Intels overpriced products bemusing!!!

[RRAMJET]

Why are the AMD chips such a much more attractive deal than the current intel chips a going around. Intel have there celerons price to compete with AMDs XP range. From what i've heard the XP range is as good if not better than Intels top of the range chips. Is there something i'm missing or are intel charging a premium because they have a larger market share and can afford to, do they only need to add some hyper threading and a bogus FSB to double their price. Anyone!!

If he doesn't die, he'll get help!!!

 

[reever2]

I'm sure nobody cares.

 

[pitsi]

Although I deffinetely prefer AMD more than Intel, I beg the administrators to delete this topic. It's obvious this guy simply wants to start a flame war. Either that, or this guy lives in a world of its own.

 

[addiarmadar]

Its intels marketing at their best. AMD just needs to kidnap their marketing crew and they would be in the big bucks too, however AMD chips would eventuall be overpriced too.

F-DISK-Format-Reinstal DO DA!! DO DA!!

 

[Mephistopheles]

From what i've heard the XP range is as good if not better than Intels top of the range chips.

Erm... Earth to rramjet? XPs faster than P4Cs?

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

 

[flamethrower205]

Well the AMD-FX's are

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"

 

[pIII_Man]

and they are fvcking expensive and need registered ecc ram.


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy

 

[pIII_Man]

What about hyperthreading?

What about intels bogus fsb? Doesn't amd do the same thing? I have explained this to you before...


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy

 

[Mephistopheles]

Yes, maybe, but they're overpriced as hell...
And: "FX" is not equal to "XP"... as he said.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

 

[pitsi]

Actually, the FX is priced according to its performance. If the P4 EE is sold for less money than the FX, then you can come saying that it is overpriced.

 

[pIII_Man]

by the time you buy a mobo and memory it costs the same as an ee system, if not more.


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy

 

[Snorkius]

In Switzerland it's the 'low' price intels that are over-priced. A 2.4B costs 280 chf. the exact same amount as a 2800+ Barton. A 3.0C on the other hand is LESS expensive by a whole 100 chf than the 3200+ Barton.
A celeron 2.2 is more expensive than a 2400+ btw.

<font color=blue>
<i><font color=black>Faithless</font color=black></i> is he that says farewell when the road darkens.
J. R. R. Tolkien
</font color=blue>

 

[Mephistopheles]

exactly. FX still requires a special mobo and registered memory... this will probably take its price to new heights.

Not a good time to buy the latest techs, I guess... they're overly expensive...

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

 

[Mephistopheles]

funny things can happen with these prices indeed... The 3.0C costing less than the 3200+ just shows what a waste of money the 3200+ Barton still is... And Celeron sucks, as always...

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

 

[Snorkius]

Sure is. Especially since the 3000+ Barton is more than twice as cheap, and you should buy intel for high-end systems anyway.

<font color=blue>
<i><font color=black>Faithless</font color=black></i> is he that says farewell when the road darkens.
J. R. R. Tolkien
</font color=blue>

 

[Snorkius]

Untill recently that is. Now you should wait untill things settle down before buying anything.

<font color=blue>
<i><font color=black>Faithless</font color=black></i> is he that says farewell when the road darkens.
J. R. R. Tolkien
</font color=blue>

 

[Crashman]

Bogus FSB was started by AMD. AMD invented it all the way back at the release of the first Slot-A Athlon, with a "200MHz FSB" running at 100MHz. Their lie was so successful Intel was forced to follow suit, as did memory makers.

<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>

 

[simwiz2]

I disagree that either FSB is bogus, since the advertized number is the effective clock rate. A "400 MHz" P4 FSB provides 4x the bandwidth of a "100 MHz" P3 FSB and 2x the bandwidth of a "200 Mhz" Athlon FSB and that is what matters IMO.

 

[Crashman]

Disagree all you want, Hz is a measurement of cycles per second of a wave. So MHz of a signal wire is a measurement of millions of wave cycles per second. Whenever MHz is used, it's not a performance equivalent, it's a quantified measurement of wave cycles. They don't call it QDR400 and DDR200, they call it 400MHz and 200MHz, which are both lies because those numbers aren't based on waves, and Hz is.

<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>

 

[Parhelia]

aha, this is something like interesting, can u explaine it in details please, i just wana now. ok i understand the mhz in cpu's , but the rams why its a lie?????????????????? i now that fsb 800mhz is not 800mhz but 800MT, but i didn't get the rest.

 

[Parhelia]

please if u can explain it again, or link me to the post, cos i wana now more about that.

 

[pIII_Man]

you mean why do memory manufactuers lie about the speed given?

Probably because AMD did it and they just followed suite. The basis behind the "lie" is that ddr ram transfers 64bits per clock cycle while SDR sdram only transfers 32 bits per clock cycle. A dual channel ddr system transfers 128 bits per clock cycle.

So essentially ddr ram can transfer up to 2x more data than standard sdram so they inflate the clock speed by 2x. Amd increases their fsb rating by 2x (because they use a 64 bit front side bus, aka DDR) and intel icnreases their fsb rating by 4x because they use an 128bit fsb (aka QDR).


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy

 

[Crashman]

Amd increases their fsb rating by 2x (because they use a 64 bit front side bus, aka DDR) and intel icnreases their fsb rating by 4x because they use an 128bit fsb (aka QDR).

Hehe, remember the "per cycle" part. Also, modern processors have a 64-bit bus to the chipset. Except for the A64, which has a 64-bit bus direct to RAM, and the Opteron/A64 FX, which has a 128-bit bus direct to RAM.

But yes, 64 bits per cycle SDR, 128 bits per cycle DDR, 256 bits per cycle QDR. And then their's dual channel, to double DDR SDRAM from 64 to 128 bits wide, 256 bits per cycle. And dual channel for RDRAM...etc.

<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>

 

[RRAMJET]

Lol, pitsi begging admin to delete a post, thats quite funny. Your a jerk pitsi, either that or you one of those real self important type, like no one cares what you think.

Anyway the FSB moves data two and from the cpu, i htink, so are some cpus limited by FSB and vise versa? Like the 2.4 400mhz vs the 2.4 800mhz intel chips. if the 800mhz version is not twice as fast is that due to the increased FSB not been utilzed 100%, my question being was the 2.4 being limited by the 400mhz FSB and if so then the XP range must be limited by there slower FSB. mmm i just reread that and im not sure it makes sense. Anyway my theory should see intel utilise the higher FSB more eficiently with faster chips, technically we should see twice the speed of the 2.4 400mhz out of the newer 800mhz chips, no!!

If he doesn't die, he'll get help!!!

 

[pitsi]

I am the jerk? Hey [-peep-], in what world do you live?

Why are the AMD chips such a much more attractive deal than the current intel chips a going around.

In my opinion, the most attractive chips right now are the 2.4c and the 2.6c which you can overclock to 3+GHz. Besides the 2500+ I don't see anything else "attractive" on AMD's site. So, explain this to me!

Intel have there celerons price to compete with AMDs XP range.

Today at Newegg the 2800+ costs $185 and the 2.6c $205, offering the same performance in games and with the Pentium dominating in multimedia benchmarks.

From what i've heard the XP range is as good if not better than Intels top of the range chips.

This is not some info you "hear" about, it's something you search by yourself. Anyway, go check THG benchmarks and come back again saying that the XPs are better than Intel's topo of the range chips. Hey, why don't you check the 3.2c Vs 3200+ review?


Now, if you said that about A64 is a whole different story but you are talking about Athlon XPs here. It's obvious that you lost your touch with reality! And I am sick and tired of Intel vs AMD topics. If you are so stupid that you are willing to spend your money on a product based on the label it carries and only that, then that's your own personal problem. You are probably one of those guys saying that the 2.4c is equal to the 2400+. Anyway, I couldn't really care less. It's your money, you do whatever you want with it.