Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (
More info?)
For most businesses in general a low cost work station is a pIII 700Mhz to
1000Mhz with SDRAM on a integrated motherboard. The software that is used
is in most workstations excluding CAD stations is generally two years to
three years old with Windows 2000 or Win XP (no SP2) OS. AMD business work
stations that I have seen consist of a 1700+ to 1800+ processor with 256 MB
of DDR 2100 on an integrated MB. There are a lot of businesses right now
that are holding computer cost to a minimum buying used parts or computers
because there software will run on the machine.
What I see right now is the engineering used on computer hardware has
advanced at an accelerated pace and software engineering has lagged behind
due to customer demands. AMD could be cutting there own neck by pushing
AMD64 Technology, as long as sales remain high as well as the price it will
be good for AMD. The market for the AMD64 has not yet been saturated. Once
the high end consumers complete there buying and AMD no longer has XP
versions available the price will have to be lowered and assuming Intel
knows this they could lower the price on there P4's forcing additional
pressure on AMD's pricing before the release of there new generation of
Intel processors, which they have put on hold for now.
I believe that until there is a need via software or server integration
there will still be allot of pIII in workstations around the country. Top
level management and engineering will always have the latest and greatest
systems but the majority of workstations go to the general worker who has
limited need for a AMD64 system or for a P4 system. (MS office 2002, a few
in house programs, possibly some type of older CAD programs) The same could
be said for the general house hold internet user, excluding gamers. Most
house holds have a low end P4 system or AMD XP system running windows 98 or
XP.
Just wait a year and pricing on the AMD64's will drop much more as the high
end market becomes saturated, the XP's become hard to find, and Intel
decides to release it's new processor technology. I believe that it would
be in the best interest of AMD to continue there line of high end and mobil
XP processors until Intel releases there next generation of processors and
AMD should continue to develop their server line of processors such as the
dual core technology. The game is not just pricing or technology but that
of a mind set. The pIII will have to be replaced in the next year or two
due to the availability of replacement parts and the AMD XP systems would be
a excellent price value replacement and the AMD will capture the mind set of
many potential workstation buyers, which is currently held by Intel.
"Chip" <anneonymouse@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:2tprivF21ohr9U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Matt" <matt@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote in message
> news:6LLdd.327$cp3.32@news02.roc.ny...
>> Steve Wolfe wrote:
>>>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/19/amd_price_cuts/
>>>>
>>>>What's this about discontinuing some XP-M models tho?
>>>
>>>
>>> AMD wants to get rid of the 32-bit line in favor of the 64-bit line,
>>> they've been saying that forever. They're just slowly whittling down
>>> their
>>> 32-bit offerings to get to that point.
>>
>> Newegg is as I write selling the 32-bit 2800+ Retail for $147 and the
>> 64-bit 2800+ Retail for $141.
>
> From the point of view of building a new PC, anyone would have to be
> *insane* to base it on a 32bit XP.
>
> The only role for those chips nowadays is lowest-possible-cost workstation
> to do email etc only. Anything else, should be 64-bit. Why? because its
> no more expensive, the performance is as good or better (and will get
> better still when 64-bit windows arrives) and its much more future proof.
>
> ***However***
>
> The situation is a lot more difficult if you already have a decent 32 bit
> PC. I would like to move to 64bit myself. I have a 32 bit XP running
> 2400MHz and its probably the weakest link in my system. (I have 2 x
> Raptors in Raid0, a GF6800 running 440/1150MHz and 1 GB of ram.) Most of
> the benchies I run come out real well on disk & graphics and only "fair"
> on CPU.
>
> But what cost for me to upgrade my CPU? Well to make it worthwhile, I
> would have to go for perhaps an Athlon 3800 or above. I would need a new
> motherboard. And a new heatsink and fan (and a good one too - I have a
> decent Thermalright job at the moment). And maybe even another 1GB
> registered memory if I went for an FX CPU. I am looking at perhaps $1,000
> simply to give me a 30 ~ 40% CPU speed boost, and maybe an overall 10%
> system speed improvement.
>
> I can't possibly justify it.
>
> Chip
>
LOLLA!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram