- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
This coming from an AMD user!
If you don't believe me go check out pricewatch.
If you don't believe me go check out pricewatch.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Now that AMD CPUs cost more.. is there any reason to buy one?
- Thread starter Ecto_Cooler
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2002
- Location
- Dunstable, uk
thats a very vague statement.i wasnt aware that a 2ghz p4 was cheaper than an xp2000+. oh wait, it isnt..........
Im sorry, but AMD's highest performer being more expensive than intels doesnt mean anything.
Im sorry, but AMD's highest performer being more expensive than intels doesnt mean anything.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2003
- Location
- Rhode Island
really... if your spending around $350+ on a CPU does $20 really matter either way, whether it was the AMD being $20 cheaper or the Intel, what's $20 when your already at $350 or $570 pricerange? Wouldn't you just go with the best performer/overclocker at that point?
And like many have said before, AMD cpu's that cost more at the moment are new to the market, the equivalent Intel chips have been out for a while now
And like many have said before, AMD cpu's that cost more at the moment are new to the market, the equivalent Intel chips have been out for a while now
AMD is not as cheap as it used to be. Maybe because before athlon debut, they were trying to be as cheap as possible and now they are trying to win in performance as well. I think the only real loser is these new bartons, mainly the 3000+. They are too overpriced and only 512Kb cache can´t justify a 300 points more in their PR rating (it has the same frequency as T-Bred 2700+). As result, the P4 3.06Ghz undoubtfully have the lead.
But lower end athlons rocks! Most people don´t need anything higher than an athlon 1700+ (web-surfing, usual gaming and work). They can get it at only US$50 or so...
But lower end athlons rocks! Most people don´t need anything higher than an athlon 1700+ (web-surfing, usual gaming and work). They can get it at only US$50 or so...
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2002
- Location
- Louisiana Tech University
And for most purposes on this forum those lower-end Athlons will suffice, especially since Tbred-B 1700+ chips are able to hit well over 2ghz on air regularly.
If your chip does that, then you've paid ~$55 for a chip that will outperform chips in excess of $200.
If your chip does that, then you've paid ~$55 for a chip that will outperform chips in excess of $200.
I agree with other posters. Why would you care about $20 when your paying that much for a CPU. Also, if you were going to go ultra high end, then you would obveously have enough money for the P4 anyways. I think AMD should aim to be the high performance CPU for the OTHER 98% of the computer world! 
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Location
- Muscle Shoals, AL
I think it's just a sign of low yeilds in the high speed area. As the yeilds increase the prices will drop. I just noticed the 2400 are down to 125. Very tempting... Just have to keep telling my wait for $100 Barton. Then it will be wait for cheap Hammer.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
- Location
- Southeast US
Ecto_Cooler said:
"AMD User."
I'll take that at face value. You're leaving out a lot of important details, and potential. First, for people who KNOW about overclocking, I bet the Barton 2500+ is waaay more popular than the 3.06HT. That's because a Barton 2500+ can EASILY be overclocked to beat the 3.06HT to a transistory mush in everything except memory bandwidth, and possibly a few SSE2 optimized tasks.
Second, the Barton 2500+ does cost significantly less than the 3.06HT. I know you're referring to the 3000+ when you talk about pricing, but in all honesty, that's just crazy. There is a time-frame involved with pricing on processors, and you may have noticed that they generally are most expensive immediately after release. Give it a few months, and see what the pricing on the Barton is. Do you... um... happen to remember what price the 3.06HT debuted at? It was a bit higher, if I recall correctly.
You could ask that question in a forum frequented by clueless corporate fleet buyers who don't overclock, but you're preaching to the wrong crowd here. No multiplier lock. 200FSB attainable, and official support for that coming soon. Much more efficient chip.
So what was the question? Why is Intel still making money? Marketing I guess.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Location
- Wash. State
Geez, the Barton has been out for what........... a week? The reason that they priced it so high is because there are those out there that will pay any price for the new technology, and why, becuase they can. AMD will lower thier price in a few weeks/months and so will Intel once thier new chips hit the market. We have this discussion everytime that a new chip comes out from either side. The Intel guys have the same discussion in thier forum each time a new chip comes out from Intel, except they are usually trying to justify $100 or more for the top performing chip.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2002
In my personal opinion, I've always used AMD cpu's and never had a problem with them. There able to compete with the competition and I just like the idea of supporting the underdog in this case.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Location
- Boulder CO
Ya i know serioiusly payin $95 only for a chip that can do 2.3ghz (2100+) and approximatly equal the speed of 3ghz+ Intel chips is such a rip off..
LMAO
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2001
- Location
- Las Vegas, NV
Maxvla said:the 3.06 debuted at $798.00 i believe.
everyone seems to forget this when talking about AMD pricing.
Exactly, for pure price/performance AMD is still the bomb.
I'm running a XP2000+ unlocked (and slightly downclocked) to get 166mhz bus from my KT333 board, but I run my stuff at stock. With 4X anti-aliasing and my stock Ti4600 I still get 35-40FPS in UT2003 (1024x768). I'm VERY pleased that only 1600mhz (166x9.5) can keep me in the latest games just fine.
We also forget we can unlock these things to get the most from an overclock, I call that a serious advantage!!!
(When something I really have to play comes along I'll upgrade. Doesn't look like that's happening anytime soon... AMD has afforded me a cushion at a great price as well)
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2002
- Location
- Long Island New York
I think you missed the point guys, sure amd is cheap for US! This is why many overclockers go amd, because we know how to use them to get full potential at low costs. However we account for only a small percentage of computer users, and the average joe wants the highest performing system, and dosent want to pay a hell of a sum for his new useless store bought pc.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
- Location
- Southeast US
No, you've missed the point. The 3.06HT has been out for than a few days, while the Barton has not.
Historically, AMD has always undercut Intel, if you look at each chip's individual lifetime. It's already been said a couple of HUNDRED times in this thread that as time goes on, the Bartons will come down in price.
And frankly, even if the Barton 3000+ does cost a LITTLE MORE than the 3.06HT, who cares? It's a fantastic processor, more than capable of going head to head with the PIV, with better overclocking potential.
Historically, AMD has always undercut Intel, if you look at each chip's individual lifetime. It's already been said a couple of HUNDRED times in this thread that as time goes on, the Bartons will come down in price.
And frankly, even if the Barton 3000+ does cost a LITTLE MORE than the 3.06HT, who cares? It's a fantastic processor, more than capable of going head to head with the PIV, with better overclocking potential.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2002
- Location
- Louisiana Tech University
AMD processors are cheaper than their Intel alternatives. Compare the 2400+ to the P4 2.4. The 2.4 is more expensive.
For overclockers, AMD just makes more sense. While some overclock to get the absolute best performance out there, most of us try to overclock to get the best performance we can for the least money. AMD's 1700+ is providing the best in this category as its overclocked performance is easily equalling the best of what the P4s can give.
And yes, the Bartons are expensive for the moment, but they have only been out for a very, very short time, as others have noted.
For overclockers, AMD just makes more sense. While some overclock to get the absolute best performance out there, most of us try to overclock to get the best performance we can for the least money. AMD's 1700+ is providing the best in this category as its overclocked performance is easily equalling the best of what the P4s can give.
And yes, the Bartons are expensive for the moment, but they have only been out for a very, very short time, as others have noted.
Similar threads
