Hardware Discussions

[no dice]

New AMD chips out, frankly im not that impressed, the FX-55 is still on a .13micron process, its thermal output is now 103W, AMD provides a new heatpipe imbedded heatsink. Yes you have improved performance, duh. But if you are in the market for a new top end processor, i would wait till .90 micron process and i hear SSE3 support will come soon. The 4000+ is simply an FX-53 with the multiplier locked, its performance is nearly identicale to that of the 3800+, same as FX-53.

[Egglick]

The prices these things are going for are insulting. I personally could care less about either of them....they might as well not exist.

[gregorov_14]

If AMD grew a brain of logic, they'd sell them for <$500 and be able to compete with Intel's best, which it generally already has the lead in anyway. Imagine, an FX-55 for $500. Then they all become lower as PR numbers drop. Then we'd have Intel losing $$ big time I think.

[blindskater989]

We need an FX series card that is good, cant wait til the FX-59, its supposed to be in the making right now. if it's .90 nm it should be wicked fast as far as I'm concerned

[GLB_Theldon]

They all talk about a price drop.  How much a drop are we talking for lower chips?

[coldpower27]

Since they are on the 0.13 micron process the 3700+, 3800+, 4000+ FX 55, are all expensive chips to produce.

Interestingly enough though AMD Athlon FX 55 is a test bed for Strained Silicon technology, in addition to the regular PD-SOI AMD has been using.

Both these new processors have astronomical prices.

AMD can't make too many processor at 2.6GHZ yet from the looks of things, so they only release their flgship with this amount of GHZ. perhaps later when the 90nm process matures we will see 2.6GHZ in the volume Athlon 64 line.

[NV-man]

Although I agree that the prices for the FX55 and the 4000+ are rather high, (where have the good ol' days gone when you could get an AMD for 90 bucks that performed as well as 200 doolar P4) you have to keep in mind that these things out-perform their Intel counterparts in almsot every test, and they are still cheaper. you also l have to look at the tremendous price drop we've seen on the lower to mid range .Athlon 64's, take for example the 3400+ you can get it for 245 bucks and you'll have one HELL of a fast system.  

[Swaid]

---

gregorov_14 wrote:
If AMD grew a brain of logic, they'd sell them for <$500 and be able to compete with Intel's best, which it generally already has the lead in anyway. Imagine, an FX-55 for $500. Then they all become lower as PR numbers drop. Then we'd have Intel losing $$ big time I think.

---

Why would they have to do that? They are already cheaper then what they are competing against. You might want to "grow a brain of logic".

[no dice]

I am not one to brag about anything, but i really see the 3800+ in a the next few months as a best buy really on the high end. You wont burn 850 bucks in your pocket for the 55 which is still on a .13 process, and the performance is nearly identicaly to that of the 53 and 4000+

[Egglick]

I like to set price limitations for myself, just so I don't lose my ass too badly in the long run. I'll occasionally go slightly over them, but never by much. Limitations are as follows...

CPU: $250
Videocard: $350
Motherboard: $150
Hard Drive: $150
Powersupply: $75
Case: $75
CD/DVDRW: $100
Soundcard: $100

So this means that the maximum cost for the computer itself can never exceed $1250, regardless of what's out on the market. Using these guildelines, you'll still get an excellent performing system that's not too far off from the bleeding edge.

I don't have a problem with opening up my wallet for other components however, such as Speakers, Monitor, and Keyboard/Mouse. These are all items that should last you 5+ years, and are very important for the overall comfort and experience you have. Speakers in particular should be able to last you indefinately (or at least in excess of 10 years).

[bobo5195]

it makes sense for amd to stagger tis prices. Im sure it could bring out a shedload of 90nm s939 chips if it wanted (given the overclocks these are getting) but it decided not to. Price performance wise amd is still win, its selling all the chips it can (it doubt it can produce anymore) while intel has huge invatories. i really doubt there is much more they can do at the moment to try and edge out their lead.

[Egglick]

---

no dice wrote:

I am not one to brag about anything, but i really see the 3800+ in a the next few months as a best buy really on the high end. You wont burn 850 bucks in your pocket for the 55 which is still on a .13 process, and the performance is nearly identicaly to that of the 53 and 4000+

---

If you wanna call a $630 processor a "best buy" then I'd say that's some pretty strong stuff you're smokin there.

Especially when you can get a S754 3400+ which runs at the same 2.4Ghz for $245. The only difference is it doesn't have dual channel memory, but that's hardly worth the price premium.


Future proof?? Hell, for $400 I'll gladly buy a new motherboard later down the road.

[Egglick]

.....sorry for throwing all that poo.


Image from the Flame Warriors website.

[no dice]

i said on the HIGH  end in case you read it wrong.

[roiboy]

That's the reason why I'm waiting till mid 2005 to build my uber computer I'll have 3,000 dollars to spend then. I can't wait to see the performance of the FX 57

Message Edited by RoiBoy on 10-20-2004 01:01 PM

[Ark4ngeL]

The FX 57 should be a great proc, but IMO, if you always wait for better parts to come out before buying your new comp, you'll wait forever : /

[gregorov_14]

I knew someone would counter me. Anyway, after reading coldpower's post, I know now why they're expensive. What I was saying was more towards the high-end realm of chips. Specifically, the FX series and 3800+ n such. If they'd sell them for less, they might get more money, but then again, since I have to "grow a brain of logic", most people wouldn't spend $500 on a CPU anyway. That's why they can charge $800 on a CPU. Intel is worse at $1000 per CPU with the EE line.

So, most people would like a processor for probably < $200, so that leaves AMD in the clear since they've got the best price/performance ratio, and best performance anyway. I'd like to get a CPU for < $100, and so would others, so maybe after a while, we'll have Athlon 64's for < $100, but for now, we have the cheapest at $141 Retail ($136 OEM).

Message Edited by gregorov_14 on 10-20-2004 03:56 PM

[no dice]

I find it kinda funny too, like in AP world history all my teacher talks about is supply and demand,  everyone now wants either a 6800Ultra( i snagged one, hehe) or a X800XT PE, but noone can find them in stock, but when you buy them they are around the 500 dollar range, but i can right now snag a FX-53 off newegg for 850. The price is more when demand is lower, shouldnt it be the processor for 500 and the video card for 850? Wierd.

[Trogdor]

*Current* demand for 6800 Ultra and X800 XT PE is pretty high, but if they made too many of them, they would have a huge glut. AMD and Intel *control* the supply. They don't really try to make too many of their top parts because then the price would drop. They might make $20 to $50 on their cheaper processors, so they need to sell 10 to 30 of those to make about $500. Sell even *one* FX-55 at $850 or whatever, and they make $500. You don't drop prices unless you have to. Since Intel has basically axed thier P4 4.0 GHz part from this year, AMD has no competition on the highest-end parts. Not surprisingly, they're slowing down the price drops and release rate of new parts a bit. Something like that. This is why all sane people want AMD vs. Intel to be a close race, as well as ATI vs. NVIDIA.

[Trogdor]

Reading the actual review now. A few comments.

1) Memory bandwidth. Remember that the 6.4 GB/s of potential memory bandwidth is really 6,400,000,000 bytes/sec. Converting into *actual* GB/s, the maximum transfer speed of the memory interface is 5.96 GB/s in 128-bit mode at 400 MHz. Hmm. Interesting. So, possibly due to caching, your results actually show transfers *higher* than the theoretical maximum. A slightly overclocked bus could also come into play. Anyway, for theoretical performance, it doesn't look like we could really get any faster than the Athlon 64.

2) "Like the other Futuremark application, PCMark04, 3DMark05 indicates that all of Intel’s high-end Pentium 4 chips, including the 3.4 GHz Prescott core, are better for gaming than the Athlon 64 FX-55, at least in the 3D test. The processor benchmark actually favors the Athlon 64 lineup, though the Pentium 4 is very much competitive." Unless the graphs are screwed up, 3DMark05 also prefers Intel in CPU performance. And people wonder why most knowledgeable folks despise FutureMark. Anyone here actually trust FutureMark to make a real-world benchmark?

[gregorov_14]

Trogdor, I see their logic now. It's all beginning to make sense.