Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 17 to 24 of 24

Thread: nF3 mobos for XP?

  1. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    edinburgh
    Posts
    99
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Originally posted by Swafeman
    funny thing is, if you clocked a celeron to 3ghz, then downclocked a ath64 for 1ghz

    the athlon 64 would easily cream it , amd is the way to go
    Haha! damn right it would!
    Acer Travelmate 8104WMLi
    P-M 2.0 Ghz
    2Gb DDR533 Corsair RAM
    100Gb 7200rpm Seagtae HD
    128Mb ATi x700 Mobility

  2. #18
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    37
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    if you think, though, that Intel dont have a 64bit ready to roll within a year max dependant on the K8 success, ur kidding urself. Also, i dont think it is worth comparing the K8 to P4s, since P5s will be out shortly and that is where we can really see which is better.

    For me however, it is AMD regardless, given that they are cheaper and i wont be able to afford an intel! Maybe i will wait and get a K8 though... decisions decisions!

  3. #19
    Sublime HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Void.. Floating
    Posts
    11,819
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked
    233 times in 160 posts
    • Stoo's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Mac Pro
      • CPU:
      • 2*Xeon 5450 @ 2.8GHz, 12MB Cache
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 1600MHz FBDIMM
      • Storage:
      • ~ 2.5TB + 4TB external array
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ATI Radeon HD 4870
      • Case:
      • Mac Pro
      • Operating System:
      • OS X 10.7
      • Monitor(s):
      • 24" Samsung 244T Black
      • Internet:
      • Zen Max Pro
    drunkenmaster, what you don't seem to get is that trickle more of less represents the average buyer's opinions, and the average buyer won't be buying into A64 tech until sometime next year at the earliest.

    Pretty much the only people that are going to be jumping on board now are the rich and the enthusiasts that "need" the latest whatever. This is the way that things happen in this business (and pretty much every other technology led sector), always have, and always will.

    The vast majority of people will be holding off until the prices drop to a more wallet friendly level, the 64bit software is available (namely windows etc), and the techonolgy has proven itself.

    The only way that people are going to get into this earlier will be if the box-shifters like dell etc soak up some of the extra cost of the new technology, resulting in systems costs similar to the mainstream at the moment.

    As for the "Why settle for less" argument, the simple answer is compromise. It's cheaper, the technology is proven, and it's going to be more than enough to anything anyone wants to do for the forseeable.
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  4. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    529
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Originally posted by drunkenmaster
    [B]What you don't seem to get is, teh 2.4C is actually a downclocked 3.0C, IE, if you DIDN'T have that £500 chip on release, subsidising the 2.4C, there would BE NO 2.4C. Likewise without the £400 3200+ there would have been NO 2500+'s.
    You remember that AMD had to reduce their original intended release clock speed of the Opertron and are now only getting back up there. That they were having a problem with yields and that the major issue was that the on chip cache wasnt coping with the high frequencies giving concern that the chip could have problems scaling in future. You realise that the 1.4ghz chips were the ones that's cache had failed at 1.8Ghz - so its not as if you can automatically expect to buy your "2500+" in "1 months time" and guarantee that it will scale to big brother speeds.

    What does ATI and Nvidia make most of their money on? CPU market is different (its obvious why AMD wanted to move into the more lucrative enterprise market), but they will still likely make more profit on the middle market. They wouldnt bring out Durons if it wasnt worth their while. Shall I turn the tables on you and say that there wouldnt be an AMD 64 if they hadn't have 'won' the value market in the past - they wouldnt still be in business.
    The only way you CAN afford the lower chips, is by people subsidising you and paying more for the same chip, so bark as much as you want, but ultimately, other people are paying for your chip, so maybe be less judgemental of the other chips.
    You can try to squint at this from as many different angles as you want. A home user gets more for their money buying a chip at a different stage of its life cycle.
    hardware costs are very relevant in the computer industy, its just for many company's, maybe gfx rendering, its simple, the faster they can get work done, they more they can do, so they buy teh chips that will be fastest without overclocking, and with a garentee from manu that it will run that speed.
    So now a 2.4C isnt actually a downclocked 3.0C?
    PS, since when has hardware been waiting for software to advance? HL2 will only jsut play on recent hardware(without looking like pap). As its supposed to run, less than 5 gfx cards will play it as designed to,
    Why do new console games look so good even when running at low TV resolutions? Its because the designers have tuned the polygon count to match the capabilities of the hardware. [yes I know recent ones actually use aa etc]

    The fact that we see so many benches with 4xaa+8xaf running games that look fine at 1600x1200 is proof that 1 year old cards like the 9700pro entered the market way before there was any software capable of stretching its legs.

    Remember when we bought new cpu's that made our desktop environments go quicker? I'll also remind you that Half life 2 still isnt out.

  5. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    290
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    13 times in 12 posts
    you can't run a 2.4C at 3Ghz without overclocking fsb, so for people whose lively hood depends on stability, and efefctive production, running a bunch of servers/rendering farm at 250Mhz fsb, with lower latency ram and more heat troubles, doesn't happen.

    Stoo, lots of people buy computers with 3Ghz P4's in, they are £450, the ath 64 will be £375 on release, cheaper in larger bulk to the likes of Dell, so. Anyway, most of the people i know, from a variety of incomes, tend to buy once every 2-3 years and spend like 1.5k or so when they do, that will easily buy a ath 64 rig, which would also be the fastest rig, by quite a margin, that they can buy.

    Also, 64bit windows is here, but whats more is, you don't need ANY 64 bit software to use the ath 64, its just that much faster that it is worth getting.


    As for other dude again, Opterons were failed higher cores? Thats why anandtech, and others could easily clock there 140 to 144. Did it ever occur to you that, they didn't need to release at 2Ghz, as, it was the fastest server chip around at 1.4Ghz? , really, you mean if a company has the fastest chip around, and can extend the life of a chip by not rushing out what they can produce out the door, they can make more money? Shocking.

    AS for what your saying about home users getting better value at different point in cycle, i have to say, nicely reworded what i said , well done.

    The main point here is you are saying its too expensive. Its faster than a 3200+ barton, yet will be the same price the barton was 2 days ago. its faster than a 3.2Ghz P4 thats £450, and it will be close to £100 cheaper. The simple fact is, If they priced it accordingly, the Ath 64's would ALWAYS be more expensive than a P4, that would mean that the lowest ath 64, would never make it down apst £150. The fact is, that as its a cost effective chip, cheaper to produce. They can price it lower than the SLOWER opposition, they will reduce prices to £200 then, £140. Thats only on the current 3200+ version . Knowing amd, and what they've done with every new chip version, is they release a few budget, lower end versions of the chip, so people can buy down the range. You can't however just make a worse batch of cores, its impossible, and stupid. The chip will be made that will do 3200+ minimum, we shoudl see similar chips to a 2500+ within 2 months.

    Point is, if you can get one, which will obviously do 3200+, how is that not cost effective.


    AS for Durons, well, have no idea what you are talking about, the Athlon was first, and IT enabled the release of the Duron, NOT vice versa, so, ya argument sucks. By me saying it enabled the release of the duron, the Duron is a blooming athlon. You also helped me prove my point, there is a big advantage of releasing slower chips, to get teh whole market. AMD, by bringing out lower clocked Ath 64's, will persuade all those people, who are thinking " I want a new chip, but these new 64's are out, don't wanna get something worse, so i guess i'll wait till the 3200+ is cheap", people not buying are lsot profits, so they provide a cheap for every occasion. It is how they've stayed in buisness.
    Last edited by drunkenmaster; 20-09-2003 at 10:11 PM.

  6. #22
    Sublime HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Void.. Floating
    Posts
    11,819
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked
    233 times in 160 posts
    • Stoo's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Mac Pro
      • CPU:
      • 2*Xeon 5450 @ 2.8GHz, 12MB Cache
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 1600MHz FBDIMM
      • Storage:
      • ~ 2.5TB + 4TB external array
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ATI Radeon HD 4870
      • Case:
      • Mac Pro
      • Operating System:
      • OS X 10.7
      • Monitor(s):
      • 24" Samsung 244T Black
      • Internet:
      • Zen Max Pro
    drunkenmaster:

    Windows 64bit edition most certainly is not "here" (unless you are in the industry or are on the beta program, you will have an early pirate copy), it is on a limited beta release to co-incide with the limited "trickle release" of the Athlon64, the full production isn't due to swing into action until Q1/Q2 next year - That has been documented on many, many sites.

    The facts don't change - the Athlon64 until the middle of next year will pretty much be restricted to the rich and the hardware enthusiasts, AMD understands this, so does anyone else that has any inkling of how the industry works.

    The Athlon64 lite (or whatever it is called, can't remember off hand) has already been documented and is basically those opterons that have cache problems, but with the problem part of the cache disabled (Basically due to the sheer amount of chache included on such a large die, some of it was faulty, so they will be recycled).

    You really need a better understanding of how cpu cores are produced and how they get to market to understand the points that myself and Trickle have put forward.

    For the *average* user and the *mainstream* market the initial cores produced DO NOT represent good value for money.
    These initial cores will be slower and hence more expensive than 3-6 months down the line when production of the cores has been ramped up, and AMD (or intel for that matter) is getting better yields of the chips, again this is simple fact and has been documented many times over the years.

    Eventually once enough demand for the various range of chips is there, AMD will start underclocking chips in order to fill the greater demand for the slower, and most importantly, cheaper chips.
    This is where we get the overclocking "uber" chips from.

    The whole thing is governed by the manufacturing product life cycle, this is standard theory taught in every business school on the planet.

    Here is a quick over-view:



    and the graphical version:



    Relating this to CPU manufacturing:

    The embrionic stage is the initial run, low yields producing the engineering samples, and then the very first chips hitting market. (The initial Opterons/A64's in this case)

    Moving on the yields move up, the manufacturing process gets better and the prices drop a little, but the prices still remain high and the sales are still low. This is roughly the stage the A64 is getting into now, and this is the point I was making about being pretty much the reserve of the rich and the enthusiasts.

    Then we hit the growth stage, this is where the manufacturing process is hitting enough to satisfy the high end markets and just starting to creep into the medium-high systems. This will probably be around christmas/new year.

    Around that and the next stage in the product life cycle is where the "harry homeowner" jumps onboard the A64 in droves, where the product has proven itself, the software has been released and the production volumes are up high enough to drive the prices of the lower end chips down to consumer friendly levels, usually around the point where the low-mid range chips are coming in around the £150 mark.

    By the time the decline phase hits the critical point, the next core should start to appear and the whole process starts over.

    The whole thing shifts backwards and forwards a little with slight core revisions, speed bumps, and other factors like market conditions etc, but it more or less follows the above. This has been proven time and time again in the past, with the only changing trend being the move to shorter and shorter life cycles.

    Your rantings do not change the facts, or history.
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  7. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    290
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    13 times in 12 posts
    So how come, for instance, when teh t-bred's came out, they didn't continue to use the cheaper(at that point) and higher yield Xp's for the slower chips, which they were producing, but moved DIRECTLY, to producing "underclocked" faster t-bred chips. Because it is FAR FAR FAR FAR cheaper for them to make one chip and sell all the chips off that at whatever speeds are needed, via multiplier changing, to sell as quickly as possible.

    We won't agree on windows for now i guess, of course you are trying to say there is no 64bit windows, which afaik is false, but you are right, the version, that will natively support both 32bit and 64bit, needed for the ath 64 to really get going.

    only problems with what you are saying are, yields are unnervingly, and uinexpected, very high. The ath lite's, are, afaik, made up by you. The product cycles you state, are accurate, but, as with anything, any one of those cycles can pass at any point. The opteron is in pretty high demand, as its faster, and cheaper than the xeon.

    The production is already pretty cheap, as yields are FAr higher than expected.

    If the first 64 to be released is sub £400, and most of the people i know, plump for machines over 1K, these can easily become large volume sales imediately.

    The point is, who are you to decide, when these different stages will occur.

    as you keep missing, the software that supports this is already there, as its 100% compatible with every single piece of software we all own, and its faster using it. Therefore waiting for the very specific 32/64bit version of windows would be nice, but will not really provide anything useful, as 99% of the other software, will just sue the 32bit part of the OS, which is already available.

    The product doesn't really need to prove itself, if it works it works, the athlon t-bred didn't need to "prove" itself, it just was. What do you think will be proved about this chip that we don't already know?

    I'd imagine the chips, when made available to dell, will be what, around teh £350 mark, that will make it faster and cheaper than everything above a 2.8C Intel chip(with it being £200 or so). That means it can already displace those chips and become the value high end chip.


    ANyway, despite all that you are still arguing, without reading or understanding anything i have said. Try looking back, i haven't said its teh cheapest chip available now, i have said multiple times that by late october, mid novemeber, we will see faster versions, and this one, the 3200+ will drop to around the £250 mark, thats allready very cheap, by xmas, when intel might have some P4EE available, at £600, they will bring in yet another chip to show it jsut whose boss. That should push teh 3200+ down to sub £200.

    I repeatedly say that, having this chip debuting at £375retail, is very cost effective as we will see some very lowe priced version in the pretty near future. IT COULD be priced higher than the top end P4, at £600-700, because its faster, we would therefore never see them in the next year, at £100, we would see intel style pricing. We aren't, hence they are cheap, your deffinition may be different, but for me, if its cheaper and faster, its cost effective for me, and everyone buying it. Perhaps, for you to disagree, you believe the opposite to be true, and feel the P4 is cost effective right now?

  8. #24
    Sublime HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Void.. Floating
    Posts
    11,819
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked
    233 times in 160 posts
    • Stoo's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Mac Pro
      • CPU:
      • 2*Xeon 5450 @ 2.8GHz, 12MB Cache
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 1600MHz FBDIMM
      • Storage:
      • ~ 2.5TB + 4TB external array
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ATI Radeon HD 4870
      • Case:
      • Mac Pro
      • Operating System:
      • OS X 10.7
      • Monitor(s):
      • 24" Samsung 244T Black
      • Internet:
      • Zen Max Pro
    Originally posted by drunkenmaster
    So how come, for instance, when teh t-bred's came out, they didn't continue to use the cheaper(at that point) and higher yield Xp's for the slower chips, which they were producing, but moved DIRECTLY, to producing "underclocked" faster t-bred chips. Because it is FAR FAR FAR FAR cheaper for them to make one chip and sell all the chips off that at whatever speeds are needed, via multiplier changing, to sell as quickly as possible.
    Because it was only a slight core revision, not an entirely new chip.

    Originally posted by drunkenmaster
    We won't agree on windows for now i guess, of course you are trying to say there is no 64bit windows, which afaik is false, but you are right, the version, that will natively support both 32bit and 64bit, needed for the ath 64 to really get going.
    Can you walk into a shop and buy a copy of Windows XP 64 bit edition? No you can't, because it is only due to go on a limited beta as the first A64 chips arrive.
    See here for details: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/32356.html

    Oh, sorry, you were trying to trip me up.. Yes, you can get a version of XP 64 bit that is shipped with Itanium systems, but that version has no compatibility with the Opteron/A64 platform, so is an essentially useless and pointless petty argument.

    Originally posted by drunkenmaster
    The ath lite's, are, afaik, made up by you. The product cycles you state, are accurate, but, as with anything, any one of those cycles can pass at any point. The opteron is in pretty high demand, as its faster, and cheaper than the xeon.
    Sorry, I said I couldn't remember the exact name of the chip, but here it is: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...821060723.html
    This way the chips that failed on cache can be recycled and resold as something useful.

    Originally posted by drunkenmaster
    The production is already pretty cheap, as yields are FAr higher than expected.

    If the first 64 to be released is sub £400, and most of the people i know, plump for machines over 1K, these can easily become large volume sales imediately.
    http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cac...ng_en&ie=UTF-8

    "We will add some volume [behind the new 64-bit CPU], and you will see it for the Christmas season but it will not be millions of units," Rivet added.

    Originally posted by drunkenmaster
    The point is, who are you to decide, when these different stages will occur.
    As I said before it's an educated guess based on previous chip release cycles.

    Originally posted by drunkenmaster
    as you keep missing, the software that supports this is already there, as its 100% compatible with every single piece of software we all own, and its faster using it. Therefore waiting for the very specific 32/64bit version of windows would be nice, but will not really provide anything useful, as 99% of the other software, will just sue the 32bit part of the OS, which is already available.
    No, I didn't miss it, but as you, yourself pointed out before, "but you are right, the version, that will natively support both 32bit and 64bit, needed for the ath 64 to really get going."

    As mentioned before, AMD aren't going to be shipping the processors in any great volume until xp64 has gone gold at a minimum anyway..

    AMD Chappy Said:
    "It will fit in the window [of Christmas selling season] but--not trying to steal the thunder from the 23rd [of September product launch], its ramp will be slow and not huge volumes in the fourth quarter this year," Rivet said. "We want to make sure we extract the appropriate amount of value since it is both a 64-bit and 32-bit machine. We don't want to get it out there as a 32-bit 'equivalent' [price for the new processor and targeted systems]. We still do have the highest performing 32-bit processor on the market--the XP 3200+ today," he said, referring to AMD's existing Athlon XP 3200+.
    Originally posted by drunkenmaster
    The product doesn't really need to prove itself, if it works it works, the athlon t-bred didn't need to "prove" itself, it just was. What do you think will be proved about this chip that we don't already know?
    Every new product needs to prove itself, in the market, the A64 hasn't proven itself yet because it hasn't yet hit the market, it may be a very short time to prove itself, but it is something that *every* new product goes through in some form or another.

    Originally posted by drunkenmaster
    I'd imagine the chips, when made available to dell, will be what, around teh £350 mark, that will make it faster and cheaper than everything above a 2.8C Intel chip(with it being £200 or so). That means it can already displace those chips and become the value high end chip.
    Maybe, but again, no volume production until the new year at least.

    Originally posted by drunkenmaster
    ANyway, despite all that you are still arguing, without reading or understanding anything i have said. Try looking back, i haven't said its teh cheapest chip available now, i have said multiple times that by late october, mid novemeber, we will see faster versions, and this one, the 3200+ will drop to around the £250 mark, thats allready very cheap, by xmas, when intel might have some P4EE available, at £600, they will bring in yet another chip to show it jsut whose boss. That should push teh 3200+ down to sub £200.

    I repeatedly say that, having this chip debuting at £375retail, is very cost effective as we will see some very lowe priced version in the pretty near future. IT COULD be priced higher than the top end P4, at £600-700, because its faster, we would therefore never see them in the next year, at £100, we would see intel style pricing. We aren't, hence they are cheap, your deffinition may be different, but for me, if its cheaper and faster, its cost effective for me, and everyone buying it. Perhaps, for you to disagree, you believe the opposite to be true, and feel the P4 is cost effective right now?
    You've changed your point multiple times, you originally said:
    Originally posted by drunkenmaster
    Yes the AMD64 is cost effective, the new chips will be £375 on release, and are faster than a 3.2Ghz 800Mhz fsb P4 by , well, a freaking large amount, the 3.2Ghz P4 being upwards of £450. So cost effective, considerably.
    Neither myself or trickle disputed the fact that later on in the product cycle the A64 would become cost effective, in fact that was our whole point. (eg the initial release will be expensive, and the average user wouldn't buy in because it wasn't cost effective at that point, and would be better off waiting a few months for the price to come down.)
    It is in fact you that have changed your argument to say what we originally said in the first place..

    I guess we'll all find out the exact volumes and prices later on in the year, and some of us probably won't be surprised.
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •