What I don't get is why the P4 is still so expensive even after the 0.13 micron shrink. You'd think that with the smaller die size the P4 would be around the same price as the AthlonXP but there's a huge difference between the best offerings of Intel and AMD.
P4 still expensive??
- Thread starter Corona999
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Belkin Wireless Router
Intel has a lot of marketing budget while AMD has a fraction of it, intel has at least 10 times more people to feed than AMD! And anyway, Intel P4 and selectede P-IIIS will be cut on prices on 14th April, you might want to wait for that since its expected to be a substantial cut.
<font color=red>Nothing is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
<font color=red>Nothing is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
Invariably less than their p4 counterparts.
It must be those evil anti intel resellers huh, always jacking intel prices and cutting amd prices to hurt those evil intel people huh.
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
It is more along the lines of retailers pushing up the price of Intel components because the brand name sells better. Retailers know they can get more money for Intel processors because they know people will pay for it.
-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. =
Which means what?
AMD chips still sell for cheaper than intel chips, blaming it on the retailers (even when intels per unit cost is already higher than amd's) dosent change that fact.
If intels per unit cost were the same as amds, and the retailers still inflated the cpu price, then perhaps there would be an argument as to the unfairness of it, but intel has always charged more, and the cosumer has always paid more for intel. So its a moot point.
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
I have already asked for someone to produce the current price per 1000 units from AMD. Until then, we have no information on who is cheaper from the manufacturer. At any rate, it is common knowledge that retailers mark up Intel products more due to the ability to sell on brand name recognition. I am really not interested on your thoughts on this subject Matisaro. Can someone provide a link to current manufacturer prices?
Thanks,
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Thanks,
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Fine, pure fact from me.
Sources.
<A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_756_3734^609,00.html" target="_new">http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_756_3734^609,00.html</A>
<A HREF="http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/" target="_new">http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/</A>
2.2ghz p4 562$
2100+ axp 420$
2ghz p4 364$
2000+ axp 339$
And so on and so forth.
1.8ghz and 1.6ghz p4 are not even listed.
1800+ 188$
1600+ 130$
PS: If you arent interested in my thoughts on a subject, dont try to counter my statements.
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
BTW ray, I find it interesting you make blanket statements about the price difference being due to retailers, when you didn't even know how much amd processors cost from the factory.
Just thought I would point that out.
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
Just thought I would point that out.
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
Here are the prices for the processors from both companies:
Pentium 4 2.2GHz: $562
Athlon XP 2100+: $420
Pentium 4 2.0A: $364
Athlon XP 2000+: $339
Pentium 4 1.9GHz: $241
Athlon XP 1900+: $231
Pentium 4 1.8A: $193
Athlon XP 1800+: $188
Pentium 4 1.7GHz: $163
Athlon XP 1700+: $157
Pentium 4 1.6A: $133
Athlon XP 1600+: $130
I really do not see how you can say "there's a huge difference between" Intel and AMD pricing. For the most part they are very near each other. At the high end where clockspeed and PR rating are not at parity there are differences in price. That is to be expected as they are at different performance levels and so will be at different prices.
It is pretty amazing what you can do with a $133 processor at the moment.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Pentium 4 2.2GHz: $562
Athlon XP 2100+: $420
Pentium 4 2.0A: $364
Athlon XP 2000+: $339
Pentium 4 1.9GHz: $241
Athlon XP 1900+: $231
Pentium 4 1.8A: $193
Athlon XP 1800+: $188
Pentium 4 1.7GHz: $163
Athlon XP 1700+: $157
Pentium 4 1.6A: $133
Athlon XP 1600+: $130
I really do not see how you can say "there's a huge difference between" Intel and AMD pricing. For the most part they are very near each other. At the high end where clockspeed and PR rating are not at parity there are differences in price. That is to be expected as they are at different performance levels and so will be at different prices.
It is pretty amazing what you can do with a $133 processor at the moment.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Do you even bother reading peoples posts before posting, data was already gathered.
And there is a huge price difference in lots of 1000, I would call 140$ quite a difference.
Regardless, you stated that the price differences were due to the retailers, which is not the case.
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
And there is a huge price difference in lots of 1000, I would call 140$ quite a difference.
Regardless, you stated that the price differences were due to the retailers, which is not the case.
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
My post was not in response to you. Your information is both misleading and unwanted. As I previously said, there never was any intention to put the athlon "2100" on pricing parity with the Pentium 4 2.2GHz. Since there is no Pentium 4 2.1GHz, there will be no pricing parity for the athlon 2100. Anyway, in the future please note to whom my reply is addressed.
-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. =
How was my pricing information misleading, thats the most ignorant statement I have ever heard you say, with the exception of the additional speed prices(1700-1900+ my info was written exactly the same way as yours.
You reposted the same data as me for no other reason than you did not bother to read the thread first, I challenge you to show me how my information was misleading.
As for the 2100+ being on pricing parity with the 2.2ghz, first off they are both the flagships, and they both offer neck and neck performance, how much more parity do you need?
The pr rating is a tbird measure, not a p4 measure, for the non northwood cores you should be comparing at a 100mhz disadvantage to be accurate as to performance.
(IE the 1600+ competes with the 1.7ghz p4) .
The assertions YOU made were misleading, not mine, I merely linked to prices, you compared prices and made a statement that the prices are similar.
if you think you can deny that the 1.7ghz p4 is in the same performance class as the axp1600+ think again, the northwood performs about the same pr/mhz, but NOT the willamette, given this new information(actually old, but you never can remember anything when people prove to you otherwise) the prices are indeed NOT in parity.
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
You reposted the same data as me for no other reason than you did not bother to read the thread first, I challenge you to show me how my information was misleading.
As for the 2100+ being on pricing parity with the 2.2ghz, first off they are both the flagships, and they both offer neck and neck performance, how much more parity do you need?
The pr rating is a tbird measure, not a p4 measure, for the non northwood cores you should be comparing at a 100mhz disadvantage to be accurate as to performance.
(IE the 1600+ competes with the 1.7ghz p4) .
The assertions YOU made were misleading, not mine, I merely linked to prices, you compared prices and made a statement that the prices are similar.
if you think you can deny that the 1.7ghz p4 is in the same performance class as the axp1600+ think again, the northwood performs about the same pr/mhz, but NOT the willamette, given this new information(actually old, but you never can remember anything when people prove to you otherwise) the prices are indeed NOT in parity.
I dont care who you reply to, when you repost information I already posted, and then make claims on such in a public forum, you will recieve my counter if I see fit to correct you.
You asked for selling prices of the axp, I got them, I merely posted links to price. Run along ray, you are wrong in your assertions and your attack of my post for no reason is laughable, misleading information , lol, price quotes with links is misleading, sure.
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
PS: linkage to your 1.6a and 1.8a price quotes, as you can see from the EVIDENCE I linked to, they are NOT listed on intels website, so where did you get the price quotes from?
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
Again.. unwanted arguments... I was not originally talking to you. As far as the prices for the 1.6A and 1.8A, they are exactly the same as the Wilamettes. As far as your PR ratings and benchmark games, I could really care less. The processors are sold in the market using clockspeed and PR for parity. If you do not like that, complain to the marketing and sales departments, not me. I really have no interest in talking to you.
-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. =
Then dont counter my points with incorrect information. If the 1.6a and 1.8a are the same price, how come the 2ghzA and the 2ghz willamette are priced differently and listed seperatly.
So please I insist instead of "extrapolating" price why dont you find the real prices, or like I did, remove those from comparison due to lack of info.
If the 1.6a is selling for 130, how come it is retailing higher than the lot1000 price, where NO other cpu is selling higher than lot1000? Could it be, that the 1.6 a, like the 2ghz a is selling for more than the willamette price? No?
As for my pr rating comments, do you deny the benchmarks? The pr rating is NOT a p4 comparison, and if you are forced to make that the comparison to justify your position, perhaps you should try not to be suckered by amds marketing lol.
FACT~ Whether you compare pr/mhz or performance/performance intel chips cost more than amd chips in lots of 1000.
FACT~ You have not listed any proof of your claim to the price of the 1.6 and 1.8a, and since the 2ghz willamette both cost less and is listed seperatly, your assertion that the 1.6a and 1.8a are priced the same as the willamette is WRONG/UNPROVEN.
FACT~ you continue to claim you are uninsterested in debating this with me, but continue to counter my points (incorrectly I may add). Dont expect to make statements, and think that by saying "i dont want to discuss it with you matisaro" you make me look like the bad guy for replying.
FACT~ you claimed that price differences between intel cpus and amd cpus are caused by the retailers, which is WRONG.
You made a public statement, which I feel, and can demonstrate to be wrong, either shut up and accept you have been proven wrong, or reply in kind. Dont join a discussion and purport to ignore the other parties counterpoints, it just makes you look childish.
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
This is the reason why I have no desire to hold a conversation with you. You are derogatory, inflammatory, and incite negativity. In these regards your statements are no better than those of the other trolls. When I see improvement in the demeanor of your posts I will reevaluate my position. Until then, consider diplomatic relations suspended. I will avoid responding to you.
This decision has a large amount to do with how you treated slvr_phoenix, myself, and many others. I am simply not going to be drawn into your hateful posts any longer. Good day.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Good day as well. My inflamitory comments to you, were in reply to your claim my post was misleading and incorrect, when it was merely a link to facts.
I for one do not care if you do not reply to my posts, you have shown on many occasions that you will start a debate, and then dissapear when evidence you are incorrect appears, your posts constantly either hype intel or degrade amd, and when called upon to justify your statements, you do not, or act as if the person who is chanllenging your post is flaming or is in some way lying/wrong.
So I for one will be glad when you stop replying to my points with counterpoints which are incorrect, but do not expect me to ignore your falsehoods/mistakes.
So indeed, have a good day ray, and please dont think I am hurt you officially are ignoring my posts, because anytime I post anything which counterdicts the word of rayy, you ignore it anyways. And not just posts from me either.
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Nintendo obliterates 8,535 Yuzu repos — Nintendo's most effective DMCA takedown campaign in years- Started by Admin
- Replies: 30
-
Question I don't know how to connect front panel connectors to motherboard.
- Started by josh44361431577
- Replies: 2
-
-
News AMD's gaming revenue nosedives 48%, not expected to recover until 2025
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram