Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Vote with your dollars and vote wisely!

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 15, 2006 12:48:09 AM

Intellectual Honesty Time.....

AMD supporters have always had a little extra grin on their face believing they were doing not only the "right" thing in supporting AMD against the Intel giant, but also the "smart" thing by getting more CPU for the buck...

Remember the 1.x ghz T-Birds vs the early P4s..?

Not only did the TBirds utterly own the Willamettes, but Intel/Rambus were trying to double dip and you also had absurdly expensive RAMBUS versus cheap SDRAM and DDR - Team Green had about a 3 to 1 price advantage back then if you looked at CPU + RAM.

Heck, if you had half a brain, heck ever a quarter brain, the choice was clear.

Intel made a decent comeback with the Northwoods, and AMD was late getting "Hammer" out the door, so when the Northwood C cores with the 800 mhz bus were in the 2.6 to 3.4 ghz range there were indeed quite a bit faster than the Athlons of the day, but bang for ther buck, AMD held in pretty good. - a 2800+ for $150 was a good deal, even if a $250 Northwood 2.8 was 15% faster...

Once Hammer came out, it was pretty ugly for Intel - The Athlon 64 owned the Prescotts, and once things went dual core, it was just ownership "x2".

But then AMD got smug, and maybe a bit greedy....?

An Athlon x2 is a heck of a chip, but the Pentium 9xx series are not all that bad, and at half, or a third of the AMD price that bang for the buck thing starts to look really good for Intel. - and those $1xx D805s that OC to 4 gigs.. AMD has nothing even remotely close...

Now comes Core 2 duo....

Lets call a spade a spade...

Unless you have an aluminum foil hat on your head to protect you from the mind control rays used by the aliens and thus believe that 25 different websites across the planet are all involved in a vast conspiricy to fool the totality of mankind, you know that the Core 2 Due 6600 (2.4 ghz and $314) is overall a bit faster than an FX62. It's just a fact, a rather stunning one, but still a fact.

So if you're smart, and intellectually honest, what do you do...?

The answer is simple, don't pay more than $299 for an FX62... or more than say $199 for a x2 4200+ chip...

Intel has learned it's lesson (we hope) and the 9xx chips, while junk, are now value priced junk, and the Core 2 duos say "we got the message" on the performance and power front.....

It's now time to let the market place reality slap AMD a few times on the side of the head...

Lets all boycott AMD chips till they get their price/performance ratio back in line, and then let's all enjoy a functional market place!

The FX62 is a great chip, and at $299 I'll be happy to buy one. But $699 or even $499 is just wrong...

Go bless Capitalism -

Vote with your dollars and vote wisely!

More about : vote dollars vote wisely

July 15, 2006 1:11:20 AM

Quote:
Intellectual Honesty Time.....

AMD supporters have always had a little extra grin on their face believing they were doing not only the "right" thing in supporting AMD against the Intel giant, but also the "smart" thing by getting more CPU for the buck...

Remember the 1.x ghz T-Birds vs the early P4s..?

Not only did the TBirds utterly own the Willamettes, but Intel/Rambus were trying to double dip and you also had absurdly expensive RAMBUS versus cheap SDRAM and DDR - Team Green had about a 3 to 1 price advantage back then if you looked at CPU + RAM.

Heck, if you had half a brain, heck ever a quarter brain, the choice was clear.

Intel made a decent comeback with the Northwoods, and AMD was late getting "Hammer" out the door, so when the Northwood C cores with the 800 mhz bus were in the 2.6 to 3.4 ghz range there were indeed quite a bit faster than the Athlons of the day, but bang for ther buck, AMD held in pretty good. - a 2800+ for $150 was a good deal, even if a $250 Northwood 2.8 was 15% faster...

Once Hammer came out, it was pretty ugly for Intel - The Athlon 64 owned the Prescotts, and once things went dual core, it was just ownership "x2".

But then AMD got smug, and maybe a bit greedy....?

An Athlon x2 is a heck of a chip, but the Pentium 9xx series are not all that bad, and at half, or a third of the AMD price that bang for the buck thing starts to look really good for Intel. - and those $1xx D805s that OC to 4 gigs.. AMD has nothing even remotely close...

Now comes Core 2 duo....

Lets call a spade a spade...

Unless you have an aluminum foil hat on your head to protect you from the mind control rays used by the aliens and thus believe that 25 different websites across the planet are all involved in a vast conspiricy to fool the totality of mankind, you know that the Core 2 Due 6600 (2.4 ghz and $314) is overall a bit faster than an FX62. It's just a fact, a rather stunning one, but still a fact.

So if you're smart, and intellectually honest, what do you do...?

The answer is simple, don't pay more than $299 for an FX62... or more than say $199 for a x2 4200+ chip...

Intel has learned it's lesson (we hope) and the 9xx chips, while junk, are now value priced junk, and the Core 2 duos say "we got the message" on the performance and power front.....

It's now time to let the market place reality slap AMD a few times on the side of the head...

Lets all boycott AMD chips till they get their price/performance ratio back in line, and then let's all enjoy a functional market place!

The FX62 is a great chip, and at $299 I'll be happy to buy one. But $699 or even $499 is just wrong...

Go bless Capitalism -

Vote with your dollars and vote wisely!


Quote:
Once Hammer came out, it was pretty ugly for Intel - The Athlon 64 owned the Prescotts, and once things went dual core, it was just ownership "x2".

But then AMD got smug, and maybe a bit greedy....?



I guess that means that the market for 6800 is SLIM AT BEST, right? And the 965 is A BIG FAT PLASTIC MELTING JOKE, right?

Team Green is doing pretty good. 1MB X2s are now FX62 or 1xx AM2 Opty. Chartered is shipping what was said to be 1000s of wafers per month WITH APM equipment. FAB 36 is starting to ramp 65nm for QUAD and good old Fab 38 is cooking 300mm wafers at 90nm. If AMD was abele to supply 21% comfortably before that Q407 will have AMD with extra stock enough to drop prices for volume AND get quad ramped in Fab 36.

Of course Intel will rumble along with 12 fabs trying to remove the P4 egg from their face but with new models coming (Tulsa) and LOTS of Q2 stock laying around being the biggest wll actually hurt Intel more.

4x4 is a gesture more than a platform. Openin git up to X2 with a chipset will excite mobo/system makers with the prospcet of a quad 3800+. The latest news says it will be Direct Connect through a chipset. This would actually allow a form of DynamicMultiThreading without the additional overhead lowering perf.


It's not a done deal for 06 yet. It's still 06. The momentum is still in AMDs favor. Joe Customer doesn't know what Tom's HW is. Stores can't just sell ALL Core 2 with all the flavors of NetBust on their shelves, especially single core.

With 9xx/8xx totally obliterated by Core 2 5xx/6xx is really like expensive freezer magnets.... no wait they wouldn't work for that either.


Get over it. AMD is a major CPU player in the world market.
July 15, 2006 1:16:50 AM

Quote:
And the 965 is A BIG FAT PLASTIC MELTING JOKE, right?


Ah BM full of sh!t as per usual. Not that I'd ever buy one but:

Link 1.
Link 2.
Link 3.

Quote:
I guess that means that the market for 6800 is SLIM AT BEST, right?


Would this be the same market the FX 62 is in? Which 10,000 people would buy from newegg?
Related resources
July 15, 2006 1:28:39 AM

Quote:
And the 965 is A BIG FAT PLASTIC MELTING JOKE, right?


Ah BM full of sh!t as per usual. Not that I'd ever buy one but:

Link 1.
Link 2.
Link 3.

Quote:
I guess that means that the market for 6800 is SLIM AT BEST, right?





Would this be the same market the FX 62 is in? Which 10,000 people would buy from newegg?



The ones who don't know what OC or Core 2 is.

There is a slight market for chips that expensive and Intel has enabled AMD to lower their FX prices 10-20%. With all those X2s with 1MB, they can drop the price even more. I would say 80% of 4400+ and 90% of 4800+ will be FX without a problem. Those were 100s less.

If AMD stopped production of "OFFICIAL" FX and ALL 1MB single socket were tweaked to be 1xx and FX, they will make a killing. 1xx will be less than FX.

This begs the question, will FX be the first quad desktop for AMD?
July 15, 2006 1:30:12 AM

Quote:
And the 965 is A BIG FAT PLASTIC MELTING JOKE, right?


Ah BM full of sh!t as per usual. Not that I'd ever buy one but:

Link 1.
Link 2.
Link 3.

Quote:
I guess that means that the market for 6800 is SLIM AT BEST, right?





Would this be the same market the FX 62 is in? Which 10,000 people would buy from newegg?



The ones who don't know what OC or Core 2 is.

There is a slight market for chips that expensive and Intel has enabled AMD to lower their FX prices 10-20%. With all those X2s with 1MB, they can drop the price even more. I would say 80% of 4400+ and 90% of 4800+ will be FX without a problem. Those were 100s less.

If AMD stopped production of "OFFICIAL" FX and ALL 1MB single socket were tweaked to be 1xx and FX, they will make a killing. 1xx will be less than FX.

This begs the question, will FX be the first quad desktop for AMD?

Poser.
Better Question Is When The Fuck Are You Gonna Shut The Fuck Up You Fucking Idiot!
July 15, 2006 1:31:09 AM

Hmm so it goes from popular to slight market?

Quote:
I would say 80% of 4400+ and 90% of 4800+ will be FX without a problem.


LOL.

Quote:
This begs the question, will FX be the first quad desktop for AMD?


We'll find out in Q4/07.
July 15, 2006 2:11:23 AM

Hmmm, boycott AMD...what exactly would that accomplish? The bankruptcy of Intel only competition? That is an excellent idea, then we can have a one supplier marketplace which guarantees that we will all get the most feature-packed processors at the highest speeds for the lowest prices right?

Or wait, maybe that would cause Intel to slash R&D (since they wouldn't have to improve their chips to keep their marketshare), raise prices (no competition means no choice), and squish anyone who tries to take up AMD's place (since they have seen the damage that can be done and any new companies would have to start small). Sounds like a dumb idea to me.

EDIT: I have a better idea, since the CPU is only truly important for people who do 3D rendering and video editing and the like, how about those of us who have AMD boards keep them, upgrade our CPU's as we feel like it until we can't get better on our mobos, and if Intel is still the speed king in 2 years or so when we need new boards THEN switch to Intel. That sounds like a much better plan IMHO.
July 15, 2006 3:27:36 AM

Agreed, my AMD rigs will stay up and running for a while. I can play pretty much any game in 1600x900 (widescreen) with max settings, work with large files in photoshop and do all of my dev with web servers and mysql running in the background.

It will be a while before I stumble across something I want to play or use that my systems can't handle.

AMD will lower their prices and make every effort to reboot.

If they are not able to get it done, the Intel rigs in my house will increase.
!