Intel new gaming P4

"The little lost angel" wrote in
message ...
Why is this so? I thought at $2000 a piece, they won't even be
anywhere in the view of folks considering to buy A64. While at $750,
they *might* just confuse the potential buyers a little. Though, given
that they are already selling A64 + MB for less than US$600, I doubt
so the P4EE would do much at $750 w/o a board.

I doubt that the P4EE is aimed at the people buying the regular
single-channel A64's. Rather it's probably aimed at the double-channel A64FX
buyers.

Yousuf Khan

"The little lost angel" wrote in
message ...

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:52:44 -0700, "David Schwartz"
wrote:

ok, here's the cynic's view: this is marketing poofery strictly
positioned
to
clutter up the Athlon64's open field...
/daytripper (but then I could be wrong ;-)

If they cost $2,000 apiece, I'll agree with you. If they cost $750
apiece, I'll disagree with you.

Why is this so? I thought at $2000 a piece, they won't even be
anywhere in the view of folks considering to buy A64.

Exactly. So they won't seriously compete with the Athlon64. The
announcement is just smoke.

While at $750,
they *might* just confuse the potential buyers a little.

Right, that would shake up the market, not just be a bunch of marketing
BS.

Though, given
that they are already selling A64 + MB for less than US$600, I doubt
so the P4EE would do much at $750 w/o a board.

But at least it would be a serious contender. At $2,000 a chip, it's
marketing BS.

DS

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:49:38 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
wrote:

I doubt that the P4EE is aimed at the people buying the regular
single-channel A64's. Rather it's probably aimed at the double-channel A64FX
buyers.

Erm, unless it's bait and switch, I've been told a Opteron 144 WITH a
motherboard going for significantly less than US$750 too! :PpPP

Is there any reason why the A64FX is going to more expensive than a
full blown Opteron?

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

In article ,
says...
If they cost $2,000 apiece, I'll agree with you. If they cost $750
apiece, I'll disagree with you.

Why is this so? I thought at $2000 a piece, they won't even be
anywhere in the view of folks considering to buy A64.

Exactly. So they won't seriously compete with the Athlon64. The
announcement is just smoke.

While at $750,
they *might* just confuse the potential buyers a little.

Right, that would shake up the market, not just be a bunch of marketing
BS.

Though, given
that they are already selling A64 + MB for less than US$600, I doubt
so the P4EE would do much at $750 w/o a board.

But at least it would be a serious contender. At $2,000 a chip, it's
marketing BS.

Intel did not disclose the price of the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. It
likely will be as expensive as its counterpart, the 2.8GHz Xeon with 2MB
cache. That chip sells for $3,692 in quantities of 1,000.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5077654.html

--
Best Regards,

In article ,
The little lost angel me wrote:
| On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:49:38 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
| wrote:
|
| I doubt that the P4EE is aimed at the people buying the regular
| single-channel A64's. Rather it's probably aimed at the double-channel A64FX
| buyers.
|
| Erm, unless it's bait and switch, I've been told a Opteron 144 WITH a
| motherboard going for significantly less than US$750 too! :PpPP
|
| Is there any reason why the A64FX is going to more expensive than a
| full blown Opteron?

It claims to be aimed at the game market, so how well does it run 32 bit
Windows games vs. {your competitor here}?

And what FSB and socket does it use? If it's a drop-in for an existing
system there might be a significant market there. I certainly would
consider it for small servers, desktop engineering workstations, etc, if
it would drop in. The larger cache would probably help a lot with
graphics and calculations like fft. It might also boost small database
apps, although that's far from clear to me. Just reducing the CPU and
i/o contention for the memory might show on servers,

--
Bill Davidsen CTO, TMR Associates
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and
this we should do freely and generously.
-Benjamin Franklin (who would have liked open source)

In article ,
The General wrote:

| But at least it would be a serious contender. At $2,000 a chip, it's
| marketing BS.
|
| Intel did not disclose the price of the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. It
| likely will be as expensive as its counterpart, the 2.8GHz Xeon with 2MB
| cache. That chip sells for $3,692 in quantities of 1,000.

If we assume that Intel actually hopes to sell this chip, I can't see
that it would be anywhere near that price. Xeon gets used because it
works in SMP setups.

Note that I don't reject the idea that this is just a mind game, but who
are they keeping out of what market? I doubt that any non-server uses
that Xeon you mentioned, and the number of people building fast uni
systems gets vanishingly small when you get near five digit pricing.

--
Bill Davidsen CTO, TMR Associates
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and
this we should do freely and generously.
-Benjamin Franklin (who would have liked open source)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
"Alex Johnson" wrote in message
...

Yousuf Khan wrote:

Intel is introducing a new Pentium 4 version for gaming, sporting 2MB of

L2

cache, known as Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. Sounds like a

single-processor

Xeon to me:



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ntel_gaming_dc

I think you misinterpret the article. This is based on Xeon with 2MB L3
cache (at least that's what the Inquirer led me to believe). So that is
8kb L1, 512kb L2, 2048kb L3. BTW, with the Half-life 2 numbers on the
rounds, it looks like intel will need an "extreme gaming" chip.


Well, the article I posted up above doesn't even mention whether it's an L2
or L3, and I haven't read the Inquirer article yet.

Yousuf Khan

Appologies. I owe a correction. The blurb I read is at Ars Technica.
The fact that it is L3 cache is in a quote (from Louis Burns or another
article I'm not sure). AnandTech also repeats that it is L3 cache.

Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)

In article ,
Ed wrote:
| On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:45:10 +0000 (UTC), (bill
| davidsen) wrote:

| I assume this is fast FSB, wonder if it's SMP disabled ;-) The article
| carefully doesn't say L2 or L3 cache, or which socket it uses, but at
| least it's HT capable, and the big cache helps there. Wouldn't put it
| past Intel to screw up and require a whole new m/b and new socket to use
| this, I hope that's not the case.
|
| Amazingly it's compatible, no need for a new mobo.
| One of the sites showed the extra L3 cache doesn't help all that much
| overall, Intel will make it sound better then it really is, they are
| great at adverting/brainwashing clueless consumers.

I would expect large cache to help with things like graphics,
ray-tracing, fft and similar dsp algorithms, and hashed databases of
certain kinds. Everything but the databases sounds like fast action
graphics and sound, such as found in games.

I would like to see benchmarks on popular games, and actually run some
things like Linux kernel compiles (HT on and off) and encoding mp3s. I'm
not sure that Intel missed their announced market, and it *may* be cost
effective for some users. Not that it won't be bought by the clueless,
but I think there may be a legitimate markey, depending on price.

Are the specs actually up somewhere?
--
Bill Davidsen CTO, TMR Associates
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and
this we should do freely and generously.
-Benjamin Franklin (who would have liked open source)

In article ,
dorothy.bradbury wrote:
| Wouldn't put it past Intel to screw up and require a whole new m/b
| and new socket to use this, I hope that's not the case.
|
| :-)
|
| o Why not a whole new case spec to go with it
| o Specifying CPU footprint, duct & rear-case-wall-CPU-fan

Just built a "Shuttle" case yesterday! Has exactly the setup you
describe. And it is quiet, and does cool, at least a Celeron 2.0G.
|
| Quiet gaming PC...

I bought this to replace an old AT format tower as a router, I'm
planning to get 2-3 more to do DNS, mail, etc. I hate fan noise, and
these fans seem to hardly ever go on. Then I set the disk to spin down
after three minutes. A few more of those and I will be able to hear the
phone ring in the computer room.

--
Bill Davidsen CTO, TMR Associates
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and
this we should do freely and generously.
-Benjamin Franklin (who would have liked open source)

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:09:12 GMT, The General
wrote:

Intel did not disclose the price of the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. It
likely will be as expensive as its counterpart, the 2.8GHz Xeon with 2MB
cache. That chip sells for $3,692 in quantities of 1,000.

No freaking way. They know damn well they can't sell a chip for that
much, when 6 months down the road a $300 will match it in performance.
You guys are crazy.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---