AMD...you think this'll happen....

dxiw · Nov 20, 2002

Do you guys think there will be a 3000+ out after the 2800+ that is already out, before hammer comes. I think AMD should continue their athlon xp series in addition to introducing the new hammer, the reason is that people like us on socket a athlon xp who want to upgrade will be screwed if they stop at 2800+ also continuing the athlon xp series could be a cheaper alternative and they could even drop duron and make athlon xp real cheap and hammer the nice one, that way in a year from now I can always pop in a 4000+ chip hehe on the same socket and just get a bios flash that supports it.

tbirdkiri · Nov 20, 2002

hahaha, excellent point, but it looks like someone allready thought of it.... AMD

this was the initial plan from the begining, but its good to see approval.

The Coolest · Nov 20, 2002

The latest Socket A CPU will be the Barton rated at 3200+, I believe, which will be very overclockable (hopefully). But I can't see AMD continueing this line of processors, as its almost at its architectual speed limit, and won't let AMD go faster with the XP core design, the Hammer is a brand new technology and architecture which will take AMD to much higher speeds.
Although there MIGHT be faster Bartons later on when AMD moves to the 0.09µm process and will be able to get the current XP design to higher speed due to smaller die size

dxiw · Nov 20, 2002

instead of doing all this jumps like 13 micorn then 9 micron they should wait like 6 months and work hard in research and release like 1 micron
then we could o/c it to like 5 ghz and also they wouldn't have to ever worry about redesigning the core for a while as that core could reach really fast speeds....

Digital Pimp · Nov 20, 2002

umm... it cost's BILLIONS of dollars to change from 15micron to 13micron.

following that logic... why would amd release 2ghz processors, if they could "think really hard" and make 20Ghz chips in 2 years... the anwser is that it takes time to design/build products. it's an eveloutionary(sp?) process. and although they could hold off for 2 years to release a product, but they need to make money in the meantime as well.

not trying to put your idea down, just saying that they need a way to make money while they are making faster processors. and also to give people something to buy

Digital

dxiw · Nov 21, 2002

I know my idea sounded kinda stupid but i thought amd is losing money and now that they even raised there prices noone is going to buy there stuff because obviously intel at the same price is better. I'm thining instead of them losing money and always lagging behind they should stop for a little while and then come with something that blows intel away hopefully hammer will do it, but the hammer at comdex was only 1.4ghz. Although that may be fast afor a 64 bit i dunno. But I understand waht your saying...anyways, looks like amd is going to die if hammer isn't successfull...

emericanchaos · Nov 21, 2002

even after hammer comes out all the programs you use daily will need to be coded to take a 64bit processor. i don't see why everyone is so hyped on a 64bit CPU when it's going to take time even after it's release for it to actually be worth something.

cjlax5 · Nov 21, 2002

where have u been? the hammer supports both 32 and 64 bit applications

OC Detective · Nov 21, 2002

dxiw said:
I know my idea sounded kinda stupid but i thought amd is losing money and now that they even raised there prices noone is going to buy there stuff because obviously intel at the same price is better. I'm thining instead of them losing money and always lagging behind they should stop for a little while and then come with something that blows intel away hopefully hammer will do it, but the hammer at comdex was only 1.4ghz. Although that may be fast afor a 64 bit i dunno. But I understand waht your saying...anyways, looks like amd is going to die if hammer isn't successfull...

Why do you say Intel at the same price is obviously better? Also whilst AMD is not doing anything and designing something to "blow intel away" where do you think their revenues will come from?

dxiw · Nov 21, 2002

i dont want to start and amd vs intel arguement.....but a 2.8ghz p4 is better than 2800+ ... it has much better memory bandwidth, higher fsb, even if the athlon beats it in some benchmarks. The p4 is a real chip that runs nice and cool, and is not some crazy factory overclocked ****. Whyd oy ou thinka md's make so much heat??? way to much stress on that ancient core technology.... anyways, amd has lost like 80% of its money in the past year.....they sell like ****....look at the best pc makers like dell they dont even look at athlons....athlon used to be a good cheap chip...but now that its p4 prices i would buy a p4 anyday...

OC Detective · Nov 21, 2002

dxiw said:
i dont want to start and amd vs intel arguement.....but a 2.8ghz p4 is better than 2800+ ... it has much better memory bandwidth, higher fsb, even if the athlon beats it in some benchmarks. The p4 is a real chip that runs nice and cool, and is not some crazy factory overclocked ****. Whyd oy ou thinka md's make so much heat??? way to much stress on that ancient core technology.... anyways, amd has lost like 80% of its money in the past year.....they sell like ****....look at the best pc makers like dell they dont even look at athlons....athlon used to be a good cheap chip...but now that its p4 prices i would buy a p4 anyday...

You have used one example of a chip that has not been generally released against an existing Intel chip to justify your argument - what about every single other price point that exists below this? For example what Intel chip for 50 bucks is better than an XP1600+? AMD and Intel are not just about top end but the whole range to suit an entire range of consumers.
Besides an XP2800+ at stock speed with NForce2 board and 512MB of DDR400 Ram IS better and cheaper than a P4 2.8 with 533MHZ using a P4T533-C and 512MB of PC1066 - especially for gamers!

OC Detective · Nov 21, 2002

Another example is the XP2100+ which you have

- Price watch best price is 87 bucks what would you expect to get from Intel for the same price? Oh and while the Palominos and Tbred A were a bit hot the thermal design power of the Intel 2.8Ghz and XP2800+ are both around 68W (actually lower than your XP2100+).

azns_kickass · Nov 22, 2002

No offence guys, but 1600+ is sooo yesterday!

I think it goes without saying that in the low end AMD is definitely better value, but due to AMD trying to raise ASPs, their high end chips are now as or more expensive than the comparable Intel chip...

OC Detective · Nov 22, 2002

azns_kickass said:
No offence guys, but 1600+ is sooo yesterday!

I think it goes without saying that in the low end AMD is definitely better value, but due to AMD trying to raise ASPs, their high end chips are now as or more expensive than the comparable Intel chip...

So yesterday? Do you think Intel and AMD get the majority of their revenue stream from high end processors?

azns_kickass · Nov 22, 2002

OC Detective said:
So yesterday? Do you think Intel and AMD get the majority of their revenue stream from high end processors?

No, but I'm sure as hell AMD makes a LOAD of money from a $55 1600+

And when I say yesterday, I mean its getting slow by todays standards.

Yes, you can always get the lowest rated chip and it will undoubtably be better value than the high end chips, but cmon, you gotta draw a line somewhere...

And if all we cared about was value, everyone should be getting 1.3GHz Duruns for $32 because they are so good 'bang for buck'...

OC Detective · Nov 22, 2002

You misinterpret my point - which is that in order to provide suitable revenue manufacturers need to cater for all potential consumers. So what if the XP1600+ is getting slow by todays standards that wasnt the basis of the conversation - it was to do with comparison on like for like pricewise between intel and AMD - you just went off on a tangent.

azns_kickass · Nov 22, 2002

OC Detective said:
You misinterpret my point - which is that in order to provide suitable revenue manufacturers need to cater for all potential consumers. So what if the XP1600+ is getting slow by todays standards that wasnt the basis of the conversation - it was to do with comparison on like for like pricewise between intel and AMD - you just went off on a tangent.

I'm sure its good to cater for all potential market segments, but going down to $55 for an Athlon XP is not a smart move IMHO.

If things were going fine the way they are, they wouldn't need to try to raise their ASPs...

And finally, I think the slight differences in CPU prices in the mid range CPUs means that when people are buying SYSTEMs (and most Average Joes do that, not many have the knowhow to open up their case, let alone upgrade...) the price difference between an Intel system and AMD system really is minimal.

Lets just say you pay $400 for an Intel CPU/mobo/RAM combo and $300 for an AMD CPU/mobo/RAM combo... when you take into account the system costs, that would mean a $1500 AMD sytem and $1600 Intel system, and I would bet most Average Joes would happily spend that little extra just to get an Intel...

Anyway, I know I kinda got offtrack, but was just trying to make a point.

OC Detective · Nov 22, 2002

Point taken but as you know a lot of AMD's revenue (at least half I would guess) comes from enthusiasts who build their own so to them it does make a difference. Though I am sure AMD would love to change the percentages and have more of their chips in Dells etc!

AMD...you think this'll happen....

dxiw

Disabled

tbirdkiri

Member

The Coolest

Senior Member

dxiw

Disabled

Digital Pimp

Member

dxiw

Disabled

emericanchaos

Member

cjlax5

Member

OC Detective

Member

dxiw

Disabled

OC Detective

Member

OC Detective

Member

azns_kickass

Registered

OC Detective

Member

azns_kickass

Registered

OC Detective

Member

azns_kickass

Registered

OC Detective

Member

Similar threads