Venice delayed but for how long?

Sentential · Feb 1, 2005

2 Interconnects eh? That should be interesting. PM me if you find a pre-order for either venice or sandiego. Im in a position to buy.....RIGHT now if need be.

kouch · Feb 1, 2005

Sentential said:
2 Interconnects eh? That should be interesting. PM me if you find a pre-order for either venice or sandiego. Im in a position to buy.....RIGHT now if need be.

you will never stop being the "tester" (read lab rat) will you sen? :beer:

Hats off to the pioneers :santa:

Overclocker550 · Feb 1, 2005

If Venice has two extra copper connects, why is amd clocking em so low? They have winchesters for that, I thought they would only start Venice at 2.6GHz. Good for us, bad for amd. Unless AMD prices Venice very high, even the 3000+ I can see no one bothering to buy winchesters anymore except those who dont overclock or have no real computer knowlege. Well if Venice doesnt have strained silcon, it might not be an overclocking champ, maybe a tiny bit better than winchester, no one knows currently.

"you will never stop being the "tester" (read lab rat) will you sen? Hats off to the pioneers"

ill let you test out venice before I decide if I should get one now or wait. you gonna get a 3200 or even a 3500 venice? maybe youll go san diago and grab a 3700+ one(2.2GHz, 1m cache) whats your $$$$$ limit? $300? $400?

TimoneX · Feb 1, 2005

They're replacing winchester with venice. It's not cost effective to produce both and since there'll still be demand for a low end part(3000+) it'll have to be venice.

OC Detective · Feb 1, 2005

Something most of us have been saying all along (Winnies replaced by venice) but OC550 wouldnt listen.
As c627627 points out its supply/demand just because a cpu is capable of better clocks does not mean they wont supply them!
Oh and OC550 its not new news about the extra two layers if you had been following most of the related threads and as for the launch speeds they have ALWAYS been subject to speculation as c627627 would admit.........

Overclocker550 · Feb 1, 2005

Does Venice cost amd alot more than winchester to produce? If so, then its not just demand for lower end cpus, its cheaper for amd to have two lines, winchesters and venice. However if Venice costs just a few percent more, amd might as well make em all Venice but they will not make any money on the 3000+ that 75% of people would buy, many to overclock. the 3200+ will make amd a little, its the san diagos mostly and the highest 3800+ venice that will be amd's real profit.

OC Detective · Feb 1, 2005

I have already told you the answer to the question of costs before - I guess you choose not to take in the words I wrote.... A cpu does NOT COST $150 to make and there is minimal oncost in the Venice v Winchester! Typically breakeven is under $100 asp so AMD makes money on any Venice. After all think about it logically they still make Semprons dont they and they cost under $100 - also mobiles bartons cost less than $100 as well!

TimoneX · Feb 1, 2005

Additionally I think you're underestimating the cost and confusion associated with having more product lines OC550. Even if a venice core does cost AMD a bit more to produce than a winchester the cost of maintaining two seperate lines for the same socket and target market is higher than you're implying and will serve to add more confusion for their customers.

hi_its_ryan · Feb 1, 2005

oh well, the new dfi board is on zipzoomfly, time to get that, a pci-express card and a winchester and tear it up!

Overclocker550 · Feb 2, 2005

thanks for explaining it all. so do you think Venice will cost what winchester used to be once they come out? Like if a 3000+ winchester will cost $139 in 4 months, can we expect a 3000+ venice to be the same?

OC Detective · Feb 2, 2005

The pricing of the Venice v Winchester is to a large part outwith AMD's control if supply is limited as it well might be given your time frame of 4 months.
Therefore the main driver of price will be the supply/demand mechanism.
Basically what I am saying is as supply will initially be limited you can expect to pay a higher price - just like what you have to do with say the 3500+ 90nm compared to the 130nm. (even though AMD sell it to the retailer for the same price the end user pays more at present).
This pricing will stabilise once they become more available.

c627627 · Feb 2, 2005

They are identical chips as far as the vast, vast majority of the market is concerned. Overclockers are a tiny insignificant minority who would even care wheteher it's a 3000+ Winchester or Venice, whether it's a 1700+ Palomino or a 1700+ T-Bred B for that matter, etc....

warlock110 · Feb 2, 2005

c627627 said:
They are identical chips as far as the vast, vast majority of the market is concerned. Overclockers are a tiny insignificant minority who would even care wheteher it's a 3000+ Winchester or Venice, whether it's a 1700+ Palomino or a 1700+ T-Bred B for that matter, etc....

this is what i think too, when venice comes out the price for the 3000+ will still be around 150 or lower, now if they give it another name, things will be different, but i don't think they will, and i'm hoping that it'll be the same price so i can grab myself one without putting a hole in my wallet (which already has several holes)

TimoneX · Feb 2, 2005

That scenario seems a bit optimistic to me, unless you're suggesting that Venice will not have SSE3 optimizations included. Otherwise I believe we'll see a premium placed on venice cores at least for awhile. The typical consumer won't know or care about copper interconnects but they'll know what SSE3 is.

Overclocker550 · Feb 2, 2005

Hes probably right. Winchester will be discountinued by then so the alternative would be sempron for those who cant afford Venice or you could buy a used winny or just wait. I may keep doing the waiting game if Venice costs too much and doesnt overclock to ~3GHz

TimoneX · Feb 2, 2005

Winchesters may be discontinued but they'll still be readily available.

c627627 · Feb 2, 2005

Overclocker550 said:
I may keep doing the waiting game if Venice doesnt overclock to ~3GHz

Obsessed with 3 again?

3.0 GHz is just a number just like 2.9 or 3.1.
Remember, people stopped planting crops in belief that world would end in the year of "Christ" 1000 AD. It's just a number on a scale some humans chose to use.

"Like the fly on the wheel who says
'What a lot of dust we're raising'
Are you under the illusion
That you're part of this scheme?"

OC Detective · Feb 2, 2005

Well it has been his holy grail for many a moon now.
I actually believe the potential for achieving 3GHz on air is possible with the Venice as typical overclocks are currently around 2.6Ghz so we are talking about an upside of 15% from that - which is not inconceivable if SS achieves what is expected of it.

TimoneX · Feb 2, 2005

Sure...encourage him.

Now he's gonna be foaming at the mouth and such.

Overclocker550 · Feb 2, 2005

Its more of a logical minimum upgrade over what I have, no point if its only 100MHz faster than my winchester. I may need 10x multi for 300x10 and possibily better TCCD ram. High overclocks are one thing, id like to see how much better the ondie controller is, would we be seeing ddr600 1:1 T1 on Venice? I can barely get over ddr500 on the winchester. I want enough cpu power to break 25k marks and also get a noticable boost in gaming. I might even wait for 3700+ San Diago to drop some in price if its cheap enough by then I may opt for that instead, the extra cache would get me a 15% boost on top(3GHz diago=3.45GHz venice)

Venice delayed but for how long?

Contributing Member

Member

Member

Closet Elitist Member

Member

Member

Member

Closet Elitist Member

Member

Member

Member

c(n*199780) Senior Member

Member

Closet Elitist Member

Member

Closet Elitist Member

c(n*199780) Senior Member

Member

Closet Elitist Member

Member

Similar threads