P4EE will cost $1000

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...1013022157.htm

"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."

"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

"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

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?

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

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.

"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

"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

In article ,
says...
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.

The same happens in every industry. Seagrams (many years ago)
raised their prices on their line. Their market share shot up.
No one wants to be caught drinking, much less giving, swill.

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.

Resentful? No, though I know people who have been resentful of
say an option to add Floating Point, being the removal of a
single wire-wrap. ...or adding a processor by simply paying the
invoice (with the option of paying by day).

It's capitalism's form of socialism: those who want the best and can
afford to pay for it subsidize those who can't.

I disagree. It's capitalism all the way. It's cheaper for the
manufacturer to make one model and sell different versions.
After all, speed grades are the same bloody thing.

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.

Agreed. I see nothing wrong with intentionally crippled
hardware. It's not that the customer doesn't get what's been
paid for, rather that the producer saves money by producing one
widget and marketing it to all.

--
Keith