GeFX canned?

I'm pretty close to Althornin, too. The P4 prices in the low-mid range have a serious bottom under them (namely Celeron...hmm...perhaps I should have said "a serious ass under them"?), while the AXP prices just go into freefall. From a price/performance standpoint this is really screwed up, because the lower clocked P4s are all 400 MHz FSB, while down in the high teens the Quantispeed ratings really meant something. (After all: 1400+ was extremely conservatively rated, and the daft 66 MHz = 100+ formula distorts more the higher the rating goes.)

The P4 starts becoming a good value when the 533 MHz FSB kicks in, for one thing because as per Intel policy, the FSB increase doesn't change the list price at all (i.e. 2.4 GHz P4 costs the same as 2.4B; street price there's like a $5 difference). Meanwhile, the performance value of a Quantispeed point continues to plummet, just as the prices get closer to parity. As I noted before, street prices reach parity at 2600+ (interpolated between 2.53 and 2.66 GHz P4s) and stay there all the way on up. (Including the new 3000+ Barton, which is actually showing on pricewatch! Reading Anand's review now, maybe if I feel masochistic I'll post on it...tomorrow.)

Meanwhile, performance "crossover"--i.e. when 1 AXP point actually equals 1 P4 MHz--probably occurs around 2400 when the P4 is on 400 MHz FSB, and would occur around 2000 for 533 MHz FSB (of course the directly comparable chips don't exist, unless you can get an unlocked (engineering sample) P4).

To sum up: the AXP would appear to have a very large price/performance lead up through 2200 (+/MHz), and the P4 has a large price/performance lead from around 2600 (+/MHz) onwards. The AXP price/performance sweetspot is 1800+ to 2100+, while the P4 price/performance sweetspot is 2.4 GHz (533 FSB) to 2.66 GHz.

Given how different the two IHV's price/performance curves are, it seems safe to say that those price/performance sweetspots very closely mirror speed bin sweetspots at the fabs.

 

you can thank DaveH and I for taking this thread waaaaay off topic

 

By the way, there are many reviews ouy for the AMD Barton 3000+ today.... and I think we can safely say it's "competitive" with the Intel offering..... It's just too expensive.

O/T again..... until the "truth" on thr GFFX Ultra make an appearence!

 

And I actually really liked this thread before that happened!

Therefore I propose that all continuations of the "AMD is for suckers" "no you're a sucker and a poopyhead" sort be moved over to this thread in the Hardware forum which I just started for that express purpose! (I mean I claim that it's about the Barton launch, but...it's really for that express purpose. Unless you're done in which case, I'm done. )

And now to try to put this thread back on track:

Hey, is it just me or does this GFfx Ultra cancellation remind anyone else of that one time when like 3dfx cancelled their goofy high-end card um the what's it called like the Voodoo6 9000 or something? It reminds me, because if you look carefully, both cards have the letters "f x" in the name, woah.

8)

 

In many cases, the solution can be a no-brainer, IF you do some research on the subject, and you stay away from fanboism.

AFAIC, in September of last year, the choice was too obvious. The best bang-for-the-buck, so to speak, was clearly the P4 1.8A Northwood, which was being reported by many to be easily oc'able to 2.4Ghz and beyond, if, and ONLY if, coupled with the right DDRAM. Mine hit 2.8Ghz in no time, with STOCK Intel air cooling. My setup is still on top of the game to this day, almost 6 months later. I paid $140 for it.

Regards.

 

Livecoma...you are too funny man (there has been no price wars in the last two years) Intel lowered their prices for you because they thought you were good little lad..

 

I love reading these things. In fact, I'm anxiously awaiting whatever Brian Burke has to say on this matter

What a load of BS! I mean, how the heck do these guys sleep at night, knowing full well they're...

A. Telling either half the truth, or telling half a lie. Take your pick.
B. The fact that anybody with a clue knows they're BS'ing!

What's even more telling is the fact that they're using the same basic board design for the non-Ultra part. So, despite the fact that this product doesn't require the FlowFX (is 100 MHz. less), it still takes up that additional PCI slot?

It sounds to me like the whole Ultra deal is forcing them to basically keep everything "as is" and simply plop in a 400 MHz. part, minus the dustbuster. In other words, there never was any concept of a "limited run"...They're probably using the same board design because of the fact that it's so late in the game.

 

You think they could have at least been able to get the board down to 10 layers and put a relatively normal cooling solution on the product...sheesh

I think I'll be keeping my trusty 8500LE til DoomIII hits.

 

Such a thought provoking argument you provide. As of this posting I take back every view I offered that differs from yours.

Don't you get it? There haven't been any price wars in 2 years because PCs have not been in demand for around that time. Not because AMD regulates the CPU industry. They linger as a small part of the technology community so they have a small effect on things.

I'm not trying to knock your precious underdog or takeover your overwhelming sense of moral high ground.

 

Dave H wrote

The 850E uses dual channel PC800 RAMBUS and so that is 3.2GB/sec bandwidth in comparision to the i845PE which has 2.7Gb /sec. The 845PE is not considerably faster, it is slower.

I'm not sure why Anand did not use two memory sticks with the nforce2 thus giving 5.4GB /sec at 166 fsb ( in theory ). Seems a strange decision, he might as well have used a KT333 chipset.

 

Because they are getting paid lots of $$$$$$.

 

Uhm, the Barton 3000+ is equal in price to a 3.06ghz P4, and Intel should have springdale/canterwood out soon to beat in performance as well.

So I guess you wont be buying AMD either? Seeing as how they are just plain overpriced?

 

Livecome I believe you live in a different reality to everyone else. There was a massive boom in PC sales around 2000 for a start.

There was also a big race to reach 1GHz which AMD managed to win by the skin of her teeth.

AMD previously only had tier 3 motherboard support with the K6-2 but with the Athlon AMD chipset and motherboard support is expansive to say the least.

AMD may not be doing so well in the US but in Europe at least AMD is seen as the only sensible choice by many retailers.

Intel processor prices have fallen considerably since the release of the Athlon. Coincidence? Not a chance. Even now the Pentium 4 3.06GHz is less expensive than the top of the range processor Intel offered in the Pentium II days. Even now Intel has some very attractive options for resellers to keep Pentium 4 prices at what they set them at. AMD have no such luxury and is one of the reasons why there is such a disparity in Official prices and street prices with the Athlon processors. AMD's only way to change this is to offer resellers the same options Intel offers its resellers and OEM's.

The only reason the Pentium 4 3.06GHz seems to be holding its price is because at the moment no competitor (read AMD) has anything to rattle its position as the performance leader in clockspeed and real world performance.

Intel, when the Athlon was doing much better in performance compared to the Intel offerings (roughly when the Thunderbirds were at 1.4GHz and Intel only had the Pentium 4 1.4GHz/1.6GHz), controlled the price war. AMD would cut prices and Intel would follow.

Right now I do not believe Intel will give AMD an opening like that again and even with the Hammer AMD's days are numbered.

 

I certainly hope not--if that happens we will all descend back into that black quagmire we climbed out of when the Athlon shipped, of getting our cpus spoon-fed to us in 50MHz dollops, the PV, PVI,PVII, ect, ad infinitum. Intel will also slowly recondition us to forking out $1.2K for the "fastest" cpus it sells (which will be 50MHz "faster.") Golly, I can hardly wait--which is probably why I'm going to shell out some bucks for a Barton in a week or two. I hope the competition is alive and well for the next 20 years +.

 

Did you even read everything I said Tahir?

 

Yes, and I spelt your nick wrong, I apologise.

 

LOL Thank you for correcting your misspelling, but I was talking about my perspective on the CPU price wars of a couple years before... You said a made a few statements similar to a few I made myself, just that you used them to argue a different point.


I will just agree to disagree with ya’ll this time. I am tired of debating this subject today…

 

Fanatics are all the same, with mistaken allegence to a company that only is interested in profit., be it ATI, nVidia, Intel or AMD. It's only through real competition that we, as consumers, are protected from the greed of these companies. IF AMD dies, then we are all poorer (pun intended). It's in our own best interest that they all are healthy. If not for the Athlon, we'd all be paying $1000.00 for a 600MHz Pentium 3.

Edit: spelling....again!

 

i agree . Thats why it be nice for ati to take the high end for awhile and go back into the black and nvidia to take over for a bit after that. Then out of no where powervr comes along and just destorys everything

 

I think one of the cool things about the R300 saga is that nobody expected it... I know I didn't! What an advantage that gave ATI from a PR standpoint. Nobody had any preconceived notions about it--bam--like lightning it strikes and the whole of 3D chipdom is turned on its ear....*chuckle*....They'll never have that advantage again... (But it was fun to watch.)