Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Palomino out!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2001 7:00:44 PM

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??

More about : palomino

October 2, 2001 10:13:05 PM

Sick, they're charging an extra $150 for the CPU. What the hell is up with that?

-SammyBoy
Related resources
October 2, 2001 10:25:09 PM

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. =
October 2, 2001 10:40:20 PM

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.
October 2, 2001 10:52:52 PM

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. =
October 2, 2001 11:09:37 PM

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>
October 2, 2001 11:16:54 PM

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.
October 2, 2001 11:38:56 PM

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. =
October 2, 2001 11:50:13 PM

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. =
October 3, 2001 12:43:19 AM

Eh? Methinks you're babbling conspiracy theories Ray :D 

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 :p 

"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
October 3, 2001 1:11:25 AM

"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. =
October 3, 2001 1:21:04 AM

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."
October 3, 2001 1:29:23 AM

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
October 3, 2001 1:41:59 AM

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. =
October 3, 2001 2:45:22 AM

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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

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!
October 3, 2001 2:52:06 AM

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
October 3, 2001 2:58:45 AM

"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. =
October 3, 2001 3:10:16 AM

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
October 3, 2001 4:02:55 AM

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!
October 3, 2001 11:02:36 AM

LoL ray, the xp 1800 JUST CAME OUT

THE 1.8GHZ P4 COST 600 BUCKS WHEN IT CAME OUT.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
October 3, 2001 11:05:51 AM

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~
October 3, 2001 12:53:32 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2001 2:14:01 PM

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
October 3, 2001 2:36:42 PM

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~
October 3, 2001 3:53:08 PM

Well, regardless of the shady marketing terms (which is standard in tech business), we really don't know how the XP will do. Yes, the MP shows a good boost over an equivelently clocked T-Bird, but I also seem to remember a review of the KT266A that mentioned that the boost shrinks dramatically when the MP was placed in a KT266A board... or maybe it was the nForce.... Anyway, the point being is that we don't know what criteria AMD used for their PR. Maybe they are being conservative, maybe not. But, we do know that this makes things all the more interesting.

My other thought, relating to this a little. Now, I'm almost positive that Microsoft would cling to the XP name, and probably have trademarked it. So, does that mean that Microsoft has given a sort of blessing to AMD, since they are using the XP name?

-SammyBoy
October 3, 2001 4:17:15 PM

~ 6 months down the line they release throughbred, giving them 6-8 more months of scaling ~

Don't forget SOI, IBM are raving about the improvements they have seen with it. They should be able to reach 3.5Ghz easy.

<font color=blue> Smoke me a Chip'er ... I'll be back in the Morgan </font color=blue> :eek: 
October 3, 2001 5:22:25 PM

It was nForce that crippled the gain on the XP (MP tested) since it was assumed that the dual channel and memory controller negated the effect of the prefetch. The KT266A did very nicely with the MP chip, and I would guess unless nVidia have more to offer with their drivers, or someone like ASUS squeeze the most out of the chipset, the KT266A will be the board of choice for XP for the time being.

-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details
October 3, 2001 5:39:40 PM

Agreed, I'd rather buy a KT266a than an nForce at the moment. Let's just hope nVidia releases sound cards, since that's the only redeeming feature of the nForce.

Ray, all I say is let's wait for more than a few vendors to list prices. They should be quite a bit lower. None of the ones I've seen list so far are ones that I would buy from. It looks like you're right, but it's too early to tell.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 3, 2001 5:47:35 PM

Actually, the nforce didnt cripple anything, it has built in prefetch which neither hindered nor helped the MP. Both boards perform pretty close to eachother, and the nforce performs better than the kt266a when an origional tbird is used.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
October 3, 2001 6:21:11 PM

That's what he's saying. The Palamino doesn't perform better much than the Tbird on the nForce, because prefetch is already being used.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 3, 2001 7:07:29 PM

The only redeeming factor? Sheesh, I guess coming in at a close second in the top performance race relegates a product to scorn and dismissal, eh?

Especially when that product seems to be targeted at the budget crowd and not the performance crowd :p 

I think the Nforce is a fine performer, and looks to be the perfect integrated AMD solution. I'd probably buy the kt266a over the current nforce board, but give Nvidia a vew revisions and I think their chipset will be blazing a new path.

"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
October 3, 2001 9:33:17 PM

Well, while it has integrated features, I think that nVidia was of the performance crown mindset. I think that the PCB has to be 6 layers, which means that the motherboards will be pricier, and the on-board sound is actually a very robust, and not cheap, system. I tend to believe that the nForce, at least right now, was meant for performance, not price.

-SammyBoy
October 3, 2001 10:46:18 PM

Well, when you hype a product for months on end (or the consumers hype it for you, I suppose), and then suddenly they realize that a Via chipset with better performance will be out before it is, and that the graphics suck major donkey tail, then the only redeeming value is the sound. Unless it proves stable, of course.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 3, 2001 11:14:08 PM

The review I went with said the nForce has comparable performance to the kt266a, whilst the kt266a is not significantly higher it takes ~ 3% on some benches over the nForce - so it is the nForce that is marginally behind the kt266a, not the other way around.

This is still a good result - just not the best. Not yet at any rate.

-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details
October 4, 2001 12:14:30 AM

"can you tell me if the p4 Northwood gets back tha additional FPU"

I cannot legally say much there since this information is not public...


Just for kicks I looked up the prices for these processors straight from the manufacturer (in lots of 1000):

Pentium 4 1800MHz = $256
Athlon XP 1530MHz (PR1800) = $210
Pentium 4 1700MHz = $193

It seems competitively priced based on the PR rating.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
October 4, 2001 2:53:08 AM

Rayyston thats bs dude, there is a 37 dollar difference and even less on the lower end, come on man, what do you want them to release it at, higher than the 1.8 and you would say they were taking advantage of the pr, lower you claim they are undercutting with the pr. All of your comments on amds pricing have been baseless man. The processor had to be released at a price, and the price had to be higher than current chip prices. AMD did not say, lets release it at 43 bucks less than the 1.8ghz p4!!!!
No, if intel can be allowed to price its chips independantly like you say, so can AMD. Saying anything different on either side is merely supposition and guesswork.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
October 4, 2001 7:45:17 AM

You are off by about... 24 hours. See the other post regarding PriceWatch removing the listings. Try not to throw insults around without knowing the truth.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
October 4, 2001 2:06:18 PM

Four exclamation marks is a sure sign of someone who wears their underpants on their head.
October 4, 2001 3:12:38 PM

The graphics suck major donkey tail? I'm sorry bud, but the Nforce integrated graphics kick the absolute [-peep-] out of any other integrated graphics solution. A 333 DDR version would probably help improve performance quite a bit(which I'm sure we'll see soon). Unfortunately all nForce reviews pitted the integrated Geforce2 MX against AGP cards, and I have yet to see one pitting it against the actual integrated competition.

The enthusiast crowd will have no need of the integrated video.... until the next revision when we will be able to use BOTH the onboard video AND an AGP card at the same time. It's like getting a dual head card without the dual head :D 

So while this first chipset is not perfect by any means, I'd say it has a hell of a lot going for it. AND it performs within 3% of the kt266a anyway, which I think amazed us all with its nearly unbelievable scores. VIA has made an incredible product this time, and the only company you have to thank is Nvidia for lighting a major fire under their ass. If not for the Nforce, VIA would still be planning to continue shoveling their crappy kt266 boards down our throats ;) 

"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
October 4, 2001 3:24:45 PM

Quote:
the Nforce integrated graphics kick the absolute [-peep-] out of any other integrated graphics solution.


Very true. And do you use integrated video? Then why do you care?

Quote:
until the next revision when we will be able to use BOTH the onboard video AND an AGP card at the same time.


Agreed, that will be nice. But why do they have to wait until the second revision to give us something that will actually be worth buying? (Graphics-wise)

Quote:
VIA has made an incredible product this time, and the only company you have to thank is Nvidia for lighting a major fire under their ass. If not for the Nforce, VIA would still be planning to continue shoveling their crappy kt266 boards down our throats ;) 


And did the nForce prompt Via to put out the KT133a? I have that chipset, and my SDRAM scores are equal or better than many people's AMD 761 scores with DDR (memory benchmarks in Sandra). Is the KT266/KT266a really any different than the KT133/KT133a? I think not. Granted, the KT133 didn't work as well as it was supposed to (didn't actually work with a 133 bus), but Via is merely producing a quick, poor product, then a later, good product (speed only, not talking about stability here).

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 4, 2001 3:54:45 PM

Quote:

And did the nForce prompt Via to put out the KT133a? I have that chipset, and my SDRAM scores are equal or better than many people's AMD 761 scores with DDR (memory benchmarks in Sandra). Is the KT266/KT266a really any different than the KT133/KT133a? I think not. Granted, the KT133 didn't work as well as it was supposed to (didn't actually work with a 133 bus), but Via is merely producing a quick, poor product, then a later, good product (speed only, not talking about stability here).

Actually, I can explain that one very easily. AMD prompted VIA to put that one out. When VIA put out the kt133 chipset, they artificially crippled the chipset to ensure that it would not be able to reach 133fsb since there were no 133/266fsb AMD processors and they believed AMD did not wish people to be able to push up the bus speed that high. I forget the logic behind it, but it was pretty stupid. Once AMD had their 266fsb processors, VIA patched up their chipset and released the kt133a. Basically they screwed everyone with a kt133 chipset, such as myself. They were not releasing a better product out of the goodness of their heart or any kind of attempts at a performance crown, they were simply producing what they SHOULD have released the first time around. Your argument is flawed :D 

"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
October 5, 2001 12:30:14 AM

I personally want nforce for the AWESOME sound system built in, the integrated graphics are getting disabled in favor of my gf3 or radeon8500.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
October 5, 2001 4:32:14 PM

Exactly, and that seems to be people's opinion. I don't want to spend that much for a good sound card and good memory performance (that can be gotten elsewhere).

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 5, 2001 4:57:21 PM

How much is too much? The nforce boards will most likely cost about 10 bucks more than kt266a counterparts, for this 10 bucks you get a acceptable integrated graphics solution and a better sound system than ANYTHING available for the pc at this time. Plus very good memory performance to boot. I dont see any reason not to get an nforce board seeing as the savings of a soundcard alone is enough to make up for any price difference between it and kt266a, or even sis736 if the sound card is expensive enough.(IE audiology or whatnot.)

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
October 5, 2001 5:35:20 PM

If the nForce is a decent price compared to KT266a, then it's definitely a good option. But I'm not sure if that'll happen.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 10, 2001 10:17:20 PM

$221 - Athlon XP 1800
$244 - Pentium 4 1.8GHz

Your making this to easy.

Video editing?? Ha, I don't even own a camera!
October 10, 2001 11:19:30 PM

That is competitively priced. It is still within a range of about $20. So far I am winning the bet... ;) 

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
!