Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (
More info?)
"nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6t7q0pusfmo0hhdfam6pf5p9hsra9rbt9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:28:11 +0000 (UTC), RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl>
> wrote:
>
>>"Cuzman" <cuzNOSPAM@supanet.com> wrote :
>>
>>> - AMD Athlon64 FX-55 2.6GHz
http://snipurl.com/aun8 $849.00
>>> - Intel Pentium 4 3.4GHz EE
http://snipurl.com/aune $1019.00
>>
>>look at the tests
>>"Intel Pentium 4 540 (3.2 GHz)" and "AMD Athlon64 3200+ (2.0 GHz)" are
>>just little behind the topscorers, and are significantly cheaper. Only
>>"I have loads of money and I'm an ignorant ass" people buy FX and EE
>>processors for gaming systems.
>>
>>
>>Pozdrawiam.
>
> Opteron 150 (essentially all the same as FX-55, but socket 940 instead
> of 939) - $599 http://www.pricewatch.com/
> Doesn't this make AMD system more price-competitive?
Not so much as you might think, though. While you would save $350 on the
CPU, Socket 940 needs REGISTERED DIMMs, thus making the memory more
expensive. For 1GB, it would be $271, and that is 2-2-3-6 timings, little
more relaxed than the $251 that was given above for non-registered DIMMs.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=20-146-940&depa=1
is what I am referring to specifically. Not much of a difference, but it
would be more like $70 different if the base system had 2-2-3-6 timings
instead of 2-2-2-5. Also, as from Newegg's site, $599 is for the OEM
version. Whereas the price poster quoted $849 for the FX-55, that is a
Retail item. The actual price for a Retail Opteron 150 is $649, thus
changing the $350 to $200, to be fair. Further, you'd need a seperate
heatsink for the Opteron, as it isn't included in OEM, let's say a decent
one is $25. Further, the given Socket 939 board is $129, whereas the
cheapest Socket 940 board is $172. So, now the $350 difference has become
more like $240 less. Unless you go with a Retail CPU, then it is more like
$140 difference. Since the given price difference between the Pentium-M and
FX-55 was $250, this won't change the price leader, but it does make AMD
more competitive.
Also, I'd like to point out at this point, that an Opteron 150 is the same
speed as a FX-53, which is actually $54 cheaper than an Opteron 150 (OEM v
OEM), or $150 cheaper (Retail v Retail). Point being, a FX-53 is $545 OEM ;
$599 Retail, whereas the Opteron 150 is $599 OEM; $649 Retail. They are
both Socket 940 parts, so, the adjustments in RAM and Motherboard would
remain with a FX-53, but, the CPU is cheaper.
Further, an Athlon64 4000+ is the same as a FX-53, but in Socket 939 form.
The CPU is, based off the Opteron 150 setup, $165 more expensive based on
something which changes the price from being $240 less to being just $75
less, BUT, you have to use the cheaper motherboard, and cheaper RAM, thus
making that $75 less actually $165 less (the numbers just work out that
way). That changes the $1849 figure to $1684, a grand total of $85
difference between the Athlon64 4000+ setup and the Pentium-M setup.
BTW, a Socket 479 board can only be upgraded to a Pentium-M 2.0GHz,
officially. From where it stands now, the Socket 939/940 boards will be
around for a while longer, I don't know how long, but I would imagine
atleast until the CPUs hit a 3.0GHz speed....Guess they would nickname that
either a FX-59 or Athlon64 4600+ (assuming 1MB L2).
Either way, the P4 seems out of it, eh?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram