Support AMD for keeping the competition?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
uhhh. Are we looking at the same Pricewatch? At the highest level, the P4 is actually cheaper. But look down at the lower levels.

2600+: $91
P4 2.6: $118

AMD processors don't break the $100 mark until the 2700+. Intel does so at the 1.8 Ghz! AMD holds the price advantage by quite a good margin. Looking at the Celeron processors, they are quite cheap, but if you're shopping for a Celeron processor you're probably just gonna send e-mail and surf the internet. Buy a Duron 1.3 for 34 dollars and be happy.

Also, AMD and Intel are roughly the same in terms of holding the preformance lead, at least the last time I looked at the benchmarks.

The Athlon 64 will be a big advantage for AMD. The idiots who shop for pre-built computers will probably be wowed by "64-Bit Processing Power!". AMD is far from dead. They are a very large company and will not be folding any time soon.
 
heya slvr_phoenix..
u said,
And Intel definately doesn't want to be a monopoly. It'd be bad for their business. So it actually benefits Intel to make sure that AMD doesn't die, and Intel knows that.
Click to expand...
I am still trying to figure out how cud that be the case? cud u explain please??

me says: If it was not for <b><font color=red>C</font color=red></b>, we wud be using <font color=blue><b>BASI, PASAL & OBOL</font color=blue></b>
<b>slvr_phoenix</b> says: But I'd still be using Python. 😛
 
The idiots who shop for pre-built computers will probably be wowed by "64-Bit Processing Power!"

I really suspect whether AMD show real competition with their 64 bit Athlon to intel.
At present there is not much 64-bit software.So when AMD launches its A64, it have to compete with
P4 in 32-bit computing.Here what matters is its native 32 bit support,and who think it will be showing better
perfomance than P4?
I am telling this with reference to THG review "duel of the titans-Opteron Vs Xeon".Defenitely opetron is outperforming Xeon(and P4) in server benchmarks.But I thing it is the workstation benchmarks which is more close to
desktop perfomance when it comes.We are talking about desktop processors so let us consider workstation benchmarks only.Here even the Opteron cannot match the Xeon(and Pentium 4).And when AMD launches desktop hammer
it can never compete with P4(So only the idiots will be buying AMD at that time).And when 64 bit softwares are becoming common after a few months,what will happen if intel is launching its 64 bit pentium?Its going to be tough time for AMD.
 
at least the last time I looked at the benchmarks.
Click to expand...
I guess the last time meant 1 year ago.

<A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-07.html" target="_new">Some a$$-whooping</A>
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834&p=5" target="_new">Some more a$$=whooping</A>

Roughly the same in performance lead? I think NOT!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
 
when AMD launches desktop hammer
it can never compete with P4(So only the idiots will be buying AMD at that time).
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right. The current Northwoods at 3.0Ghz and 3.2Ghz are more than enough to destroy a 2.0Ghz single-processor system in 32-bit software. This is a very serious thing for AMD. I did this <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=141516#141516" target="_new">preview on Athlon 64's performance</A> considering clock speeds 1.8Ghz, 2.0Ghz and even 2.5Ghz (maybe I should bump it?... it's interesting...). <b>It takes a full-blown 2.5Ghz Single Opteron to really challenge a 3.0Ghz in 32-bit software. </b> AMD, be careful now...
 
Amd has a huge following with enthusiasts and overclockers. Unlocked cpu's itself is a big attraction. I picked up a 2100 for £55, now run it at 2.3ghz/200mhz fsb no problem, (about as fast as a 3200 barton).

The mobo and memory set me back an extra £170. If i was to go the intel route i wouldnt have the unlocked multi to play with and would have to get a board that does 250mhz and a 2.4c for a good overclock.

The 2.4 costs £147 + 120 + 100 (233mhz) for mem and board = £337 for around 16,300 3dmarks stock and 16,900 overclocked to say 2.9ghz on air cooling. With my setup Im at 2.3ghz and get 16,100 but saved a cool £110....

For me it was all about getting something very very cheap that will put me on till A64/prescott comes out and maybe I will go the intel route depending on how oc the A64 will be...

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6719742" target="_new"> MY RIG </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=996846" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)
 
whooohhh. Those benchmarks are not a good thing.

Yeah, well.....uh....They're still cheaper! lol.

Companies can still function if they don't have the performance lead. For a few months, nVidia was blown away by ATI. Guess who still sold more cards overall? nVidia. Right now, there really isn't any reason for people to get the best, so most people go for the mediocre. I have an Athlon XP 1800+ and a GF3 Ti 500. I've yet to come across a game that I can't enjoy just as much as someone with the best.

Does getting 350 FPS rather than 100 FPS really add to your gaming experience? Isn't your monitor limited by it's refresh rate, anyway?

Anyway. In conclusion, AMD's chips are still signifigantly cheaper. Companies with the cheaper products will always have a following.
 
Well I have a question. The new Athlon FX (Thorton) has half the cache of the Barton...but the T-Breds also have half the cache of the Barton...and FX is the new Duron. What's going on? It's a bit confusing isn't it...all this from AMD who've been complaining over the confusion in the business right now.

As for whether to buy Intel or AMD...i buy whatever. Right now I'm running an Athlon 1.13 @ 1.3...soon my temporary upgrade of a 1.9+ will be coming...after that I'll see what best suits me. I don't really get why anyone is like "I have to have an Intel" or "I have to have an AMD". AMD have always been good to me, but I still have a P150 sitting about that runs fine too. Who knows. AMD really need to sort out the chipsets tho.

As for VIA buying up AMD if they go down...doubtful. Rumour has it VIA are looking at getting rid of their CPU division. That's just idle gossip tho.

AMD Is An Anagram Of MAD, Intel Is An Anagram Of INLET, Cyrix...Ah Who Cares?
 
no -_-" AMD are much better overclockers than Intel, have you seen what crazy japanese computer freak can do to an AMD athlon 1700+ using liquid nitrogen?

Proud Owner the Block Heater
120% nVidia Fanboy
I'd get a nVidia GeForce FX 5900Ultra... if i had the money and if THEY WOULD CHANGE THAT #()#@ HSF
 
Not really, low-end, yes, but mid and high-end, no more.

Look at the XP3200+, costs MORE than a 2.8C, which trounces it as well! (check THG or Anand for overall wins) The 2.8C has SSE2 which means later on if more apps use it, it'll only rise in performance, PLUS it has HT, PLUS it has overclockability.
Not to mention AMD motherboards are now either the same or more costly than similar Intel boards (look at the Asus P4P800V features and price compared to the A7N8X).

Says a lot about AMD's ability to survive lately.

If I wanted to upgrade these days, and wanted to stay on the low-cost side, I'd definitely just replace my XP1600+ with some XP2600 or more. May need that adapter though, since I don't feel like flashing my BIOS at all, and don't wanna risk it. Epox has the worst BIOS user-friendliness when it comes to updating. Can't do it in Windows, have to do it the hard DOS way which garantees nothing.

If I wanted to get a new system, and have the money, Intel would be my main choice right away no matter what value AMD has later on. It's over anyways, they can't offer more CPUs before Athlon 64.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
 
Have you seen what crazy Japanese computers freaks can do with a 2.4C using liquid nitrogen?

In fact, have you seen what THG can do to a P4 with air-compressed cooling?


Look at both sides before stating, kiddo.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
 
I disagree...not saying i am an amd fanboy (i'm typing this post from an overclocked pIII). All i have to say is NO...unlocked multiplyers are very usefull...Example...a few months ago i was trying to get the best o/c out of my processor...since i had junky pc100 memory my computer would "hit the wall" after increasing the fsb to 112mhz...so that ment that i had to stick with a junky 12% overclock...now if i had ulocked multiplyers instead of paying big bux for pc150 memory (or i suppose pc3500 or 3700 for modern computers) i could have goten a much better overclock without spending the extra money...lets put it this way a 2.4c will have to run a 250mhz (1000mhz QDR) just to reach 3.0 ghz...
About the thorton processor...adding to confusion...i guess?All the thorton is, is a barton that fails testing becuase of a bad block of L2 cache...so amd removes the bad block (by alocating only 1/2 of the L2 memory) and then sells them. This allows amd to use a unified manufacturing process....instead of having to produce t-breds and bartons...they just produce bartons and neutered bartons. This also reduces the number of processors that are thrown away (Costing AMD money) thus they rack in more $$. IMO it is not that hard to understand...they are amd's version of a celeron...what is a celeron...a P4 that has been neutered...is that confusing...i don't really think so. Now why is amd changing their name to FX...i think this is a good thing...that way people will know if the athlon 2600+ has 512kb or 256kb of L2 cache...this AVOIDS confusion IMO.
 
heya slvr_phoenix..
u said,

In reply to:
------------------------------------------------------------

And Intel definately doesn't want to be a monopoly. It'd be bad for their business. So it actually benefits Intel to make sure that AMD doesn't die, and Intel knows that.



------------------------------------------------------------

I am still trying to figure out how cud that be the case? cud u explain please??
Click to expand...
In the US monopolies are often highly regulated (AKA screwed over) by the government in order to both promote new competition and protect consumers. A company that becomes viewed as a monopoly often ends up rather unhappy and restricted from doing much of anything. Where as a company that still has competition, no matter how insignificant that competition may be to them, is more or less free to do as it pleases. (So long as they follow the law anyway.)

So Intel doesn't get its hands bound by the government and makes a lot more money as long as AMD competes with them. If AMD goes down, so do Intel's profits.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
 
----------------------------------------------------------
they can't offer more CPUs before Athlon 64.
----------------------------------------------------------
And after A64?Now I really suspect even after that they cannot compete.Now some magazine reviewed it.
http://www.amdboard.com/hn05120301.html
And is the review shows some hope to AMD?I dont think so.If it cannot compete with a P42.2 think about 3.2.No way!!
 
Haha, full of holes there ya know?

First: ES are often not the real deal.
Second: The chipset seems to be old and may get better soon, or an nForce 3 should be used.
Third: 1.4GHZ? Wait till it's 2GHZ before saying anything dude. That was an unfair statement by you to look at the 3.2GHZ against this 1.4GHZ!
Fourth: All synthetic benches. Has NO real value at all. Where are the game benchmarks, movie ones?

I have to ask myself often, in this world of logic, how can an obscure magazine score such hardware if no one else did already, and get to bench it. I just DON'T get it.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
 
you can buy like 5 athlon xp 1700+ with the money u spend on P4 2.4c

Proud Owner the Block Heater
120% nVidia Fanboy
I'd get a nVidia GeForce FX 5900Ultra... if i had the money and if THEY WOULD CHANGE THAT #()#@ HSF
 
Actually it's more like 2.5 AthlonXP 1700+.

But who cares, a 2.4C is leaps ahead, and even if you overclocked your XP1700+ (besides, who buys more than 1 CPU at home for his single CPU setup?!!), you can also overclock the 2.4C and get XP3200+ performance and more.

Convince me.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
 
-----------------------------------------------------------
That was an unfair statement by you to look at the 3.2GHZ against this 1.4GHZ!
-----------------------------------------------------------
And do you think the 64 bit which will be launched in september is clocking more than 3.0 GHz?I have a serious doubt about it,probably they will start with 2.0Ghz or so.
So we will be comparing the "available" processors at that time irrespective of the clock.

---------------------------------------------------------
All synthetic benches
---------------------------------------------------------
I know.But as this is the only availabe bench I am considering it only for"comparision".Or the magazine people are loyal to some company?I never imagined that situation.
I am agreeing with you about the chipset issue.
 
it might have... *Yamhill* *cough* *cough*

Best case scenario in this conspiracy theory:
Maybe they can turn on Yamhill on Prescott and Tejas, and then later on, after they reach their alledged 10Ghz goal, convert desktops to IA64?... Hm... Nice. Someone at Intel said Itanium's core would be scaling all the way up to 5Ghz within the next ... can't remember the number ... years...

Just dreaming here, of course.
 
You know, Sun once considered introducing "low cost" workstations utilizing AMD Athlon. . .

:evil:

__________________________________________________
<b><font color=red>Three great virtues of a programmer are: laziness, impatience, and hubris.</font color=red><b>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom