• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

when did intel get so bleeding expensive?

G

grenadier

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2002
Messages
494
It seems like I'm permanently stuck on the great ship Intel since I do a lot of video / media work and Intel's chips are far superior in this regard. Only thing is DAMN, since when did an upgrade get so expensive? DDR2 costs twice as much as DDR and I have to replace my video card to boot. I'm stuck here at 2.6, but the only viable upgrade path (1gb ddr2, 925xe, 3.2E, pciE video) would run me around $500~$600 assuming I was able to sell my old hardware.

I'm not even sure a motherboard I bought today wouldn't be outdated a month from now due to some new 925XE DELUXE EMT64 update or something. Does anyone have any idea when it will be a safe investment to upgrade using Intel again? Are they planning to finalize a long-term lga775 chipset or are they just going to keep releasing incremental upgrades every six months (i.e. 925xe)?
 
It's still cheap. My 486DX2-66 with motherboard costed me $800 10 years ago.

Trung
 
honestly... the difference between the high end athlon 64s and p4's are negligible... it's like the argument that amd's aren't as stable, it just really doesn't hold up anymore... plus, the A64's are usually a fraction of the cost for the same performance these days
 
The difference between a64's and p4s in video editing is pretty substantial. All of the editing programs that are currently available are encoded to take advantage of hyperthreading and higher fsb.

Does anyone know if the new p4 chips w/2mb L2 will require a bios update or a new chipset purchase?
 
grenadier said:
The difference between a64's and p4s in video editing is pretty substantial. All of the editing programs that are currently available are encoded to take advantage of hyperthreading and higher fsb.

Does anyone know if the new p4 chips w/2mb L2 will require a bios update or a new chipset purchase?
Click to expand...

More than likely. If the chip wasn't available for validation at the time of the boards design and manufacturing you can expect to need a BIOS upgrade.

The A64's aren't really and cheaper at all. The platform is due to the boards being a little cheaper. But basically the chips are about the same. The FX55 and the Pentium 4 EE's are almost exactly the same just as an example.

The only thing making Intel much more expensive is DDR2 based systems.
 
Sweet! I finally managed to stabilize my 2.6C @ 3.25 after letting my AS5 set for about a month! Damn that stuff took a long time to set.

Anyhoo... I think I'm going to just wait it out and see what becomes available in '05. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping for a 3.2 lga775 prescott w/ EMT64 & 2MB L2 that'll overclock to 4Ghz on air. Oh yeah and 200GB+ 10k SATA2 drives with NCQ =).
 
grenadier said:
Sweet! I finally managed to stabilize my 2.6C @ 3.25 after letting my AS5 set for about a month! Damn that stuff took a long time to set.

Anyhoo... I think I'm going to just wait it out and see what becomes available in '05. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping for a 3.2 lga775 prescott w/ EMT64 & 2MB L2 that'll overclock to 4Ghz on air. Oh yeah and 200GB+ 10k SATA2 drives with NCQ =).
Click to expand...

Not to hijack, but don't you think that just might be because it's almost winter? ;)
 
trungma said:
It's still cheap. My 486DX2-66 with motherboard costed me $800 10 years ago.

Trung
Click to expand...


Exactly, People dont realize how cheap stuff is now. I've still got my IBMXT from when i was 13 years old my Dad bought, That thing was over 3grand for what 4mhz.

I've got a $2400 25mhz DX4 laptop. And man i shelled out $800 for a 1 gig HD long ago.

Just thinking $700 for that Pentium 2 266 that was the Ultimate and man i'll never need faster this computer is going to last me 10 years!!!

A month for AS to set?? i always just run it without the fan on for a few minutes and heat it up in the 80's, that sets it on my air cooled rigs.

Nice choice of HD's if they make them. Im using a pair of 300 gig Maxline 16mb cache drives, i swapped out my 74 gig raptors for them Picked up a hell of a lot of extra storage for the same price. My sustained HD speed average is slower, but my Burst is a lot faster than my Raptors.

As always you have to pay to have fun. How much fun do you want to have??
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
The FX55 and the Pentium 4 EE's are almost exactly the same just as an example.
Click to expand...

Thats not entirely true. There are several differences in the design of the chips and their features. AMD offers more at a lower price point.

Athlon 64 FX
- SOI Technology (Intel, none)
- x86-64 (Intel doesn't have it)
- Hypertransport (like a 2GHz FSB)
- Intigrated memory controller (reduced latency)
- 1MB L2
- No Execute technology

Pentium 4 EE
- 512KB L2, 2MB L3 (wasted transistors compared to AMD)
- Only 800MHz FSB
 
SparkedFire said:
Thats not entirely true. There are several differences in the design of the chips and their features. AMD offers more at a lower price point.

Athlon 64 FX
- SOI Technology (Intel, none)
- x86-64 (Intel doesn't have it)
- Hypertransport (like a 2GHz FSB)
- Intigrated memory controller (reduced latency)
- 1MB L2
- No Execute technology

Pentium 4 EE
- 512KB L2, 2MB L3 (wasted transistors compared to AMD)
- Only 800MHz FSB
Click to expand...

Of course, now intel has a 1066 FSB on the EE processor.
 
I don't that they are so much more expensive than in the past, it's just that you don't get much performance improvement for your money.
 
SparkedFire said:
Thats not entirely true. There are several differences in the design of the chips and their features. AMD offers more at a lower price point.

Athlon 64 FX
- SOI Technology (Intel, none)
- x86-64 (Intel doesn't have it)
- Hypertransport (like a 2GHz FSB)
- Intigrated memory controller (reduced latency)
- 1MB L2
- No Execute technology

Pentium 4 EE
- 512KB L2, 2MB L3 (wasted transistors compared to AMD)
- Only 800MHz FSB
Click to expand...

Actually the AMD is of course a bit faster. But price wise they are in the same price point.

The cache differences aren't offerings of more or less. It's simply a difference in architecture. As is Hypertransport. X86-64 has no advantages over EM64T. The memory controller integration has the advantage of speed. But has a disadvantage that's pretty big in my opinion. It's not flexible. You'd have to change the processor core to change memory technologies and even speeds.

SOI? Who cares. The performance of the chip is what matters. Intel had 90nm first. Does that matter? No. Is the Pentium 4 EE inferior to the Prescott chips because it's 130nm? Hell no.

This is all differences in design and manufacturing. Those features that supposedly give you more could be argued the other way. As a platform you've got more features on the Intel side.

PCI-Express
DDR2 400/533
Matrix RAID
Intel High Definition Audio

And actually Intel does have NX. It's called XD and all processors with a "J" suffix have it. So a 3.4FJ would be a 64bit chip with XD (Execute Disable).

Intel also has EM64T which is functionally the same as x86-64.

Don'f forget Pentium M. On a crappy 855 chipset it can still best or match just about anything AMD has clock for clock.

And in the end all these "features" amount to jack shit. Performance is what matters. The two companies are different as night and day. To say AMD offers more at the same price point is about absurd. Unless you build a DDR2 system you get about the same performance level per dollar depending on your apps. Intel favors some apps and AMD's are king at gaming.

If you buy into either camps marketing BS you've been duped either way. Except in benchmarks in certain apps, each companies offerings offer great performance. Both companies have crappier performing lower price point offerings that are still quality parts.
 
"If you buy into either camps marketing BS you've been duped either way."

AMD has a marketing department? :p

"To say AMD offers more at the same price point is about absurd. Unless you build a DDR2 system you get about the same performance level per dollar depending on your apps. Intel favors some apps and AMD's are king at gaming."

Well by the time your done paying for a DDR2 based LGA 775 platform AMD offers more [performance] at a lower price point. That also applies to non 9XX chipset systems.
 
New computers used to be well over $6,000 when new chips were introduced. The 8086 was close to $1000 new....all 29,000 transistors of it.
 
so as far as dropping the price and such...can we assume and connect that...

AMD : Walmart :: Intel : CompUSSR
 
SparkedFire said:
Thats not entirely true. There are several differences in the design of the chips and their features. AMD offers more at a lower price point.

Athlon 64 FX
- SOI Technology (Intel, none)
- x86-64 (Intel doesn't have it)
- Hypertransport (like a 2GHz FSB)
- Intigrated memory controller (reduced latency)
- 1MB L2
- No Execute technology

Pentium 4 EE
- 512KB L2, 2MB L3 (wasted transistors compared to AMD)
- Only 800MHz FSB
Click to expand...

You seem to be forgetting Hyper Threading. One of Intel's major selling points, including for me. Lots of things you mentioned aren't really "features" but things that enhance AMD's performance overall. Who cares about specs in the end? It's all about the end user experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top