If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
P4EE will cost $1000
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in
message news http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...1013022157.htm So according to this artical the 2.6GHz P4 and AXP 2800+ are free now? Where do I get one! ;-) "Consumers buying a desktop system may have to pay over $1,000 dollars more for a 3.2GHz P4 Extreme than for a 2.6GHz Pentium 4. Similarly, those choosing to buy an AMD Athlon FX-51 CPU will have to pay a $900 premium over an Athlon XP 2800." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Carlo Razzeto" wrote in message
... So according to this artical the 2.6GHz P4 and AXP 2800+ are free now? Where do I get one! ;-) "Consumers buying a desktop system may have to pay over $1,000 dollars more for a 3.2GHz P4 Extreme than for a 2.6GHz Pentium 4. Similarly, those choosing to buy an AMD Athlon FX-51 CPU will have to pay a $900 premium over an Athlon XP 2800." Note the word 'system' hidden within the text! Regards, Dean |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Dean Kent" wrote in message .. . "Carlo Razzeto" wrote in message ... Note the word 'system' hidden within the text! Regards, Dean I still don't quite get why changing the CPU would inherintly up the system price by that much... Assuming that both systems are similarly configured... I suppose if it is assumed that the Athlon FX/P4EE are configured with much higher end components then I could see it... But since the P4 3.2GHz is currently the best Intel chip, and AXP processors in the 2800+ and higher range are among the best AMD chips, you should be able to find systems based on these chips configured very similarly to these new higher end products. Carlo |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:28:33 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto"
wrote: I still don't quite get why changing the CPU would inherintly up the system price by that much... Assuming that both systems are similarly configured... I suppose if it is assumed that the Athlon FX/P4EE are configured with much higher end components then I could see it.. Well, you answered your own question. People who buy pre-built systems always have to live with the packages, which of course are usually not optimal. On a related note, just for fun, I went to Gateway.com the other day to see what they were selling PC's for. I couldn't believe my eyes - they are trying to sell "high end" PC's for several thousand dollars! I mean, who pays that much for a PC when you can get a darn good one, sans monitor, for less than $1000? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:52:27 -0500, chrisv
wrote: snip On a related note, just for fun, I went to Gateway.com the other day to see what they were selling PC's for. I couldn't believe my eyes - they are trying to sell "high end" PC's for several thousand dollars! I mean, who pays that much for a PC when you can get a darn good one, sans monitor, for less than $1000? A friend of the family, who was in the baking business, told of experimenting with the marketing of a loaf of bread. He added a little extra something or other to it (egg, I think it was, which would have actually been powdered eggs), gave it some fancy name and a slightly higher price, and put it on the shelves. Few takers. Took the exact same product, gave it an even fancier name, an even fancier package, and a significantly fancier price. It flew off the shelves, even sitting right next to the same product with only a different name, package, and a lower price sitting right next to it. For those who are resentful of such practices, think of it this way: it allows a company like Intel, which is the master of market segmentation, to sell inexpensive products to people who really need them and who must pay attention to price, while generating gross margin to pay for R&D, and, of course, marketing, by selling products whose price is artificially inflated relative to its performance. It's capitalism's form of socialism: those who want the best and can afford to pay for it subsidize those who can't. Those who want the best and are willing to pay for it generally value the product they have already bought in proportion to the price they paid for it. In the sense that matters most to such a buyer, they get what they pay for. RM |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:47:15 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
wrote: http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...1013022157.htm One of the guys on the forum hit the nail on the head, I think. Intel isn't really interested in selling a lot of these things - they just want to have something that competes with the new Hammer chips in sheer performance. I'll add my own comment that, IMO, the price is intentionally extreme so that it does not push down the prices on the "regular" P4's much. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"chrisv" wrote in message
... On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:47:15 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" wrote: http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...1013022157.htm One of the guys on the forum hit the nail on the head, I think. Intel isn't really interested in selling a lot of these things - they just want to have something that competes with the new Hammer chips in sheer performance. I'll add my own comment that, IMO, the price is intentionally extreme so that it does not push down the prices on the "regular" P4's much. Similarly, the whole A64FX business is itself a bragging tool for AMD over Intel. There was some talk early on that the regular A64 would've been able to handily beat the older 400 & 533 Mhz P4's, but it would've been a close call against the 800Mhz P4's. The A64 had it all over any P4 in terms of memory latency, but the P4 was hard to beat for memory throughput; so you were likely to see A64 beating P4 sometimes, and P4 beating A64 sometimes to make for an overall wash. So the dual-channel Opteron was renamed A64FX and put into battle against P4-800 to win the majority of benchmarks, to make sure no one doubted the superiority of the A64 series. In fact, even the introduction of the P4-800 was in anticipation of the A64 launch, because previously Intel had a 666Mhz FSB roadmapped for P4 right after the 533Mhz bus. They introduced the P4-800 many months ago, and this gave AMD the chance to come up with a plan to counteract the 800Mhz bus, which was the A64FX. That's why P4EE was introduced to make the overall performance a wash again. Yousuf Khan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"chrisv" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:28:33 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto" wrote: Well, you answered your own question. People who buy pre-built systems always have to live with the packages, which of course are usually not optimal. On a related note, just for fun, I went to Gateway.com the other day to see what they were selling PC's for. I couldn't believe my eyes - they are trying to sell "high end" PC's for several thousand dollars! I mean, who pays that much for a PC when you can get a darn good one, sans monitor, for less than $1000? Perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough... The point I was trying to make was that there is no reason why these processors them selves should inherently push the cost of these systems up by as much as the author claimed. Now perhaps in the end the prices will be pushed up that much because of marketing... In the end marketing will likely produce a much larger price differential, just take a look at http://www.alienware.com. But I firmly believe any price differential is more due to marketing rather than they inherent cost of the respective chips. Carlo |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What am I doing wrong ??? Or is Adaptec 21610SA just a crappy RAID card ? | news.tele.dk | Storage & Hardrives | 160 | December 28th 04 04:34 AM |
Cost of DVD as data storage versus HDD (UK) | David X | Cdr | 136 | December 7th 04 02:46 PM |
Power supply EXPLOSION | Peter Hucker | Overclocking | 137 | July 28th 04 10:35 PM |
Power supply EXPLOSION | Peter Hucker | Overclocking AMD Processors | 138 | July 28th 04 10:35 PM |
120 gb is the Largest hard drive I can put in my 4550? | David H. Lipman | Dell Computers | 65 | December 11th 03 01:51 PM |