Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 Xtreme edition LOL..

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 16, 2003 6:01:30 PM

Intel don't give up ya know. ANyways..since the A64FX has been derived from a server chip as a source INTEL decided to play the same game with p4 XE. So its more like an Xeon MP: See <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11576" target="_new">here</A>

Although i must say its a nice move. AMD didnt see this coming. It also tells us that INTEL is a bit worried about the press opteron has been having lately.

xxxxxxxxxx
P4/Celeron - Run of the mill average Joe.

P4Extra Special, Prescott - Joe's older brother who knows a bit about computers, and that rich guy down the road who has all the new stuff.

Mobile Crippleron - Low cost mobiles for the masses.

P4M/Celeron - I want to be mobile with style baby, yeah. Roadwarrariors rule!

PM/PM Celeron(to be introduced next year) - I want to be mobile but with decent battrty life.

Xeon - those boring workstation guys, servers for small businesses with not much money

XeonDP - the better paid workstation guys

XeonMP - big ass servers, and those with bottomless wallets

Baby Itanium AKA Deerfield - no idea.

Itanium 2 - People who need the best of the best, 64 bit madness, and have an affinity for Intel. Sun and IBM suck.

xxxxxxxxxx



---
If you go to work and your name is on the door, you're rich. If your name is on your desk, you're middle class. If your name is on your shirt, you're poor!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by pirox on 09/16/03 02:06 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : xtreme edition lol

September 16, 2003 6:42:34 PM

Looks good on paper lets see some bench results. How much $!!!!!
September 16, 2003 7:08:22 PM

This doesn't make any sense at all. Have they completely lost their minds? 2MB of L3 cache would eat away at costs and they can't possibly expect to sell it for $1500 per chip. Not to mention exactly how much performance improvement 2MB of L3 cache will gain anyway, which probably isn't much on desktop applications.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
Related resources
September 16, 2003 10:21:55 PM

+2mb of L2 Cache not L3 for P4XE
September 16, 2003 11:12:37 PM

The link didn't mention it was L2, it only compared the extra cache to the XeonMP's, which have 2MB of L3 cache.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
September 16, 2003 11:47:03 PM

It is indeed L3.<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1870" target="_new">Anand says so.</A>

no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. :]<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ad_rach on 09/16/03 07:48 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 17, 2003 12:34:22 AM

Its a sign of fear within Intel thats for sure, their trying to steal their thunder.
Though just looking at this CPU initially, I'm still more interested in the A64.
If this beats the A64 in 32bit, 64bit and is cheaper than I'd buy one, but somehow I doubt it will.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Radeon 9800NP, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 17, 2003 12:39:25 AM

Just in time to steal the show to AMD...?
September 17, 2003 12:40:49 AM

This new chip won't boost Intel's performance very much unless Intel has made other core changes, which it appears they haven't.
The Xeons are so closely related to the P4s that a comparison of their trends is usually quite accurate. Example: P4 gets a large performance boost by pushing the FSB to 533. What do you know, when the Xeons did the same they got a large performance boost as well.

The larger L3 cache did virtually nothing for the Xeon's performance in testing right here at Tom's. Even if the P4 did implement L2 cache, according to intel, latency is still double digit figure (in ns) like the L3 cache, in Intels processors. So there wouldn't be a whole lot of performance gains there either.

All they've really done is create an object to market, which they can do very well. It will save them in the general consumer, if by save you mean keep them from dropping under … of the consumer market. However, I doubt informed buyers will find any more need for it than they find for the new Xeons with the extra L3 cache. I could be wrong, this may be the fastest processor ever to have graced the planet, but I doubt it.

Quote:
Intel don't give up ya know. ANyways..since the A64FX has been derived from a server chip as a source INTEL decided to play the same game with p4 XE. So its more like an Xeon MP

I think Intel added the extra cache to the P4 because they added it to the Xeons. The core designs are nearly identical and this would require little R&D to pull off. It was a logical money saving step to take.

I don't think they did it so that they could be like AMD and have a processor based on a server processor. Besides, the Xeons were based on P4s in the first place.

You'll know Intel is worried if Intel developes a consumer variant of the Itanium series processors.

Pain is the realization of your own weakness.
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2003 4:38:35 AM

Yes, and here's a funny thing: Intel probably knows more about A64 performance than any of us do, including news/review sites! So this type of fear would indicate that all their industrial intel really DOES believe the A64 will be a performance monster, something I was a bit skeptical of myself. So with this information in hand, I have one recommendation: <b>BUY STOCK IN AMD!!!</b> It should cause a radical upswing in AMD's value, the way the Athlon did, as long as it sells big early on.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 17, 2003 4:54:01 AM

yes buy the stock of the company that LOSES money... sound fanacial advise.
just because of how long it takes to produce a chip, even with only slight changes, I doubt this was a last minute decision over at intel.. not to say it couldn't be have been made to take away for the a64 release, but it could also have been planned as something to release in case the a64 got delayed again so they could hold off on prescott and now that the 64 is coming out they might as well release it if they designed it.
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2003 7:00:57 AM

I told everyone to buy ATI stock, and look how that did? I told everyone to buy AMD at the Athlon intro for $14 a share, and when it shot up to $76 I told everyone to sell it. It jumped to over 80, then split, then fell like a rock.

If you had bought ATI stock at $4 a share and sold it at $12 a share, you would have trippled your money.

AMD was in hemoraging red ink during their big stock rally, caused by the building of their new plant in Germany! In fact, just a couple month earlier their investors SUED them for spending too much money on development!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2003 7:04:28 AM

I should also say that if you think in terms of "long term" investments when it comes to tech stocks, you have no grasp of the market, you're not going to make much money, and your advice is therefore less sound than mine! It's all about predicting sales projections when it comes to predicting stock swings in tech stocks. By the time you get SOLID numbers, the surge has already run it's course!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 17, 2003 7:35:28 AM

i think it has 2MB L3 Cache and 512KB of L2 cache.
Make that a total of 2.5MB cache overall.

<font color=red>If your nose <b>RUNS</b>, and feet <b>SMELL</b>.
Then you must be born <b>UPSIDE DOWN</b>.</font color=red><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by jmecor on 09/17/03 04:09 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 17, 2003 7:37:59 AM

yep. they shocked me with this information i've just got earlier ago from the inquirer.
I'm just curious about the price of the P4 Extreme.

<font color=red>If your nose <b>RUNS</b>, and feet <b>SMELL</b>.
Then you must be born <b>UPSIDE DOWN</b>.</font color=red>
September 17, 2003 8:46:53 AM

explain that to the people who bought microsoft 15 years ago, or 7 years ago, I'm going to college on microsoft stock, that wasn't a good investment?? I bought intel many years ago... made a nice profit on that, bought dell, making 25% on that. Tech stocks can be short or longterm investments depending on what you do with them. and have you looked at amd's long term earnings projections... ouch
September 17, 2003 2:11:05 PM

Quote:
<i>jmecor wrote:</i>
<b>I'm just curious about the price of the P4 Extreme.</b>

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1870" target="_new">AnandTech just got some pricing info on the P4 HT EE.</A>

Quote:
<i>AnandTech wrote:</i>
<b>We are hearing that the processor will be priced around $740 in 1,000 unit quantities.</b>

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=24106" target="_new">My System Rig</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=535386" target="_new">3DMark03</A>
September 17, 2003 7:59:48 PM

I will not be the first to buy one. Poopey will buy one first.
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2003 10:09:57 PM

You could double or tripple your money in months buying tech stocks when they are undervalued and selling them when they are over valued. You can't compare 15 years ago to modern day, but I can tell you that it would take YEARS to double your money based on Microsoft's dividends.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2003 10:17:02 PM

You're another person who would [-peep-] yourself over this whole thing of "long term investing" then. You have no concept of "buy low, sell high", the fast rout to money in the stock market.

I'm trying to clue you guys in. People buy stocks like AMD and ATI based on EXPECTED earnings. Their trying to get in early. But by the time they see news that tells them the stock is surging, it's already in mid swing! They have no clue!

When they buy these stocks, the value climbs more, and it's a good way to take their money, buying before they do and selling before they do.

I haven't failed yet on any of these predictions. AMD stock value will climb based on anticipated sales increases, unless something unusually bad happens to the company.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 18, 2003 3:14:35 AM

Sorry to say it, but I actually disagree with you (for the very first time, ever!) on that idea Crashman. If you ask any REAL stock broker, you would hear the answer, "Buy for the tong term, sell for the short term".

At this time, buying AMD stock would be known as "Profit-taking" and would actually devalue (hurt) AMD's stock when it peaks. Everyone who IS profit-taking will sell off their shares, possibly causing "Stock Shock" and a possible sell-off, devaluing the price sooner than it would otherwise. What happens when millions of people profit-take on thousands of companies, at the same time? It happened in 1929...

And the "Buy low, sell high" idea works in theory, as long as you are right. But what happens when you are wrong, and you have (or someone you advise has) invested everything into it, all because you have never been wrong before?

<font color=blue> Ok, so you have to put your "2 cents" in, but its value is only "A penny's worth". Who gets that extra penny? </font color=blue>
September 18, 2003 3:39:44 AM

Buy low sell high usually only works for new companies because they have the free capital to actually pay you your stock value, AMD is far from that. Tech stocks just aren’t worth it anymore. I lost a lot of money in March 2000, and I am still trying to recover that loss.

Go pharmaceuticals or aerospace there is something we all need.

-Jeremy

:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6940439" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1228088" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
September 18, 2003 4:25:17 AM

FYI... about a month or half a month ago (not too sure) AMD's stock was ~8.

It's currently 12.50 with all the success stories around opteron and probably the hype with a64.

Forbes also posted a "monday matchup" where AMD was the underdog strugling against massive intel. They showed numbers of profits, cash, etc. With the wide gap in those numbers, it's pretty amazing how AMD is still able to pull this stuff off against such a dominant company (intel).
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2003 5:14:27 AM

Love the nick! Well, the fact remains that thousands of people WILL be "profit taking" on AMD shares, or at least trying to. What will happen is this: AMD will release the new processor. People will but the stock, the value will increase by a small amount. Others will see the value climbing and jump on. And here's the kicker: a whole BUNCH of people will jump on near the peak, most of them will loose big money!

My dad lost lots of money following stock broker's recommendations. So far I've been right!

I would never recommend putting all your eggs in one basket. But if the stock fails to surge, what do you stand to loose? Look at their long term values. AMD is low right now. Barring their bankruptcy, you can't loose very much money, but you could gain a whole lot of money.

That is to say, if they drop to 10 and don't recover, you loose 20%. Fat chance the value won't recover, but still...

Now, if the processor launches sucessfully, you stand to gain 100-200%.

I feel kind of sorry for everyone who took my advice to buy AMD when it was 14, but decided to wait and see, then bought it at 50 and hung on to it too long...but then again I didn't say buy at 50, I said buy at 14. In fact, I told my own father than anything under 18 would be a steal!

I told a guy to buy ATI at 8, and he did. Poor guy, that was right before the 2001 market crash. It stayed around 4 for a long time (give or take .5). I told him to ride it out and sell it at 14. I don't think he listened...

In fact, when I saw it at around 3.50 a share, I told him to buy MORE! But he didn't think I had any credibility after seeing the drop. Hey, I can't predict short term disasters, but they did recover like I said they would. 8 to 14 is a 50% gain, what other investment pays 50% in 3 years?

I reserve my recommendations to family members to "sure things" so I didn't mention the 8 dollar deal to my Dad. But he also noticed the $3.50 price and was harshing me on it, that's when I told HIM to buy! And what other investment would have gotten him 300% gains in a few months?

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2003 5:18:00 AM

AMD and ATI are cyclonic stocks. At one time (before the PC market died off) you could predict rises and falls more easily than the weather, simply by looking at product cycles and comparing them to stock value cycles.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2003 5:44:39 AM

Yes, it looks like they're already climbing and it's a bit late, but I still expect them to hit at least 20 as long as the product release goes as planned. And if I bought now, I'd keep an eagle eye on the values and set my selling point at $1 below the previous day's value. Who knows, it could be your next $30 stock!

Looking at their recent lowpoint of around $7, a tripple would be $21, so lacking more information selling at $20 could still gather you a nice increase, but could also prevent you from raking in the "big bucks".

Sorry about my late recommendation, but I really had my doubt about whether AMD could pull it off (the product launch) or not.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 18, 2003 9:02:38 AM

ok crashman, I'll consent to you the fact that short term amd could be a good money maker, but alot of people like to go long term with their money, and amd's own projections show them losing money for years, so I wouldn't call that getting in ahead of the game.
and amd isn't the only way to make money, intel is up 45% in 3 months, not a bad return, I just wish I had some cash to invest with right now
September 18, 2003 9:55:08 AM

I guess I am looking more at the big picture...of the WHOLE economy...

At this point, is the economy stable enough to handle a massive amount of profit-taking, let alone AMD? The problem with profit-taking is that it creates market volatility, especially in the tech sector, where the market is the most volatile.

As was stated in another post, a couple of years ago, you could gauge when to buy and when to sell, by the product release dates. This was good, as people don't like too many surprises, and people DEFINITELY fear the unknown. Too many people took advantage of this, cashed in, earned millions, and then lost it, while attempting to earn more. The market was hurt by this, and thus, became volatile...

As to your posts, I am glad you were able to guess some good buys. However, I will say this...I bought 400 shares of IBM a while ago. Now those 400 shares have "bred" and now I have over 1600 shares (LOL), earning a nice 400% profit, meanwhile earning dividends and tax deferrals. In fact, the money I saved on my taxes, was then rolled over, buying more stocks and gaining more tax deferrals and dividends (money earning money...). Was this bad, because it took me 10 years, versus your 1-6 months? Which way has better benefits to the the consumer? Which way helps the company the most?

I am not trying to say that profit-taking is totally bad, but that it does have it's time and place. At this time (IMHO) AMD is not a good one to profit-take on, as the company has consistently been in the red, and they need the added income of stock valuations to ensure marketshare. Profit-taking could have a very big impact on AMD's stock values.

Rather than buy AMD and possible hurt them, you could profit-take on Intel, as they are in the same situation...about ready to release a new product. As we all know, Intel always has more hype (better marketing) for their products. Granted, though, you will not get as big of a gain from profit-taking on Intel, but you would still gain. Not only that, but Intel could use a little profit taking, as they have plenty of extra cash for the taking...

After all that being said, I would also like to mention the fact that it could be possible for stocks to split. This is the most favorable way to gain money quickly. You effectively double the amount of stock you have, simply by doing nothing and letting the company do it all for you. The biggest question of all being, "Is the stock going to peak or split?" ...and that is where you either earn your money or lose it...

BTW...If your father lost lots of money listening to his stock broker, either A) Your father didn't research stocks on his own, and bought in on hype, B) The Stock Broker was pulling something shady, such as trying to overhype a stock to raise the price C) The Stock Broker isn't a good Stock Broker. In any of these instances, I would definitely recommend that this Stock Broker be dumped and a new one found, and possibly that your father do better research before buying...

[sarcasm]

I got this old Ford Pinto for sale...only been rear-ended once. Any buyers?

[/sarcasm]

...but then again...this is all merely speculation and opinion...


<font color=blue> Ok, so you have to put your "2 cents" in, but its value is only "A penny's worth". Who gets that extra penny? </font color=blue>
September 18, 2003 4:01:08 PM

I told a friend of mine to buy AMD back in early august right before it started its current climb, but did he, no! He waited and bought at 12. If only I had money...
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2003 10:22:27 PM

Years ago it was easier. When the first news of the Athlong started circulating, I knew it was going to be a good product, so I knew the value would climb. The A64 was clouded in speculations about whether it could clock high enough to be competitave, so I reserved my recommendation. But I would have no qualms about telling someone to buy it at it's current price and sell it no lower than 20.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2003 10:30:37 PM

My dad went to several brokers before he gave up. The last company I remember him investing in was Lucent (ouch). At the time all the indicators looked good.

He also invested in 3com once (on a broker's recommendation), and pulled out too soon after seeing a huge drop. It recovered from that drop by about .5 and he sold it, loosing like 1.5 per share. I had told him to hang on to it. It eventually did recover...

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 19, 2003 2:57:32 AM

...and those examples are perfect examples as to why I usually only invest in companies that are (pretty much uncontestable) market leaders, have been around for 100-ish years or more, that are extremely diversified, or have buttloads of excess cash to absorb any downfalls.

Using that criteria...I haven't ever lost money...yet. But then again, I invest for the long term. A small fluctuation now and then doesn't bother me, as I am looking toward the future.

A good quote I use...

"In stocks, there is only the beginning price, and the ending price. Anything in between doesn't matter." -Nathaniel Price

<font color=blue> Ok, so you have to put your "2 cents" in, but its value is only "A penny's worth". Who gets that extra penny? </font color=blue>
September 19, 2003 1:08:10 PM

Quote:
...and those examples are perfect examples as to why I usually only invest in companies that are (pretty much uncontestable) market leaders, have been around for 100-ish years or more, that are extremely diversified, or have buttloads of excess cash to absorb any downfalls.

Using that criteria...I haven't ever lost money...yet. But then again, I invest for the long term. A small fluctuation now and then doesn't bother me, as I am looking toward the future.

And have those investments made more than simple inflation of the dollar would count for? Have those investments even made more money any investment opportunity your local bank could provide?

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
September 19, 2003 7:05:36 PM

I can answer this without even knowing the exact stocks he has invested in, yes.

It is at a significantly slower rate than you generally see on the stockmarket, but at the same time the risk is also corespondingly lower.

In a long term market you want to invest with the long term performers, they grow just at a rate that is slower than newer companies that are still trying to fit and fill an niche... but they also tend to stay around alot longer and not do things that ruin the stock price... also in long term investing you have a better opportunity to be present for a stock split.

Shadus
September 19, 2003 11:44:54 PM

As Shadus has replied already, I will concur. It is with a resounding yes, that I have earned money above inflation, especially since inflation has been so tame in the recent years.

As I stated in my earlier post, as my example, I earned 400% on my IBM shares, over 10 years, averaging 40% (400% / 10 years for the benefit of this post, no interest compounding applied), while inflation has stayed between 1-4 %. Thus I have gained, on average, between 36-39% per annum...roughly.

To put it into numbers, I bought the original 400 shares at $79.21/share. I could have sold when they peaked at around $100/share, and earned approximately (400*20) $8,000 on the deal, in profit-taking. However, I stayed with the stocks, and let them split 2 times, giving me 1600 shares. If I were to sell at the current date, at a current price of $93/share, not only would I have earned (net) $13/share (13*400= $5,200) on the original 400 shares, but would have also gained another $111,000, from the other 1200 shares.

However, I have gained more and less on other stocks. And yes, this is even with the recent "recession" that we have been having over the last few years. At the current rate, by the time I retire, those 400 original shares will have "bred" enough make a nice retirement nest egg for me. Not to mention that I have other stocks...

And to answer your other question, I have yet to find a bank that will give me a 40% return on any investment I make with them. Chase Manhatten even refused to offer me a deal that good...then again, it wouldn't have been fully FDIC insured either....

<font color=blue> Ok, so you have to put your "2 cents" in, but its value is only "A penny's worth". Who gets that extra penny? </font color=blue>
!