P4 - New CPU cheaper than Old???

There is something that I just don't get.

When price shopping the older .13 micron cpu w/512kb L2 costs slightly more
than the newer 90 nanometer cpu w/1mb L2. Both being the same speed.

Ex:
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz, 512K 800 FSB Socket 478 Hyper Threading Boxed
Processor $179
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz E , 1MB 800 FSB Socket 478 Prescott Hyper Threading
Boxed Processor $178

Not that the price differs much but, why isn't the newer/ more cache cpu
more?
The only downside that I found out about the 90 nm cpu is it runs hotter.

Input Needed,
Mr Koko

Mr Koko wrote:

There is something that I just don't get.

When price shopping the older .13 micron cpu w/512kb L2 costs slightly more
than the newer 90 nanometer cpu w/1mb L2. Both being the same speed.

Ex:
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz, 512K 800 FSB Socket 478 Hyper Threading Boxed
Processor $179
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz E , 1MB 800 FSB Socket 478 Prescott Hyper Threading
Boxed Processor $178

Not that the price differs much but, why isn't the newer/ more cache cpu
more?
The only downside that I found out about the 90 nm cpu is it runs hotter.

Input Needed,
Mr Koko



Well, 1 buck out of 178 isn't enough of a difference to even be 'wondering'
but, in general, it's a combination of supply/demand and economies of scale.

For example, most of the manufacturing will be done on the newer process,
which means there's less capacity available for the older process. Less
capacity = smaller volume. Less economy of scale and cost per unit goes up.

Well, 1 buck out of 178 isn't enough of a difference to even be
'wondering' but, in general, it's a combination of supply/demand and
economies of scale.

For example, most of the manufacturing will be done on the newer process,
which means there's less capacity available for the older process. Less
capacity = smaller volume. Less economy of scale and cost per unit goes
up.


I've read many professional reviews that state to avoid the Prescott core
and buy Northwood instead. The reasoning (supposedly) is that the Prescott
isn't faster, and the Prescott is hotter. I don't agree with those reviews
at all. Having built a few Prescott systems, I know that the Prescott is a
GREAT processor. If there's a heat problem with them, I haven't noticed. I
have yet to see a Prescott even reach 120F under load. (But to be fair, I
don't use the original Intel heatsinks.)

Anyway, my point is, all these so-called professionals crying 'wolf' about
the Prescott are probably the reason that the Northwood is slightly more
expensive. I've noticed that price trend myself . . . it's been that way
for quite a while. The price difference isn't significant, but the older
Northwoods do tend to be a bit more. -Dave

"Dave C." wrote:


Well, 1 buck out of 178 isn't enough of a difference to even be
'wondering' but, in general, it's a combination of supply/demand and
economies of scale.

For example, most of the manufacturing will be done on the newer process,
which means there's less capacity available for the older process. Less
capacity = smaller volume. Less economy of scale and cost per unit goes
up.


I've read many professional reviews that state to avoid the Prescott core
and buy Northwood instead. The reasoning (supposedly) is that the Prescott
isn't faster, and the Prescott is hotter.

Notice that AMD's 90nm chips use less power and run cooler than its
similar 130nm chips.

http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=7417


I don't agree with those reviews
at all. Having built a few Prescott systems, I know that the Prescott is a
GREAT processor.

Compared to the Celeron it is, however when you compare it to a comparably
priced Athlon 64, the Prescott doesn't seem attractive. First notice the
difference in power consumption. Then notice differences in performance.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6

The pentium 4 chips you are talking about are only 32 bit. Many who
buy a 32 bit processor in '04 or early '05 will regret not having bought
a 64 bit processor as great 64 bit software appears.

http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=257&p=1



If there's a heat problem with them, I haven't noticed. I
have yet to see a Prescott even reach 120F under load. (But to be fair, I
don't use the original Intel heatsinks.)

Anyway, my point is, all these so-called professionals crying 'wolf' about
the Prescott are probably the reason that the Northwood is slightly more
expensive. I've noticed that price trend myself . . . it's been that way
for quite a while. The price difference isn't significant, but the older
Northwoods do tend to be a bit more. -Dave

Dave C. wrote:

Well, 1 buck out of 178 isn't enough of a difference to even be
'wondering' but, in general, it's a combination of supply/demand and
economies of scale.

For example, most of the manufacturing will be done on the newer process,
which means there's less capacity available for the older process. Less
capacity = smaller volume. Less economy of scale and cost per unit goes
up.



I've read many professional reviews that state to avoid the Prescott core
and buy Northwood instead. The reasoning (supposedly) is that the Prescott
isn't faster, and the Prescott is hotter. I don't agree with those reviews
at all. Having built a few Prescott systems, I know that the Prescott is a
GREAT processor. If there's a heat problem with them, I haven't noticed. I
have yet to see a Prescott even reach 120F under load. (But to be fair, I
don't use the original Intel heatsinks.)

Anyway, my point is, all these so-called professionals crying 'wolf' about
the Prescott are probably the reason that the Northwood is slightly more
expensive. I've noticed that price trend myself . . . it's been that way
for quite a while. The price difference isn't significant, but the older
Northwoods do tend to be a bit more. -Dave

Perhaps. That would be in the demand/supply side of the equation.

But I wasn't doing a market survey, just answering 'how could it be?', in
general.

An example would be the cost/bit reversal between SDR and DDR RAM even
though the demand for DDR is obviously way higher than for SDR nowdays. You
just don't have much production allocated to SDR because the volume is all
in DDR.

The newer Prescott P4's run a LOT hotter than the older Northwoods you
mentioned. Thus Intel is having a hard time selling the newer ones and so
has set the pricings to sway people toward buying the less wanted newer
CPU's.

--
DaveW



"Mr Koko" wrote in message
...
There is something that I just don't get.

When price shopping the older .13 micron cpu w/512kb L2 costs slightly
more
than the newer 90 nanometer cpu w/1mb L2. Both being the same speed.

Ex:
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz, 512K 800 FSB Socket 478 Hyper Threading Boxed
Processor $179
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz E , 1MB 800 FSB Socket 478 Prescott Hyper Threading
Boxed Processor $178

Not that the price differs much but, why isn't the newer/ more cache cpu
more?
The only downside that I found out about the 90 nm cpu is it runs hotter.

Input Needed,
Mr Koko

"DaveW" wrote in message
news:YYyjd.379983$D%.131379@attbi_s51...
The newer Prescott P4's run a LOT hotter than the older Northwoods you
mentioned. Thus Intel is having a hard time selling the newer ones and so
has set the pricings to sway people toward buying the less wanted newer
CPU's.

--
DaveW


Y'know, lots of people are saying that. I've built three Prescott systems
so far. I've run them for days without turning them off, used various
burn-in programs, played games for hours, etc. I have yet to see a Prescott
even reach (let alone exceed) 120F. I've read the normal operating range of
the Northwood processors are higher than that!!! I use aftermarket HSF, but
nothing fancy or expensive. I'm betting the only people who have heat
problems with a Prescott are those who have screwed up in choosing or
installing the proper HSF. Otherwise, to hear people talk about how hot the
Prescott is, I would expect to have difficulty cooling one below about 150F
or so. My point is, if they are hotter than Northwood, I certainly haven't
noticed. And the Prescott processors are nowhere NEAR hot enough to cause
cooling problems, if you know what you are doing. Following are the coolers
I have used . . . -Dave

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProduc...103-139&depa=0
(this one is kind of unique in that it uses a BLOWER, but it's quiet and
relatively cheap, if your case has room)

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...150-033&depa=0
(this cheap HSF is all copper!, quiet, and will work in just about any case)

................................Following are the coolers
I have used . . . -Dave

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProduc...103-139&depa=0
(this one is kind of unique in that it uses a BLOWER, but it's quiet and
relatively cheap, if your case has room)

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...150-033&depa=0
(this cheap HSF is all copper!, quiet, and will work in just about any
case)



Pretty cool coolers, not bad price either.

"Mr Koko" wrote in
:

There is something that I just don't get.

When price shopping the older .13 micron cpu w/512kb L2 costs
slightly more than the newer 90 nanometer cpu w/1mb L2. Both being the
same speed.

Ex:
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz, 512K 800 FSB Socket 478 Hyper Threading Boxed
Processor $179
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz E , 1MB 800 FSB Socket 478 Prescott Hyper
Threading
Boxed Processor $178

Not that the price differs much but, why isn't the newer/ more cache
cpu more?
The only downside that I found out about the 90 nm cpu is it runs
hotter.

Input Needed,
Mr Koko



In general, for semiconductors, as a part reaches end of (production) life
many manufacturers will increase its price to discourage continued use of
the part. Sometimes, distributors, and other profiteers, will buy up supply
at the wholesale level and reap the benefits as manufacturing ramps down
(supply dwindles while demand does not) and prices go up. This may not be
true for PC cpu's though. I tend to think that enthusiasts have created a
demand for Northwood parts. Northwoods seem to have better press and so are
the preferred over Prescotts, so retailers, etc., are taking advantage of
the situation. Your basic 'Supply and Demand' situation at work.

JS wrote:

"Mr Koko" wrote in
:


There is something that I just don't get.

When price shopping the older .13 micron cpu w/512kb L2 costs
slightly more than the newer 90 nanometer cpu w/1mb L2. Both being the
same speed.

Ex:
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz, 512K 800 FSB Socket 478 Hyper Threading Boxed
Processor $179
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz E , 1MB 800 FSB Socket 478 Prescott Hyper
Threading
Boxed Processor $178

Not that the price differs much but, why isn't the newer/ more cache
cpu more?
The only downside that I found out about the 90 nm cpu is it runs
hotter.

Input Needed,
Mr Koko




In general, for semiconductors, as a part reaches end of (production) life
many manufacturers will increase its price to discourage continued use of
the part.

Which, in general, would simply drive purchasers of that part to a competitor.

Sometimes, distributors, and other profiteers, will buy up supply
at the wholesale level and reap the benefits as manufacturing ramps down
(supply dwindles while demand does not) and prices go up.

The problem with your theory "supply dwindles while demand does not" is
that no one in their right mind is going to ramp down production while
demand remains robust and profitable. It flies directly in the face of
"supply and demand."

The classic notion of supply vs demand price fluctuation is fine, and
appropriate, as long as everything else remains the same (and the market is
elastic) but, in the real world, they seldom, if ever, do. In particular,
prices can go up in a 'perfectly matched' supply vs demand market if demand
(and the matching supply) is decreasing because the economies of scale are
lost. And, just as economy of scale often increases demand because more can
buy at a lower price, losing it can depress demand as the price increases;
which is probably what leads to the fanciful notion that it's 'purpose',
rather than natural result, is to "discourage continued use."

To wit, manufacturers would love to build the same thing forever because
it's predictable. You know how it works, how to make it, what the costs are
and all the rest whereas the 'new' thing is full of development costs and
unpredictable problems. But you can't just keep making the same old thing
because Mr. Competitor will come out with his 'new and improved' version to
take market share so you have to have your 'new and improved' version in
the works to keep even, or maybe take HIS market share. And that means,
eventually, your manufacturing is going to transition to the 'new and
improved' version because that's what people will be buying (unless you
screwed up). In the process you're losing sales volume (people want the
'new and improved') and economies of scale on the fading product till it
just isn't worth making any more. In practice you try to predict the timing
of that transition in your business plan so, as Murphy would have it, there
may be unusual, transitional, 'bumps' along the way, resulting in price
oddities, if things don't pan out precisely as planned but you don't just
arbitrarily dump a profitable product.

Now, if you folks would quit buying the 'new and improved' versions and be
satisfied with P233MMXs and 32 Meg of RAM SIMMS running Windows for
Workgroups 3.11 we wouldn't have this problem

This may not be
true for PC cpu's though. I tend to think that enthusiasts have created a
demand for Northwood parts. Northwoods seem to have better press and so are
the preferred over Prescotts, so retailers, etc., are taking advantage of
the situation. Your basic 'Supply and Demand' situation at work.