www.hypersonic-pc.com/2001/index.asp has listed the Palomino as an option for their desktop comps. Is this the one we have been waiting for??
-
T-Mobile Home Internet: Revisiting 5G connectivity for the home after two years
-
Multi-million dollar Cheyenne supercomputer auction ends with $480,085 bid — buyer walked away with 8,064 Intel Xeon Broadwell CPUs, 313TB DDR4-2400 ECC RAM, and some water leaks
Palomino out!!
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
-
- Tags
- CPUs Intel i7 Motherboards
Yeup, looks like it. Good catch.
The exact system is <A HREF="http://secure.hypersonic-pc.com/scripts/custom_sys.asp?sysid=Fury" target="_new">here</A>, for those of you who are interested.
<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
The exact system is <A HREF="http://secure.hypersonic-pc.com/scripts/custom_sys.asp?sysid=Fury" target="_new">here</A>, for those of you who are interested.
<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
That is an Athlon XP 1800 (Athlon 1.53GHz) processor. Adding $150 to the cost of an Athlon 1.4GHz (as they do), that makes it $249.
A Pentium 1.4GHz costs $112. An Athlon 1.4GHz costs $99.
A Pentium 4 1.8GHz costs $230. The Athlon XP 1800 costs $249. Well what do you know... could they be pricing their PR 1800 processor against the price of a Pentium 4 1.8GHz? Hmmmmmmm.... Now look at pricewatch. They now list one of those Athlon XP 1800 processors as well. It is $260. Hmmmmmmm....
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
A Pentium 1.4GHz costs $112. An Athlon 1.4GHz costs $99.
A Pentium 4 1.8GHz costs $230. The Athlon XP 1800 costs $249. Well what do you know... could they be pricing their PR 1800 processor against the price of a Pentium 4 1.8GHz? Hmmmmmmm.... Now look at pricewatch. They now list one of those Athlon XP 1800 processors as well. It is $260. Hmmmmmmm....
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Boondock_Saint
Distinguished
- Jul 4, 2001
- 548
- 0
- 18,980
Well, they are keeping a safety barrier. Most everyone knows a 1.4 AMD will beat a 1.7 PIV easy and tie a 2.0 PIV. This 1.53 should be able to keep pace with current 2.2 PIV. Too bad they have to have that barrier to keep Intel groupee's happy.
I would say a 1.4GHz Athlon would tie a 1.8GHz Pentium 4 in most things. In some applications the Athlon would pull way ahead. In some applications the Pentium 4 would pull way ahead. For the rest, they would be about equal.
"This 1.53 should be able to keep pace with current 2.2 PIV."
There is no current 2.2GHz Pentium 4. Did you mean an overclocked Pentium 4 Willamette or a future Northwood?
What is this barrier of which you are speaking? Anyhow, what is interesting to note here is that indeed the new Athlons with the PR rating seem to be getting priced against the Pentium 4 processors using their PR ratings rather than their clockspeed as used to be the case. This all goes back to my posts in other threads regarding AMD having more freedom to place their processors in higher price points now that they can stick a higher number next to the name of their processors. Gone are the days of those great price/performance ratios that AMD users are used to getting once their older (clockspeed marketted) processors are phased out.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
"This 1.53 should be able to keep pace with current 2.2 PIV."
There is no current 2.2GHz Pentium 4. Did you mean an overclocked Pentium 4 Willamette or a future Northwood?
What is this barrier of which you are speaking? Anyhow, what is interesting to note here is that indeed the new Athlons with the PR rating seem to be getting priced against the Pentium 4 processors using their PR ratings rather than their clockspeed as used to be the case. This all goes back to my posts in other threads regarding AMD having more freedom to place their processors in higher price points now that they can stick a higher number next to the name of their processors. Gone are the days of those great price/performance ratios that AMD users are used to getting once their older (clockspeed marketted) processors are phased out.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Of course, remember that OEMs generally charge more for the upgrade than the product is actually worth ($100 for 128meg of PC133, for instance).
But you're right, an Athlon XP PR1800 (clocked at 1.53), is now listed on PriceWatch for $260. Let's not forget of course, that this is the top-of-the-line piece of a line that has just come out (vs the P4 1.8). And the same place is selling the 1.4/266 OEM for $124. Not exactly the best price on PW, is it? Using the same percentage, that would put the XP PR1800 at $208, lowest price.
$208 <-> $230 is a little better, but still too close for comfort. Time will tell.
<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
But you're right, an Athlon XP PR1800 (clocked at 1.53), is now listed on PriceWatch for $260. Let's not forget of course, that this is the top-of-the-line piece of a line that has just come out (vs the P4 1.8). And the same place is selling the 1.4/266 OEM for $124. Not exactly the best price on PW, is it? Using the same percentage, that would put the XP PR1800 at $208, lowest price.
$208 <-> $230 is a little better, but still too close for comfort. Time will tell.
<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
Boondock_Saint
Distinguished
- Jul 4, 2001
- 548
- 0
- 18,980
Sorry. Looking at 2.2GHz OC'ed Willies.
Mistake.
Went little overboard on it too. 2.0 GHz beats AMD 1.4GHz in most apps now, including games. 1.4GHz AMD beats the 1.8 PIV in most games. Safe to say then that 1.4GHz and theoretical 1.9 GHz PIV would tie in most aspects.
Mistake.
Went little overboard on it too. 2.0 GHz beats AMD 1.4GHz in most apps now, including games. 1.4GHz AMD beats the 1.8 PIV in most games. Safe to say then that 1.4GHz and theoretical 1.9 GHz PIV would tie in most aspects.
A new listing was just added for an Athlon XP 1500 (it has screwed up PriceWatch's listing on the Athlon XP 1800 as it is showing up there for some reason.) This processor is running at 1.33GHz. The old Athlon 1.33GHz is $95. The Athlon XP 1500 (1.33GHz) is $155. To compare, the Pentium 4 1.5GHz is $121. The Athlon XP 1500 is definately priced to compete with the Pentium 4 1.5GHz once its price drops a bit.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Yet another is added: an Athlon XP 1600 (1.4GHz) will run you $165. The normal Athlon 1.4GHz runs $99. To help compare the price of the Athlon XP 1600, the Pentium 4 1.6GHz costs $164. The is definately competitive pricing between the two. Where are all the people who claimed this would never happen? Where are those who said AMD would never raise their prices? Ah, but I do not like to hold grudges so I suppose I will just let that go. What is important is to note what is happening. AMD introduced the PR ratings so they could market their products at a higher price.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
SerArthurDayne
Distinguished
- Jan 21, 2001
- 344
- 0
- 18,780
Eh? Methinks you're babbling conspiracy theories Ray 
Why wouldn't AMD market their flagship processors higher? They have to have a profit margin on SOMETHING don't they? As it is, their current Athlons and Durons are dirt cheap.
Besides, I doubt their yields are all that high right now, and they do have supply to worry about. Recall how expensive the 1.2 MP was just a month or two ago? It's come down considerably in price... hell, do you remember how high the 1.4 premiered? It was well over 200 if I remember.
As to "who said AMD would never raise their prices?" you are being EXTREMELY premature in your judgement concerning how these processors are being marketed and how likely these premium prices will remain. A couple hours after the first websites start listing the Palominos and you act like you have AMD pegged. In a court of law you would be laughed out for the evidence you have provided, or should I say lack of evidence. It's not like these processors are T-birds with a new name and a higher price, they're an improved product that logically carry a substantially higher price than products that have already run the gauntlet. I used to find your posts interesting, relatively well informed, and non-inclusive of troll behavior, but you seem to be rapidly changing your tune. Your recent sputterings of FUD are unappreciated to say the least, and something I would not have expected from you given previous posts in the last year.
Consider yourself suitably chastised
"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
Why wouldn't AMD market their flagship processors higher? They have to have a profit margin on SOMETHING don't they? As it is, their current Athlons and Durons are dirt cheap.
Besides, I doubt their yields are all that high right now, and they do have supply to worry about. Recall how expensive the 1.2 MP was just a month or two ago? It's come down considerably in price... hell, do you remember how high the 1.4 premiered? It was well over 200 if I remember.
As to "who said AMD would never raise their prices?" you are being EXTREMELY premature in your judgement concerning how these processors are being marketed and how likely these premium prices will remain. A couple hours after the first websites start listing the Palominos and you act like you have AMD pegged. In a court of law you would be laughed out for the evidence you have provided, or should I say lack of evidence. It's not like these processors are T-birds with a new name and a higher price, they're an improved product that logically carry a substantially higher price than products that have already run the gauntlet. I used to find your posts interesting, relatively well informed, and non-inclusive of troll behavior, but you seem to be rapidly changing your tune. Your recent sputterings of FUD are unappreciated to say the least, and something I would not have expected from you given previous posts in the last year.
Consider yourself suitably chastised
"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
"Why wouldn't AMD market their flagship processors higher?"
Their flagship processor would now be the Athlon XP 1800. So far every single one of the Athlon XP processors, even the slower ones, are all priced competitively with the Pentium 4 processor on which its PR rating was based.
"They have to have a profit margin on SOMETHING don't they?"
They should. So far their track record was to keep all of their prices extremely low. In fact, this was so prevalent, many AMD fans on this forum told me straight out that AMD would never raise their prices from the levels at which they were. This is obviously false.
"It's come down considerably in price... hell, do you remember how high the 1.4 premiered? It was well over 200 if I remember."
Yes, in line to compete with the Pentium 4 1.4GHz back then. The point is not that processor prices do not decrease. That is obviously untrue. The point is that the prices for the Athlon XP processors are now in line with the Pentium 4 processors in which their PR rating was based rather than the Pentium 4 processors of the same clockspeed. This is because they can now market these processors as being faster using their wonderful new "Quantispeed technology" that their marketing department invented.
"you are being EXTREMELY premature in your judgement concerning how these processors are being marketed and how likely these premium prices will remain."
I never made a claim as to how long they would remain. I comment on the here and now. Comments on the present can never be premature. In addition, as processors from one company get cheaper, the same will happen to those of the other company. Simply predicting that processor prices will fall will not break the pattern of how the prices match between the different processors of each company.
"Your recent sputterings of FUD are unappreciated to say the least"
If you want to call what is happening in the marketplace FUD, then by all means do it. This is not going to change the fact that it has happened.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Their flagship processor would now be the Athlon XP 1800. So far every single one of the Athlon XP processors, even the slower ones, are all priced competitively with the Pentium 4 processor on which its PR rating was based.
"They have to have a profit margin on SOMETHING don't they?"
They should. So far their track record was to keep all of their prices extremely low. In fact, this was so prevalent, many AMD fans on this forum told me straight out that AMD would never raise their prices from the levels at which they were. This is obviously false.
"It's come down considerably in price... hell, do you remember how high the 1.4 premiered? It was well over 200 if I remember."
Yes, in line to compete with the Pentium 4 1.4GHz back then. The point is not that processor prices do not decrease. That is obviously untrue. The point is that the prices for the Athlon XP processors are now in line with the Pentium 4 processors in which their PR rating was based rather than the Pentium 4 processors of the same clockspeed. This is because they can now market these processors as being faster using their wonderful new "Quantispeed technology" that their marketing department invented.
"you are being EXTREMELY premature in your judgement concerning how these processors are being marketed and how likely these premium prices will remain."
I never made a claim as to how long they would remain. I comment on the here and now. Comments on the present can never be premature. In addition, as processors from one company get cheaper, the same will happen to those of the other company. Simply predicting that processor prices will fall will not break the pattern of how the prices match between the different processors of each company.
"Your recent sputterings of FUD are unappreciated to say the least"
If you want to call what is happening in the marketplace FUD, then by all means do it. This is not going to change the fact that it has happened.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
somerandomguy
Distinguished
- Jun 1, 2001
- 577
- 0
- 18,980
This makes buying a new system a little more interesting. If the Athlon XP's are going to cost that much, perhaps it's not the ideal choice of processor that I was expecting it to be.
Does anyone know when AMD will start phasing out the T-Bird?
"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
Does anyone know when AMD will start phasing out the T-Bird?
"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
SerArthurDayne
Distinguished
- Jan 21, 2001
- 344
- 0
- 18,780
Wait, Wait. All your riled up about is that AMD is now able to market their processor competitively in terms of REAL performance instead of the mythical mhz 'standard'?
This is as it should be. I would expect nothing less from AMD, or any other company for that matter. Pricing for any product should be determined by performance relationships. The mhz myth has got to go, but Intel shows no signs of any attempt to re-educate the masses. And why should they? This is what they want after all... a user base that believes in a standard of performance, mhz, that is highly skewed toward their product by virtue of a marketing/engineering hybrid. Yeah, I know the *Intel reason* behind the advantages of higher scaling, but you can't tell me that it wasn't the triple icing on the cake for Intel's marketing division. I don't know which AMD 'fans' told you AMD would never market their prices in direct competition with Intel, but we of the sensible variety would never make such a ridiculous claim. After all, AMD has to make money somehow.
All in all, I fail to find a real point to your posts. AMD is marketing their processors in terms of real performance instead of now grossly inaccurate clockspeed comparisons. Whoop-de-doo. AMD has to turn a profit, like any other non dotcom company Whoop-de-doo. If you really did have a point, please feel free to dig it up and present it to me.
"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
This is as it should be. I would expect nothing less from AMD, or any other company for that matter. Pricing for any product should be determined by performance relationships. The mhz myth has got to go, but Intel shows no signs of any attempt to re-educate the masses. And why should they? This is what they want after all... a user base that believes in a standard of performance, mhz, that is highly skewed toward their product by virtue of a marketing/engineering hybrid. Yeah, I know the *Intel reason* behind the advantages of higher scaling, but you can't tell me that it wasn't the triple icing on the cake for Intel's marketing division. I don't know which AMD 'fans' told you AMD would never market their prices in direct competition with Intel, but we of the sensible variety would never make such a ridiculous claim. After all, AMD has to make money somehow.
All in all, I fail to find a real point to your posts. AMD is marketing their processors in terms of real performance instead of now grossly inaccurate clockspeed comparisons. Whoop-de-doo. AMD has to turn a profit, like any other non dotcom company
Whoop-de-doo. If you really did have a point, please feel free to dig it up and present it to me."Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
The main point was as an eye-opener to those who did proclaim that AMD would always keep prices at about the same level. Their rational was that AMD wanted to release all of their processors at a price relative only to how much it physically cost to make the processor. They further claimed that Intel liked to price-gouge their customers and that AMD would never raise their prices to the level of Intel. My posts in this thread are a response to those folks after watching the processor market today.
Now, I fully agree that every company should be making money. I fully agree with AMD having higher prices. They should have been higher all along. I do think it a bit shady to create something called "Quantispeed technology" that has nothing to do with any new technology they added to their latest processor. In fact, it is not a technology at all but a marketing ploy to attempt to explain to the average consumer why they should be allowed have have these higher PR ratings. I fully agree that AMD needs these PR numbers to remain profitable, but labeling a marketing explanation as a 'technology' is just a bit shady in my book. They had the same 'technology' in their older Athlons if you follow that to its logical conclusion. Yet those are priced considerably less.
Anyway, the holy grail of price/performance that AMD users loved to hold over the heads of most would-be Pentium 4 purchasers is at the very least greatly diminishing; and even before the Northwood has been released. I am very curious what will happen in the processor market in a couple months when Northwood enters the scene.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Now, I fully agree that every company should be making money. I fully agree with AMD having higher prices. They should have been higher all along. I do think it a bit shady to create something called "Quantispeed technology" that has nothing to do with any new technology they added to their latest processor. In fact, it is not a technology at all but a marketing ploy to attempt to explain to the average consumer why they should be allowed have have these higher PR ratings. I fully agree that AMD needs these PR numbers to remain profitable, but labeling a marketing explanation as a 'technology' is just a bit shady in my book. They had the same 'technology' in their older Athlons if you follow that to its logical conclusion. Yet those are priced considerably less.
Anyway, the holy grail of price/performance that AMD users loved to hold over the heads of most would-be Pentium 4 purchasers is at the very least greatly diminishing; and even before the Northwood has been released. I am very curious what will happen in the processor market in a couple months when Northwood enters the scene.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
I agree, but no more shady then marketing an enhanced internet technology ( sorry forget at the moment the term Intel uses) So would the first company guilty of this please step forward?
As for the pricing Ray You care to make another bet? You know, like the one you lost with me before concerning RDRAM pricing versus DDR prices? The fact is how many retailors have the chip and just exactly how competitive is the market at the moment for these chips if only one or two have them in stock? Is it AMD or the retailors themselves comanding a price premium? Price comparisons at the first day of release are pointless and you should know that by now. If in 1-2 months time what you say holds true Then you can actually have a point here.
Hold on here a second lets look at this statement. The p4 at 2.0 gig eeks out a performance win over the 1.4 gig t-bird. The palimino at 1.53 with its data prefetch and SSE should once again makes this comparison a hot debate depending on which app you are talking about, suffice it to say that I believe that they both will win there share of benchmarks ( highly attributed to whether the app is SSE2 optimized or not) At any case it should be close to a draw if not an outright win for the athlon xp1800. So perhaps we should compare its pricing to that of a 2.0 gig p4? A price comparison I am sure you will not want to make even at todays prices.
Video editing?? Ha, I don't even own a camera!
SerArthurDayne
Distinguished
- Jan 21, 2001
- 344
- 0
- 18,780
I'll agree that the price/performance ratio may start to narrow quite substantially, but that is mainly due to Intel slashing prices more than it is AMD raising prices to Intel levels. I'll grant you a valid point, but I suppose as obvious as it must seem, some people might need the eye opener. As far as your comparison with the 1.4ghz Athlon being pitted against the 1.4 P4 in price, you have that backwards - It was Intel that lowered the 1.4 P4 in price to where it was finally close to the AMD flagship, and not the other way around. Hell, they couldn't even get the 1.3 down to the same price as the 1.4 Athlons. I own more Intel systems than I do AMD, and while AMD holds a fond spot in my heart right now, I would be just as happy with owning a high performing Intel system that fit the budget. Key words being "fit the budget".
In regards to the 'fairness' of the ratings, you must admit that the performance ratings do seem abnormally low. It is a given that an Athlon 1.4 is generally equivalent to a P4 1.8, even though both processors have their individual strengths. The Palomino is anywhere from 3 to 15% faster than the T-bird at the same clockspeed, and the Athlon XP 1800 is clocked at 1.53ghz. Assume that the advantage of the Palomino core is only 8% on average at the same clockspeed, and that the T-bird is 29% faster per clock than its P4 counterpart, one would interpolate the rating score of the Palomino 1.53ghz to be 2.13ghz. So basically we're paying P4 1.8ghz price, but we're getting a theoretical P4 2.1ghz performance, wouldn't you say? I would still consider AMD having the superior bang for buck at this point, despite the XP 1800 costing more than twice as much as the 1.4 Tbird.
If Northwood breaks the mold of Intel's pricing methods by being introduced much lower than previous models, then the price/performance ratio may drop dramatically. Until then, I would still say AMD has a much better hand in the budget arena.
"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
In regards to the 'fairness' of the ratings, you must admit that the performance ratings do seem abnormally low. It is a given that an Athlon 1.4 is generally equivalent to a P4 1.8, even though both processors have their individual strengths. The Palomino is anywhere from 3 to 15% faster than the T-bird at the same clockspeed, and the Athlon XP 1800 is clocked at 1.53ghz. Assume that the advantage of the Palomino core is only 8% on average at the same clockspeed, and that the T-bird is 29% faster per clock than its P4 counterpart, one would interpolate the rating score of the Palomino 1.53ghz to be 2.13ghz. So basically we're paying P4 1.8ghz price, but we're getting a theoretical P4 2.1ghz performance, wouldn't you say? I would still consider AMD having the superior bang for buck at this point, despite the XP 1800 costing more than twice as much as the 1.4 Tbird.
If Northwood breaks the mold of Intel's pricing methods by being introduced much lower than previous models, then the price/performance ratio may drop dramatically. Until then, I would still say AMD has a much better hand in the budget arena.
"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
"but no more shady then marketing an enhanced internet technology"
If you are talking about Netburst, at least this is a technology. The word itself might not be the best, but there is real technology behind it. It is a new architecture, not an invention by marketing.
"You know, like the one you lost with me before concerning RDRAM pricing versus DDR prices?"
You know, I tried to modify the the subject of that message after the 6 weeks were up, as was agreed. It would not allow me. It said the post was too old to modify...
"If in 1-2 months time what you say holds true Then you can actually have a point here."
Well then we have a bet. My bet is not that AMD's CPUs will be exactly the same or higher than the equivolent Pentium 4 processors. My bet is that they will remain very close to the Pentium 4 processors on which their PR rating is based. A range of about $20 should suffice.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
If you are talking about Netburst, at least this is a technology. The word itself might not be the best, but there is real technology behind it. It is a new architecture, not an invention by marketing.
"You know, like the one you lost with me before concerning RDRAM pricing versus DDR prices?"
You know, I tried to modify the the subject of that message after the 6 weeks were up, as was agreed. It would not allow me. It said the post was too old to modify...
"If in 1-2 months time what you say holds true Then you can actually have a point here."
Well then we have a bet. My bet is not that AMD's CPUs will be exactly the same or higher than the equivolent Pentium 4 processors. My bet is that they will remain very close to the Pentium 4 processors on which their PR rating is based. A range of about $20 should suffice.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
In Japan, the 1.33XP is being sold by vendors as the 1500 XP - at JPY18,200 + tax (5%) making for a $158 processor at today's exchange rate a figure that seems to exactly meet US AMD pricing currently.
It remains to be seen if this will continue, or if businesses are trying to cash in on the rush to buy the new chip. Of course Intel (understandably) charge a heavy premium on the 2G P4 over the not that much faster ($/cycle) 1.8G. Whether AMD are choosing to do so with their whole new range also remains to be seen. The pricing of a 1500XP slightly over 1.4Tbird seems not unreasonable since performace should be noticably up with full SSE and data prefetch etc.
I _think_ the AMD 1800XP cpu will drop fiarly rapidly to a more 'sensible' price (above current 1.4 though) in line with their older cores - but AMD may well try and bridge the gap (leaving it still a bit high) somewhat to enable a futher uplift when/if Hammer is eventually released. I'm sure AMD will want to price Hammer right along side the next gen. Intel chips, but whether they are able to will remain to be seen...
I'm looking forward to seeing the 1800 up against P4 (although since the 2G P4 has been out for a while and AMD have still called it the 1800, I guess the P4 edges it out overall on broad applications) but the Northwood should really be a good chip (at what cost though?). AMD will really need to turn on the MHz to compete at a level with Intel again, let alone lead them. Since most people (AMD and integrators) seem to think ~300MHz is the handicap for current P4 against XP - AMD need a 1.7G chip out now, and a 1.9 very soon, and of this forum perhaps only you and a select few know what they'll really be battling with Northwood I guess.
-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details
It remains to be seen if this will continue, or if businesses are trying to cash in on the rush to buy the new chip. Of course Intel (understandably) charge a heavy premium on the 2G P4 over the not that much faster ($/cycle) 1.8G. Whether AMD are choosing to do so with their whole new range also remains to be seen. The pricing of a 1500XP slightly over 1.4Tbird seems not unreasonable since performace should be noticably up with full SSE and data prefetch etc.
I _think_ the AMD 1800XP cpu will drop fiarly rapidly to a more 'sensible' price (above current 1.4 though) in line with their older cores - but AMD may well try and bridge the gap (leaving it still a bit high) somewhat to enable a futher uplift when/if Hammer is eventually released. I'm sure AMD will want to price Hammer right along side the next gen. Intel chips, but whether they are able to will remain to be seen...
I'm looking forward to seeing the 1800 up against P4 (although since the 2G P4 has been out for a while and AMD have still called it the 1800, I guess the P4 edges it out overall on broad applications) but the Northwood should really be a good chip (at what cost though?). AMD will really need to turn on the MHz to compete at a level with Intel again, let alone lead them. Since most people (AMD and integrators) seem to think ~300MHz is the handicap for current P4 against XP - AMD need a 1.7G chip out now, and a 1.9 very soon, and of this forum perhaps only you and a select few know what they'll really be battling with Northwood I guess.
-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details
Well then the bet is on... be rather interesting I suppose intel after releasing the northwood could slash the prices of the Willy, but would that be counterproductive to selling northwood's? Now of subject a little but can you tell me if the p4 Northwood gets back tha additional FPU that was lost when going from the p3 to the p4? Or is it mainly just the current p4 with additional l2 cache? Links?
Video editing?? Ha, I don't even own a camera!
Video editing?? Ha, I don't even own a camera!
Yeah rayy, why did you think they would release their brand new processors at cost lol, ALL NEW cpus cost more upon launch then they will in a few weeks, its how the buisness goes. Frankly I am very pleased that amd releases a processor which can (1800)_ kick the crap out of a p4 2ghz for half the price and even when its brand new is on par with 1.8ghz older p4 price.
~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
Guys, what happens 6 months down the line, when the Athlon XP product does not scale very well, and is not even competitive with the Intel product it claims to emulate? Either way, price is not an AMD advantage any more, and into the bargain the man in the street gets the feeling AMD is bullshitting him with this PR thing. Finally, how can anyone say the XP1800 is better than the 2 G P4, when even AMD don't think so? I've never known any company worth it's salt that sold it's top product short.
Matisaro put it very well. Even though the Palimino cost more that two times as much as a 1.4 Athlon, it is still a better deal than the P4s.
-Mike
-Mike
6 months down the line they release throughbred, giving them 6-8 more months of scaling, then they release dual chip on a single core hammer. Which I think will do very well, but its future talk.
As for the xp1800 beating the 2ghz p4, the benchmarks make it so. Amd chose the rating numbers VERY conervatively, to be sure no one can say, hey look at this videoediting app p4 runs better on it etc etc. I believe AMD is being very fair and honest in their rating system, calling a 1.53ghz palomino equal to a 1.8ghz p4 is a joke considering that a 1.4ghz tbird can equal the 1.8ghz p4. However, amd had to be very careful to avoid a backlash from people claiming they were overrating their processors.
~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
As for the xp1800 beating the 2ghz p4, the benchmarks make it so. Amd chose the rating numbers VERY conervatively, to be sure no one can say, hey look at this videoediting app p4 runs better on it etc etc. I believe AMD is being very fair and honest in their rating system, calling a 1.53ghz palomino equal to a 1.8ghz p4 is a joke considering that a 1.4ghz tbird can equal the 1.8ghz p4. However, amd had to be very careful to avoid a backlash from people claiming they were overrating their processors.
~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Apple debuts M4 processor in new iPad Pros with 38 TOPS on neural engine- Started by Admin
- Replies: 76
-
News Firefox user loses 7,470 opened tabs saved over two years after they can’t restore browsing session
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 58
-
News Intel issues official statement on Core K-series crashes: stick to Intel's official power profiles
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 31
-
Question Sapphire RX 5700 XT Nitro+ is not working in main PCIe slot ?
- Started by digows
- Replies: 25
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram