Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd's Price Performance Ratio

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 11, 2001 11:44:33 PM

This one is for you Raystonn. I've been reading your post as of the XP release. And you made some very good points. But One thing you forget is that not everyone lives in the United States!

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 Breakdown Canadian Prices:

Intel Pentium 4 - 1.4-GHz (Socket 423) (OEM)$234.99
Vs
Amd Athlon - 1.4-Ghz (Socket 462) (OEM)$195
(shocked)(shocked)(shocked) Amd 1 point

Intel Pentium 4 - 1.5-GHz (Socket 423) (OEM)$244.99
Vs
AMD Athlon XP 1500+ @ 1.33-GHz (Socket A) (OEM)$214.99
2nd point AMD

Intel Pentium 4 - 1.6-GHz (Socket 423) (OEM)$299.99
Vs
AMD Athlon XP 1600+ - 1.4GHz (Socket A) (OEM)$274.99
3rd point AMD

Intel Pentium 4 - 1.7-GHz (Socket 423) (OEM)$344.99
Vs
AMD Athlon XP 1700+ @ 1.47-GHz (Socket A) (OEM)$314.99
4th point AMD

Intel Pentium 4 - 1.8-GHz (Socket 423) (OEM)$444.99
Vs
AMD Athlon XP 1800+ @ 1.53-GHz (Socket A)$399.99
Match,set,Game AMD!

Now i'll just throw in the other 2 pentium 4 cpu's for a reference. But we all know that a XP 1800 on a KT266A will outperform a P4 2 Ghz. And please don't tell me nothing about the next p4 since it isn't out yet!

Intel Pentium 4 - 1.9-GHz (Socket 478) (OEM) $644.99

Intel Pentium 4 - 2.0-GHz (Socket 478) (OEM) w/ Heat Sink & Fan $964.99

So your telling me Amd's price ratio is gonna get worst I think not.

These Cpu's aren't even out a Week! Would you like to compare these prices to intel's when there flagship Cpu's were only out a week. That would be a more fair in my eyes!
October 11, 2001 11:50:26 PM

Figure this into your price/performace and you lost bigtime.

Amps x volts (115 or 230 volts) = watts x hours per day of operation ÷ 1000 x cost per kilowatt hour.

.11 cents per Kw/h in california.

Add more fans please =)
October 11, 2001 11:53:37 PM

I love it when trolls know they're beaten, so they desperately try to change the subject :) 

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
Related resources
October 11, 2001 11:58:25 PM

You should note that these prices are very close to each other. Most are within about $30-40 Canadian. Just about every one of these shows that AMD's processors are now priced competitively with the Pentium 4 based on PR rating. Now let us compare prices based on clockspeed instead, which is how the prices used to match up:

(Your Canadian prices)
Intel Pentium 4 1.4GHz (Socket 423) (OEM)$234.99
AMD Athlon XP 1.4GHz (Socket A) (OEM)$274.99


They no longer have the same price/performance ratio as they once did when you ignore the PR rating marketing game.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
October 12, 2001 12:07:09 AM

No one has been beaten, your just a lemming at work.

I didnt change subject, I merely added cost of operation into the equation. AMD being on the excessive side for power consumption. =) I win!
October 12, 2001 12:08:57 AM

I love the PR rating, Lemmings paying more for the same piece o crap!
October 12, 2001 12:14:15 AM

You seems to missed what I said at the end of the post!
can u get me the prices of the P4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 when they first came out and compare them to Amd's prices!

The P4's have had many prices drops
the XP's Have not!
October 12, 2001 12:26:44 AM

You seem to have made the fundamental error of asking trolls for help...

And Raystonn, your stance on this issus seems to be quite biased, even for you. I would expect this attitude out of FUGGER or Meltodown...Please reevaluate your statement about the Athlon XP 1600+ and the P4 1.4 GHz, We both know which processot is faster (Especially both with SDRAM...).
I think that this is a real test to see if you're as fair as you say you are. Just because you work for Intel doesn't stop you from at least recognizing AMD's PR system as appropriate, even humble.

"If you teach a child to read, then he or her will be able to pass a literacy test" - George W.
October 12, 2001 12:36:02 AM

I think you ought to review the power supply requirements for a P4 CPU before you Talk about power consumption... After all.. It requires a special 12V connection, and generally just a beefier PSU to operate.

--Fltsimbuff
October 12, 2001 12:36:25 AM

RayDude I agree with you. Those prices are not different enough to cause anyone to buy one over the other.

Ray I disagree that it is fair to compare clock per clock because AMD does get more work done per clock tick. I also admire AMD for being conservative on their "model numbers". From what I'm reading the 1800 could have been called a 2000.

I agree with Fugger. You gotta look at the whole picture and AMD sucks juice. A quick look at the notebook market will tell you who makes the best low power cpus.

I also disagree you you FugDude. It seems fair to me that AMD uses PR ratings so long as they are beating Intel per clock.

Lastly BurgerDude 39 and you suck! I don't need you to tell me when I ain't got nothin to say. What really pisses me off is when you are right. Fortunately it don't happen too often :-)

Remember if you ain't Muslim you ain't Shiite.
October 12, 2001 12:53:14 AM

"about the Athlon XP 1600+ and the P4 1.4 GHz, We both know which processot is faster"

Do we? I am quite sure everyone can pick out an application that will run faster on the Athlon and another that will run faster on the Pentium 4. If we are to compare, we should qualify at exactly what it is they are expected to be faster. Performance can only be defined by the person who is going to use the processor. Unless a processor is faster at <b>everything</b>, you must provide a context in which it will be used to ascertain its 'perceived' performance.

However, the purpose of my last post was more to illustrate the loss in price/performance ratio when purchasing one of AMD's new processors. AMD customers have for some time claimed that Athlon processors, on a clock-per-clock basic, are faster than the Pentium 4. They also enjoyed much lower prices when comparing processors of equal clockspeed. Thus, they got what they perceived as better performance and at a much lower price. Now, when purchasing the newer Athlon XP processors, they continue to get what they perceive as better clock-per-clock performance, but the price is much higher than an equally clocked Pentium 4. This increases the 'price' portion of the price/performance ratio.

Can you see how the price/performance ratio is no longer as good for the newer AMD products as they were for the T-Birds? This was not a comparison between Intel and AMD processors. It is a comparison between the price/performance ratios of Athlon XP processors and Athlon processors.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
October 12, 2001 1:54:38 AM

I Agree with you that certain appz favour certain processors. In reality though Athlon is still faster in most appz than a P4 of the same speed and some hundred mhz faster. This is well proven!
October 12, 2001 2:22:40 AM

Sweet mother of Jupiter and her son Io! Would you guys knock it off?!

As far as this price performance argument, look at the friggin' economic downturn that's been plaguing the industry for so long now!!! AMD Thunderbird processors are dirt cheap! They're so cheap it's hard to distinguish them from the 'budget' line prices.... AMD had no idea they'd be dumping chips this cheap into the market.... otherwise they woulda snapped up Microsoft's original offer of powering the X-box with an AMD processor. It's really too bad that Intel weaseled their way into the X-box deal ;) 

I will grant you the one point Raystonn, but it's not even a very big one - The current price/performance ratio of the Athlon XP line is not quite as good as the current price/performance ratio of the Thunderbird line. There, are you happy? This is only to be expected, for obvious reasons involving things like "new products, new cores, new packaging" etc.

You should be comparing the introductory price/performance of AMD processors with the introductory price/performance of Intel processors, NOT with long established processors whose prices are 1/3 to 1/4 of what they were. Or you could compare these introductory prices with the introductory prices of the 1.33's or 1.4 upon release(1.4 was well past the 250 mark, no?) Damn I'm getting tired of saying 'introductory'. At least AMD's new processors are feasible buys right off the bat, whereas Intel processors are FAR too expensive to purchase right at release.

"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
October 12, 2001 3:15:34 AM

Actually, a P4 2.0GHz consumes about 75W of power.

A T-bird 1.4GHz consumes about 73W. The Athlon XP probably consumes even less.

Oops, there went your "lower power consumption" theory...

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
October 12, 2001 3:25:20 AM

I totally agree with you be Raystonn seems to be blinded from that Fact!
October 12, 2001 3:27:57 AM

I am no troll, im a customer and currently the XP is superior its just that easy. Why do people have to argue over that. Sure maybe 6 months from it may not be. Dont start flaming because you feel a little bitter about paying so much for a inferior product. Yes the p4 is inferior. It is about 1 year old (thats old in the pc world). Im not trolling i own 2 p2 machines,1 athlon machine and i plan on building an XP machine. Whats the big deal with amd having superior product. So whats the new Intel zelots battle cry "THEY HAVE A RATING SYSTEM AND THEY SUCK" or "THEY HEAT UP 2 FAST BETTER BUY MORE FANS". I have yet to buy extra fans. I still use the one that came with my case. Maybe soon amd zelots will bite the dust but until then AMD are champs in my book.
October 12, 2001 4:03:22 AM

AMD's pr system is not based on p4 performance, but on tbird performance according to amd.

(see my thread about 3 pages in)

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
October 12, 2001 4:07:25 AM

Rayy, I will give you that point as well, the price/performance of the athlon xp is not as good as the price/performance of the tbird.

Consider this however.

The price/performance of the p4@2ghz is not as good as the price/performance of a p4@1.8ghz....given this, what is your point ray? That new chips have lower p/p ratios than older ones? Umm we knew this.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
October 12, 2001 5:12:58 PM

Quote:
No one has been beaten, your just a lemming at work.


Oops. For someone who supposedly works for SGI, you didn't know a P4 takes more power? Looks like you were beaten.

Lemming...Hmm...that would imply
A) I follow the crowd blindly
B) I'm fiercely loyal to AMD

Like I've said many times, I think Northwood will be better than Palomino. My stance hasn't changed. That kind of blows a hole in your theory, eh?

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
!