Will the A64-X2's price convert you to Intel?

Will the price of the A64-X2 convert you to Intel?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 7.0%

  • No

    Votes: 187 93.0%
  • Total voters
    201
I

InorganicMatter

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
15,461
AMD has always had the greatest price/performance ratio, and even I as an Intel guy have to admit to this. But gosh, AMDs new dual-core processors start at $537! I always thought these guys catered to the enthusiast on a budget. These price changes completely turn the tables. AMD is now offering a 25% performance increase over Intel, at twice the cost! Will the huge price gap convert any of you guys to Intel when it comes time to go dual-core?
 
Hell no. :p I'm a gamer at heart, as well as benchmarker, so AMD is definately the way to go. If I do go dual cores, Intel can't even provide speeds above 3.2GHz per core, when their single cores go all the way up to 3.8GHz....I bet if Intel could get their act together and get two cores at higher speeds into one CPU, they'd charge more.
 
AMD for me! ;)
I'm afraid the Prescotts and the new dual core Pentium Extreme Edition 840's will catch my house on fire. :D
 
I agree that amd prices are for dual are a bit high, but is it worth double the cost for 25% more performance, I don't know. Why don't we ask Intel? They've been doing it for years. Remember the difference in the P4 2.8C and the Athlon XP 2800+? Was that worth it?
 
I'll definitely be upgrading to an X2 over a P4D mainly cause I don't want to have a pc that keeps the neighbors awake cause of the fan. The X2's are supposed to run about as cool as the 130nm A64's so heat on them isn't a big issue. And these are probly just intro prices until AMD's yields start to come up. I think thats the main reason why they're gonna be so expensive to start, they probly aren't getting good yields yet.
 
Since i allready have a s939 Im not so worried... I only have to buy the CPU so thestep isn't that big once I take it. That is something that most INTEL ppl oversee when they make the comparison. A lot of the ppl who want Dual Core allready have a s939 system to build on and then U get a lot of power for less then what the INTEL would cost. However If U want it new the cost is going to B pretty much the same it looks like and then Id just go with performance which still meand AMD right now.
 
I'm not saying that I will, but if they overclock nicely compared to an FX series, yeah I will...but my goal right now isn't dual core it's an FX-57. But IF I were to get duals, I'd go AMD no doubt. The heat put out by a dual core Intel is rediculous from what I've heard too.
 
Did it occur to the OP that the cheapest A64 X2 "consistently outperforms" Intel chips that are twice as expensive (from TechReport)?

Just like with the switch to 90 nm, AMD is taking small, cautious steps into the realm of dual-core processors. And just like the switch to 90 nm, they seem to have schooled Intel for the time being.

Understand that these chips provide almost no benefits to the average end-user right now. There is no reason for AMD to put out a cheap, low-end X2, because it would only hinder sales of its midrange single-core chips. Intel, essentially playing catch-up for the speed crown, has thrown this piece of good business sense to the wind. I guess it's working if people like the OP are swayed by comparing the prices of AMD's high-end chips to Intel's POS midrange line.

If you're a light multitasker, it's been obvious for some time now that a single-core, HyperThreaded P4 is right for you. But if you play games, you may want to read today's reviews before making a premature judgment call on the X2 line. The gaming performance of a 4200+ simply cannot be matched by any of Intel's chips, and the overall performance will cost you quite a bit more on Big Blue's side of the fence.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention that any consideration of price should not stop at the CPU itself. Anyone with a current 939 system will be able to keep their mobo and heatsink if they upgrade to an X2 down the line. So many people with a 939 box considering "switching" to a P4 should probably add $150 to the price for comparison purposes.
 
Frallan said:
Since i allready have a s939 Im not so worried... I only have to buy the CPU so thestep isn't that big once I take it. That is something that most INTEL ppl oversee when they make the comparison. A lot of the ppl who want Dual Core allready have a s939 system to build on and then U get a lot of power for less then what the INTEL would cost. However If U want it new the cost is going to B pretty much the same it looks like and then Id just go with performance which still meand AMD right now.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the cost of an Intel Dual Core processor and motherboard will still come out cheaper than the cost of an A64-X2.

Intel Board - $200 (I'm being generous)
Intel Processor - $300
Total - $500
AMD Dual-Core Processor - $537

Intel is still cheaper, and that is assuming you get the midrange Intel processor compared to the low-end AMD processor.
 
sac_tagg said:
Intel is still cheaper, and that is assuming you get the midrange Intel processor compared to the low-end AMD processor.
Click to expand...
This would be solid logic if it weren't for the fact that the "low-end" AMD processor really contains two high-end AMD cores, and spanks the highest-end (not to mention "midrange") Intel processors in every review I've read today. To reiterate, AMD is not catering to the budget segment yet with dual-cores. These people will not see any benefit from the chips for a while. It's no use comparing the prices of chips that meet vastly different performance expectations.
 
Imitation said:
I'll definitely be upgrading to an X2 over a P4D mainly cause I don't want to have a pc that keeps the neighbors awake cause of the fan. [...]
Click to expand...
Get a proper fan then.
 
My hope is that the X2 processors will lower the cost of single core Athlon64 CPU's, and I'll go with a faster clocked model at some future date. As cool as dual-core is, I can see few instances where it would benefit the things I currently do enough to justify the cost. At some point in the future where multithreaded apps are more common, I'll look at switching then.

I'm already happy with AMD, so I can't see switching to Intel either unless they come out with a solution that is competetive enough to encourage my switching to a new mainboard, and possibly different RAM. To do that their solution would have to run cooler than current Pentium 4 Prescott technology and use less power, while still providing competetive performance, at a reasonable price. I'm not picky, am I? ;)
 
LoneWolf said:
My hope is that the X2 processors will lower the cost of single core Athlon64 CPU's, and I'll go with a faster clocked model at some future date. As cool as dual-core is, I can see few instances where it would benefit the things I currently do enough to justify the cost. At some point in the future where multithreaded apps are more common, I'll look at switching then.
Click to expand...

thats exactly what I plan to do. hopefully by the end of summer I'll have enough to get a nice AMD gaming rig. and if i don't, well I can save up a bit more and et a lower end dual core machine.
 
no, it's simple. i don't need multithreaded performance. i'm an OC and bench junkie that does one thing at a time. the extra heat and added price for the extra core from both camps would be a negative, why would i pay extra for it? ;)
 
Why does everyone keep complaining about prices? I really don't get it at all. The price by itself is meaningless! Why do companies pay millions for super computers?!? They should just buy an Intel P4. I mean, look. The "D" is so much cheaper!

Really. Without looking at the performance of equally priced chips, you are wasting your time.

Intel is still cheaper, and that is assuming you get the midrange Intel processor compared to the low-end AMD processor.
Click to expand...
Right. "low-end" and "mid-range" are the way you compare these chips? Are you INSANE? Those words mean nothing! Why do you waste our time saying them? Perhaps you want to look at the benchmarks?

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=1

Again, lets look at some prices:

An Athlon 64 X2 4200 is faster hands down than the Intel Pentium D 840. And they cost about the same: P4"D"840 -- $530, Athlon64 X2 4200 -- $537. From a price/performance perspective, AMD is cheaper!

An Athlon 64 X2 4800 is fater hands down than the Intel EE 840. Lets look at prices again. Intel 840EE -- $999. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800 -- $1001. Again, from a price/performance perspective, AMD is cheaper than Intel.

Look at the benchmarks, look at the prices and stop being such a noob: "OMFG!! $500 for AMD! WoWWW! Teh INtel is oNly $241!!"

EDIT:
Well, I'm being a little mean here. Sorry about that. The point I want to get across is that "mid-range" and "low-end" don't mean anything. Please don't compare chips like that. Look at performance. AMDs "low-end" dual-core part is faster than Intel's "highest-end" Pentium "D", at the same price. Really, what does this say about intel? If you want a "low-end" Pentium D, great. Get one. They're nice and cheap. But to compare an Intel P4 D 820 (@1.8GHz) to an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200 (@2.2GHz) is just insane. Those two "low-end" CPUs are not even in the same class. Again, "low/high/mid-range/end", etc don't mean a thing.
 
sac_tagg said:
Yeah, but the cost of an Intel Dual Core processor and motherboard will still come out cheaper than the cost of an A64-X2.

Intel Board - $200 (I'm being generous)
Intel Processor - $300
Total - $500
AMD Dual-Core Processor - $537

Intel is still cheaper, and that is assuming you get the midrange Intel processor compared to the low-end AMD processor.
Click to expand...


The mindrage Intel DC (3,0) is $317. Anyway, you have to add to Intel option DDR2 too
 
The socket-939 of the new X2's is a huge selling point for AMD. That, added with the fact that it outperforms Intel's dual-core offerings, makes the higher price negligible for anyone looking to upgrade to dual-core. If my Shuttle ever gets dual-core support I might upgrade next fall or winter to the X2.

Edit: Just read visaris' post. That's what I'm aiming for but in fewer words :cool:
 
NEVERLIFT said:
AMD for me! ;)
I'm afraid the Prescotts and the new dual core Pentium Extreme Edition 840's will catch my house on fire. :D
Click to expand...

bwahahahah... :D

just hope that by the time dual cores for the s939 settle down, that the m2 isnt taking over.
 
AMD All the Way...

AMD may have a higher price but i will still stand by them because they listen to what the customer has to say... i have been to both AMD's and INTEL's little "Informationals" That they provide to resellers, and customers. and Hands down AMD shows that they care more about their customers they get insite, they bring in other vendors to show them off.. they work with the people.. hell i even got a nice fancy catered dinner, what did i get from intel. i nice flier a pamphlet and and a 3 hour lecture... BLAH
 
visaris said:
Why does everyone keep complaining about prices? I really don't get it at all. The price by itself is meaningless! Why do companies pay millions for super computers?!? They should just buy an Intel P4. I mean, look. The "D" is so much cheaper!

Really. Without looking at the performance of equally priced chips, you are wasting your time.

Right. "low-end" and "mid-range" are the way you compare these chips? Are you INSANE? Those words mean nothing! Why do you waste our time saying them? Perhaps you want to look at the benchmarks?

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=1

Again, lets look at some prices:

An Athlon 64 X2 4200 is faster hands down than the Intel Pentium D 840. And they cost about the same: P4"D"840 -- $530, Athlon64 X2 4200 -- $537. From a price/performance perspective, AMD is cheaper!

An Athlon 64 X2 4800 is fater hands down than the Intel EE 840. Lets look at prices again. Intel 840EE -- $999. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800 -- $1001. Again, from a price/performance perspective, AMD is cheaper than Intel.

Look at the benchmarks, look at the prices and stop being such a noob: "OMFG!! $500 for AMD! WoWWW! Teh INtel is oNly $241!!"

EDIT:
Well, I'm being a little mean here. Sorry about that. The point I want to get across is that "mid-range" and "low-end" don't mean anything. Please don't compare chips like that. Look at performance. AMDs "low-end" dual-core part is faster than Intel's "highest-end" Pentium "D", at the same price. Really, what does this say about intel? If you want a "low-end" Pentium D, great. Get one. They're nice and cheap. But to compare an Intel P4 D 820 (@1.8GHz) to an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200 (@2.2GHz) is just insane. Those two "low-end" CPUs are not even in the same class. Again, "low/high/mid-range/end", etc don't mean a thing.
Click to expand...
amen
 
i think it's a silly question to consider right now because we don't know the true prices of the hardware we're discussing. it may be that that amd's dc procs will be expensive, or they may be "expensive" in the same sense that the intel 955 motherboards are "$300" (meaning that these are launch prices and not meant to stay that way after a bit of time in retail channels).

even if amd's procs do stay expensive, they are not so bad when considering a system upgrade (especially if you plan to stay agp). if you've got a s939mb with good ram and an agp slot, it will be much cheaper to just grab an amd dc chip.
 
Well since I've just built a spanking new AMD SLI system I probably won't switch over to Intel. This is mainly because the price of a new board and CPU and memory would pretty much cancel the price benefit of buying an Intel DC setup over just getting an AMD DC and already having the memory and board. If I were however building a new system from scratch, the cheaper price of Intel's DC might interest me. I already have a noisy (high speed 120s cooling my rads) WCed systed so noise and temps aren't much of an issue for me.
 
dasaint said:
AMD All the Way...

AMD may have a higher price but i will still stand by them because they listen to what the customer has to say... i have been to both AMD's and INTEL's little "Informationals" That they provide to resellers, and customers. and Hands down AMD shows that they care more about their customers they get insite, they bring in other vendors to show them off.. they work with the people.. hell i even got a nice fancy catered dinner, what did i get from intel. i nice flier a pamphlet and and a 3 hour lecture... BLAH
Click to expand...

I would have to agree here. AMD has been responsive to the customer almost from day one. The result of that is a huge enthusiast market, a market in which Intel no longer plays a huge role. When a company like HP drops a multimillion-dollar project like they did with the Intel sever chips in favor of AMD one has to sit up and take notice.

If the market continues the way it has been Intel will start to lose its stronghold over the big manufactures. All that’s keeping Intel where it is at the moment is advertising money and “other benefits” paid to the big guys, and AMD currently can’t afford to do that. The other side of that coin is, the customer is demanding AMD and the big guys can’t afford to ignore that forever.

As for me personally, AMD is still the bang for the buck people who “Meet my needs”. Intel failed in that roll long ago.
 
Well I look at this two ways.

# 1) I am an intel guy right now.... So Will the A64 X2 convert me to intel... ummm.. I cant convert to what I already am... I am getting an Athlon X2 when they come out. I dont care if I have to pay 1001$ for the 4800+ I want performance. I could care less about the money aspect. I make enough to afford a decent computer :)

# 2) Price / Performance when Concedering between Dual Core Intel and Dual Core AMD. ITs closer than you think. Heres why.

AMD - Most of you to upgrade need what.... just the CPU. Right. If you already have a NForce 3 or 4 939 mobo... Bios update. So.. ok... 4800+ is 1001$.

INTEL... well Dual Core High end is what like 540$ for the 3.2Ghz Dual Core (not extrme editn) Plus it is a fact you will need a new motherboard.... so Get a good brand like ASUS. There is another 250$ you have to spend. SUddently you are up to 800ish dollars...

Not too far off in Price their.... I dont think anyway.


AMD is the way to go this round. They won :)
 
NEVERLIFT said:
AMD for me! ;)
I'm afraid the Prescotts and the new dual core Pentium Extreme Edition 840's will catch my house on fire. :D
Click to expand...

LOL, I joked with my friend that his Intel can heat his house, cook his eggs and run his games all at once!
 
I do believe AMD is successfully ditching the 'cheap intel alternative' marketing approach. There's no reason to charge any less for a X2 A64 when it is a top performer. Hopefully they'll have a few more profitable quarters in the future as a result.

To answer the original question, I won't be switching to intel anytime soon.
 
from looking at the tech report benchie, im surprised how well the 3800 and 4000+'s are doing. my 2500/9800 pro is startin to show it's age (still a mean system tho) so im glad i don't have to go straight for the x2's to get a nice performance jump.
 
I will go with whatever rocks the most for the money. Thank you.

The first respectable threaded game (Unreal3) is sleighted for release the same time as the M1 comes out. Forget the 939 dual-cores - waste of money.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
Well I look at this two ways.

# 1) I am an intel guy right now.... So Will the A64 X2 convert me to intel... ummm.. I cant convert to what I already am... I am getting an Athlon X2 when they come out. I dont care if I have to pay 1001$ for the 4800+ I want performance. I could care less about the money aspect. I make enough to afford a decent computer :)

# 2) Price / Performance when Concedering between Dual Core Intel and Dual Core AMD. ITs closer than you think. Heres why.

AMD - Most of you to upgrade need what.... just the CPU. Right. If you already have a NForce 3 or 4 939 mobo... Bios update. So.. ok... 4800+ is 1001$.

INTEL... well Dual Core High end is what like 540$ for the 3.2Ghz Dual Core (not extrme editn) Plus it is a fact you will need a new motherboard.... so Get a good brand like ASUS. There is another 250$ you have to spend. SUddently you are up to 800ish dollars...

Not too far off in Price their.... I dont think anyway.


AMD is the way to go this round. They won :)
Click to expand...

And 1 thing that ppl keep forgetting that was mentioned here once, is DDR2. Throw in another $300-500 depending on how much and you are way above a 4400+ and right at a 4800+. No, AMD figured this into their pricing. It works.
 
AMD's dual core prices will settle down... eventually.

Until these dual core chips are actually released and on the market, its hard to say.

I remember back when CD players were $800 or more. Now I bet you could buy one for $30 or less. Heck, I remember when 1GHz CPU's were almost $800... they sure have come down in price. In other words, its too early to tell.

I think its pretty nice that AMD can actually start charging enough money for their product that they can make a profit. Those bargain K7 days were losses, just to get their foot in the door, and at that time, I firmly believe Intel had a better product (Northwoods > K7).

Things have changed. The AMD "platform" (which includes mobo's and supporting 3rd party chipsets) has matured a LOT over the last few years. (from a stability perspective). AMD chips also now run COOLER than Intels. They added a heat spreader with the K8's, were the leader when it came to x86-64, the leader with no-execute, and with socket 939, you don't have to keep buying motherboards out the yin-yang, unlike S775.

I am also a gamer, so gaming benchmarks carry the most weight for me.

I like being able to get a long lifespan from my PC upgrades. I intentionally waited for s939, and bought them at the bleeding edge (but not without its pain). Unfortunately PCI express was not out when I needed my new system (had to play doom 3 at quakecon 04!) so I am stuck with AGP for a bit.. but atleast my s939 is READY to accept a dual core or FX processor once they come down in price (or I really need more computing power... not until Quake 4 or UT2007).

Intel has gone through enough chipsets in the last year to make me dizzy! (i.e. 955X, 925XE, 925X, 915... ALL within a year!!!) When s775 was released, why the heck could they not anticipate the faster fsb or dual core? I also dislike the heat.



But if things changed... suppose Intel came out with a chip that ran cooler than K8's, and outperformed the K8's for the same money, I would highly consider it. I say let the best chip win, and I always keep an open mind.

I think Intel can do it. I believe they have a bigger R&D budget, and better manufacturing capabilities than AMD... time for them to turn up the heat!

Competition is great, huh?
 
Hornswoggler said:
I think Intel can do it. I believe they have a bigger R&D budget, and better manufacturing capabilities than AMD... time for them to turn up the heat!
Click to expand...
erm... they already did that... id like for them to tone it down a notch, actually... ;)
 
Maybe if I was given a top of the line Intel machine that magically wins in gaming...
Otherwise No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top