Was Netburst's problem really just price?

[pxc]

Power consumption was also a problem of course, but many of the mainstream chips have been 84W (single core up to 3.6GHz) or 95W (dual core up to 3GHz on B0/B1 9x0 chips and up to 3.6GHz on C1/D0 9x0 chips) for a while or more recently. I don't want to argue that AMD chips use less power, or that the highest end chips use more power. The top end processors are niche chips and a few watts one way or the other for mainstream chips aren't a concern for a non-overclocked typical OEM desktop system.

As many people are aware, Intel is about to do its second large price cut this year on Netburst core chips. The July 23 price list looks like this for Netburst chips:

dual core
P4D 960 3.6GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB $316
P4D 950 3.4GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB $224
P4D 945 3.4GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB $163
P4D 940 3.2GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB $183
P4D 930 3.0GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB $178
P4D 920 2.8GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB $178
P4D 915 2.8GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB $133
P4D 820 2.8GHz / 800MHz 2x1MB $113
P4D 805 2.66GHz / 533MHz 2x1MB $93

single core (6x1 = 65nm parts)
P4 661 3.6GHz / 800MHz 2MB $183
P4 651 3.4GHz / 800MHz 2MB $163
P4 641 3.2GHz / 800MHz 2MB $163
P4 631 3.0GHz / 800MHz 2MB $163
P4 541 3.2GHz / 800MHz 1MB $84
P4 531 3.0GHz / 800MHz 1MB $74
P4 524 3.06GHz / 533MHz 1MB $69

Celeron 356 3.33GHz / 533MHz 512KB $74
Celeron 352 3.2GHz / 533MHz 512KB $69

What I mean by the title is that many of the chips above look really attractive now, especially when the lower power cores start trickling down (65W Ceder Mill, 95W higher speed Presler). The lower price puts these somewhat-mediocre chips in a completely different light, IMO. I don't mean any are bad, but when these chips were full price (excluding the D 805) AMD's competitive chips made these seem not as attractive.

What do you think? I think Intel can sell as many of these chips as they care to produce. Since Conroe production can't support all Intel x86 demand, these Netburst chips will still be around for at least a few more quarters.

 

[Poncho]

The Prescott series 6xx and above were good/great chips that have a bad rap from the previous Socket 478 prescotts. If you were to go with some of the 9xx series dual cores it would still be a great choice if you are limited by your board. Now... if you need to get all new hardware then you should go with a Conroe, even one of the "lower" end models if price is a concern.

 

[visaris]

I'll reserve judgement until AMD announces their price cuts at the end of the month.

 

[pxc]

Now... if you need to get all new hardware then you should go with a Conroe, even one of the "lower" end models if price is a concern.

I considered that. It's pretty easy for upgraders: socket compatibility and budget play a huge part in the decision. But when replacing board/CPU and possibly memory, even a "lower end model" Core 2 can be a hefty upgrade. At minimum so far, that means $90 for an Intel chipset board + a $183 E6300 CPU and maybe new memory if someone still uses DDR (like me). That's over $270, at minimum. Sure it's a fast chip, but not everyone will want to spend that much. There are cheaper alternatives for those who don't, especially for overclocking enthusiasts. I just can't see how I can ignore the 541 if i'm building a second system.

I'll reserve judgement until AMD announces their price cuts at the end of the month.

What I wrote in the first post also applies to A64 chips and the lower end X2 chips if the X2 3600+ price rumor is true (~$139). Moving up within the same socket is often the best choice for someone on a budget.

I don't know enough about how the promotions are going to affect AMD's 7/24 price changes, so I couldn't comment on it above. Plus it would be a little off topic from the title of the thread.

 

[StealthyFish]

Ah, but there is an ECS board (via chipset) that's 58 bucks, supports DDR1 and DDR2 plus AGP and PCIe with conroe support. Not high end, but saving a couple of dollars here and there. just 183 + 58 and you've got yourself a faster system (although I can't guarantee that you won't bottleneck with DDR1).

 

[Mabrito]

Whats the difference between the 945 and the 950?

 

[Bao01]

What I mean by the title is that many of the chips above look really attractive now, especially when the lower power cores start trickling down (65W Ceder Mill, 95W higher speed Presler).

Before they came out, I was really excited about Cedar Mill. Looking at the price list, a PD915 with two 2.8 CM cores will cost $113 whereas a single 631 running at 3.0 costs $163?? The CM doesn't look very attractive. So you're right, price is the issue.

And boy, that 915 sure looks like the perfect bargain.

 

[pxc]

Ah, but there is an ECS board (via chipset) that's 58 bucks, supports DDR1 and DDR2 plus AGP and PCIe with conroe support. Not high end, but saving a couple of dollars here and there. just 183 + 58 and you've got yourself a faster system (although I can't guarantee that you won't bottleneck with DDR1).

ATI or nvidia chipsets are probably fine on Intel boards and of course Intel chipsets are fine, but no way am I going to recommend a VIA or SiS chipset ECS board for running a Conroe CPU. And I say that while I have an ECS board in my desktop. The ASRock 945P Conroe board for $32 extra (I included shipping in that $90 figure) is well worth it.

Lazy_Moron: VT is the only difference.

Bao01: the cheapest Cedar Mill chips are the Celeron D 352/356. Too bad they only come with 512KB L2. When those prices drop they will make awesome overclocking budget chips too.

 

[Poncho]

but no way am I going to recommend a VIA or SiS chipset ECS board for running a Conroe CPU.

QFT X 1 billion. I would rather run a 2.4 northwood on a 865 board than a conroe on a VIA chipset. It's NOT worth the hassle.

socket compatibility and budget play a huge part in the decision. But when replacing board/CPU and possibly memory, even a "lower end model" Core 2 can be a hefty upgrad

This is why I said go with a budget core 2 if you already have to purchase additional hardware meaning board, ram, video card, etc. If you are already buying those things... go with Conroe. If you are just looking to upgrade your processor and already own a 915 or greater board.... stick with a Prescott or a Presler depending on your board. Anybody who has to buy new hardware right now would be ill advised to get anything but a conroe IMHO.

 

[StealthyFish]

ATI or nvidia chipsets are probably fine on Intel boards and of course Intel chipsets are fine, but no way am I going to recommend a VIA or SiS chipset ECS board for running a Conroe CPU. And I say that while I have an ECS board in my desktop. The ASRock 945P Conroe board for $32 extra (I included shipping in that $90 figure) is well worth it.

Lazy_Moron: VT is the only difference.

Bao01: the cheapest Cedar Mill chips are the Celeron D 352/356. Too bad they only come with 512KB L2. When those prices drop they will make awesome overclocking budget chips too.

Just suggesting. You could also go 865 board from... ECS i think. that supports DDR1, AGP, and Conroe. Not everyone wants a new computer dude. There are a lot of people who would rather spend 200 dollars than 1000 on a new system. the Via board isn't half bad. the 945P board is also okay, but it supports DDR2 and PCIe, so the person buying a system would have to spend around 100 for 1Gb of DDR2 + 100-400 depending on the graphics card along with the CPU and board price.