 3800+ is a tough chip to compete against. The Athlon 64
4000+ on 90nm will be even more exciting. I wonder how it will benchmark
against the FX-53? It looks like it will be released around the time of the
FX-55, so AMD might decide to discontinue the FX-53 after the Athlon 64
4000+ and the FX-55 are out ? It looks like the FX-55 and Athlon 64 FX-55
are scheduled for October release.


http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1
http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> JK wrote:
> >
> > I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
> > $1,000 P4 3.4 EE. Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
> > the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
> > FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.
>
> I guess that the EE stands for 'Expensive Edition'.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Bitstring <411664DC.1580E4F1@nsaeccueuesizefitterwruovweswernuao.com>,
from the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
<johs@nsaeccueuesizefitterwruovweswernuao.com> said
>
>
>JK wrote:
>>
>> I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
>> $1,000 P4 3.4 EE. Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
>> the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
>> FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.
>
>I guess that the EE stands for 'Expensive Edition'.

'Extreme' actually, but I guess that the 'extreme' could indeed apply
mostly to the expense .. it sure as hell doesn't apply to the relative
cost benefit.
8>.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:43:27 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:

> Bitstring <411664DC.1580E4F1@nsaeccueuesizefitterwruovweswernuao.com>,
> from the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
> <johs@nsaeccueuesizefitterwruovweswernuao.com> said
>>
>>
>>JK wrote:
>>>
>>> I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
>>> $1,000 P4 3.4 EE. Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
>>> the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
>>> FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.
>>
>>I guess that the EE stands for 'Expensive Edition'.
>
> 'Extreme' actually, but I guess that the 'extreme' could indeed apply
> mostly to the expense .. it sure as hell doesn't apply to the relative
> cost benefit.

It could also be Extreme Envy. They had do do *something* to fill the
performace charts. Did anyone actually buy one?

--
Keith
 

Ed

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
1,253
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 21:10:02 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


>It could also be Extreme Envy. They had do do *something* to fill the
>performace charts. Did anyone actually buy one?

I don't understand why the EE costs so much, how much more could it cost
them to make a EE, I thought Intel chips were supposed to get faster and
cheaper, 300mm wafers @ 90nm, what's the problem? Just pure greed?

I just ordered a nf3-250 mobo and 3200+ newcastle for under $300, I just
couldn't buy an Intel, not really sure why, must be because all my
friends have A64s, funny cause they wouldn't touch an AMD just a couple
years ago.

Ed
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
 

jk

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
652
0
18,980
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Where did you see that?

Judd wrote:

> There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
 

Ed

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
1,253
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 22:03:41 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
<GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:

>That's the followers for you. I haven't built an Intel based machine for
>about 5 years now .. high prices, mediocre performance (except for
>running prime95, where they really kick @$$).

My very first PC build used an AMD K5-90MHz, my last Intel was the
P2-400.

>
>Maybe the next one - if Intel get to proper dual cores before AMD do
>(and if the price is right). Hmm .. fat chance, I guess.

I keep saying that too.. maybe the next one, maybe the next one.

Ed
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:21:58 -0500, Ed wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 21:10:02 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
>>It could also be Extreme Envy. They had do do *something* to fill the
>>performace charts. Did anyone actually buy one?
>
> I don't understand why the EE costs so much, how much more could it cost
> them to make a EE, I thought Intel chips were supposed to get faster and
> cheaper, 300mm wafers @ 90nm, what's the problem? Just pure greed?

Again, did anyone actually buy one? It was there to fill the
performance/marketing slot. In case noone here has noticed 90nM has been
a serious problem for everyone.

> I just ordered a nf3-250 mobo and 3200+ newcastle for under $300, I just
> couldn't buy an Intel, not really sure why, must be because all my
> friends have A64s, funny cause they wouldn't touch an AMD just a couple
> years ago.

AMD shill! ;-)

--
Keith
 

Ed

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
1,253
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:51:12 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>
>AMD shill! ;-)

Sorry, I can't help it, I've been brainwashed. ;p
Ed
 

cjt

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
440
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Judd wrote:

> There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
>
>
Who would buy something that slow?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
 

Ed

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
1,253
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:46:01 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Judd wrote:
>
>> There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
>>
>>
>Who would buy something that slow?

It's all in the IPC, MHz is just a myth. ;p
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:33:25 -0500, Ed <me@home.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:51:12 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>
>>AMD shill! ;-)
>
>Sorry, I can't help it, I've been brainwashed. ;p

What? You're not going to blame the AMD "gang of thugs" in this NG for
your err, bias?:)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 

Ed

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
1,253
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:51:24 -0400, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>>Sorry, I can't help it, I've been brainwashed. ;p
>
>What? You're not going to blame the AMD "gang of thugs" in this NG for
>your err, bias?:)
>

I blame Intel.

Cheers,
Ed

>Rgds, George Macdonald
>
>"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:411828D8.5020601@prodigy.net...
> Judd wrote:
>
>> There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
>>
>>
> Who would buy something that slow?

A collector of classic systems.

Falls between a typical 8080 (2 MHZ)
and the wonderfully fast 8088 (4.77 MHZ).

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Ed" <me@home.com> wrote in message
news:p1kgh0pdg7vqvglt4k3rvstam159aq7bqb@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:46:01 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>Judd wrote:
>>
>>> There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
>>>
>>>
>>Who would buy something that slow?
>
> It's all in the IPC, MHz is just a myth. ;p


So given an issue width of around 1000 ...

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4117F088.A76631F@netscape.net...
> Where did you see that?
>
> Judd wrote:
>
> > There's a 3.73 MHz part coming late next month along with the 925XE
>

It's been in the news for some time. Q4 announcement likely to come soon.
925XE is supposed to have the 1 GHz bus and probable support for DDR2-667.
The new EE chip has a 2 MB L2 cache kind of like the Dothan's and is on a
90nm part. Should be a screamer. It's the first of the 700 series of
Pentiums.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

JK wrote:

> Chips with such a huge cache are very expensive to make. Production
> of more complex chips probably results in a larger percentage of
> chips that need to be discarded. Much fewer of the more complex chips
> fit on a wafer since the die size is so large relative to chips with
> a much smaller cache.

http://endian.net/details_compare.asp?ItemNo=3951&ItemNo=3153&ItemNo=3429&ItemNo=331

Gallatin
~24 KB L1, 512 KB L2, 2048 KB L3
178 million transistors (~120 million for L3)
237 mm^2 @ 130 nm

Gallatin is not much larger than the Opteron (193 mm^2 @ 130 nm).

Prescott
~32 KB L1, 1024 KB L2
125 million trnasistors
112 mm^2 @ 90 nm
1.116 Mtransistors / mm^2

Dothan
64 KB L1, 2048 KB L2
140 million transistors
83.6 mm^2 @ 90 nm
1.675 Mtransistors / mm^2

AFAICT, a 90 nm Gallatin would take 110-140 mm^2, in other words, it
would be cheaper to manufacture than an Opteron.

Why hasn't Intel shrunk the Gallatin core?

--
Regards, Grumble
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Ed <me@home.com> wrote:

>I don't understand why the EE costs so much, how much more could it cost
>them to make a EE, I thought Intel chips were supposed to get faster and
>cheaper, 300mm wafers @ 90nm, what's the problem? Just pure greed?

They don't want them putting price pressure on their mainstream chips.
It's not like they really want to sell many EE's - they just want
something that looks good in the benchmarks, so it's less apparent
that they are getting their butts kicked by the A64.