Printable View
With 2004 now underway, and Intel still hasn't released the new Prescott processor, do you think AMD will have the advantage over Intel this year?
Do you think that Intel not releasing a 64bit processor anytime soon will decrease their consumer popularity?
Also, do you guys know of an AMD processor that will directly rival Intel's Prescott?
I think Intel is smart in this case...
AMD's 64 chip is a bad boy....but, without an OS to support it, it's kinda being wasted, IMO.
I'm sure Intel has a 64 ready to go...once that AMD 64 has:
a. Proved itself a little better
b. A 64 Bit OS is nearer or here.
Think of what thunder Intel can steal if they launch their 64 bit processor at the same time as a 64 Bit OS...
Even though AMD has theirs...people will "realize" Intel does if they plan their release strategy right...
By the way...I'm not an Intel or AMD fan boy, I'm quite nuetral....so, not trying to start a flame war here...just stating things for a bit of a marketing perspective....
Thomas...it's kind of hard to say if the AMD 64 will rival the prescott, since the latter doesn't exist (to any of us, anyways...)
:t
"think of the thunder intel can steal"
that would be the smart marketing move. it all comes down to who markets theire product the best and at the right time. there is very little chance intel does not have some sort of 64bit chip up its sleeve. however, it has the market share and can wait until a 64 bit os comes along to then release its chip. amd released its 64 bit chip when it did because, as some people say, they had to.
I have heard that the AMD 64-bit chips are very powerful. However, for right now, they are a little ahead of their time. There isn't a 64-bit OS and there is virtually nothing for the AMD 64 to use besides 32-bit programs.
As far as I'm concerned, AMD may be a little better than Intel, but it isn't really noticable right now. I have a 2.8ghz P4 and it's is super powerful. It has virtually no limits as to what I can do right now. So why would I go out and spend hundreds of dollars more on a new mobo and an AMD 64 inorder to get about a 20% increase in power, when I don't really have any need for that kind of power right now?
The 64-bit chips are insane for gaming, so I guess if your willing to spend $500 on a Radeon 9800XT, you might as well go ahead and throw in a top of the line Asus Mobo along with an AMD 64 3400+ processor. In the end, you spend well over $1000 on the video and processor set alone. you still need a sound card, CD-rom drive, PSU, Case, Monitor, Hard Drive, OS, and Speakers. These systems can become very costly in the end.
Right now, I'm happy with my 2.8ghz P4, Geforce FX 5900, Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS, 4.2 surround system, 17" monitor, and even a leather chair for some comfort. Not to mention a slew of the most intense games out on the market today. Performance is amazing, and I am happy. :t
The new Duron with 400FSB will be the champ for sure. Get ready......just kidding. :)
That is one exellent point...Quote:
Originally posted by MadPistol
So why would I go out and spend hundreds of dollars more on a new mobo and an AMD 64 inorder to get about a 20% increase in power, when I don't really have any need for that kind of power right now?
I think most of the people buy that exotic stuff for benchmarks and bragging...
I bet most of 'em could use the processing power of an Atari and get by...:)
We are to the point now where computers are as fast as they need to be for average use. When the manufacturers keep pushing that speed barrier, we really do win, because anything that is not top dog drops in price, and we reap the benefits...
Perfect example....AMD's 3200, top of the line XP chip...over four hundred dollars just 6 months ago. Now, can be had for 200 and change...
AMD64s allow you to run Linux 64-bit compiled distros RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE.
I'm a double MCP, but I'll tell you... I get tired of the "wait for 64-bit" spin doctoring that Intel and MS pull off every freaking day. 64-bit computing is here right now, and actually has been here for a while. Can anyone say Sun?
It's not just software, it's hardware. Native memory mapping of many, many gigabytes of RAM. In a year from now, 2GB sticks of DDR and DDR2 will be available. We won't need 32-bit memory table extensions and Windows trickery to use them. 64-bit PCI-Express expansion cards will have STUPID amounts of bandwidth, and so will onboard storage controllers.
New multimedia instruction sets will debut, rumours of SSE3 for Tejas are already spreading.
But I tell you now that sitting on your heels and waiting for the latest Intel junk you won't be able to afford will only hurt your ease of transition down the road.
Trust me on that. :t
well put.
Think about this, when Intel releases a 64bit cpu, you will be able to get an AMD 64 bit for so much less. They will have been out for quite a while, therefore the prices on the lesser models will have already dropped.
I've said it before: It's not about getting the fastest parts; it's about getting the fastest parts on your budget.
Check out:
http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthre...hreadid=155812
It seems that Intel might be doing some catch-up and might even have to license the AMD 64bit design to stick into their Xeon or P4 chips.
Its either that or reduce the price their Itanium line of processors.
Either way, I don't think that Intel expected the A64 to be such a hit.
I think Intel's release of the P4-extreme edition showed just how scared they were of the Athlon-64.
The EE was just a Xeon in different packaging at a sub-xeon (but still very expensive) price. For Intel though, it was anything to try and knock the wind out of AMDs new 64 bit CPU and most people saw it as just that.
Kind of similar when Intel was forced to play catch up with AMD when the 1Ghz barrier was broken, Intel released a chip that had flaws, just so it could be seen to still be king of the hill, but it released it 3 days too late :)
It certanly hits their 'clock speed is everything' claims when an A64 running at 1800Mhz beats the pants out of their flagship Itaniums running at more than 3000Mhz and at a lower price.
When Microsoft finally releases Windows XP 64bit edition, Intel might start getting very worried. Unless they have a 64bit part out by then, its gonna take a lot of work to brainwash, I mean convince people to buy Intel chips at higher prices and lower speeds.
Time will tell, but if AMD is able to keep up with demand, my money is on them unless Intel pull something amazing out of their ars..., er hats.
LOL....
Intel is the wise old owl. They made AMD show their "Hand". They are just waiting for the right time to release thier 64 bit processor. Why should they now? They are kicking much **** with their P4 C series processors, and EE, and the Prescott's are on the way.
Why do you want to go out and spend the bucks on AMD64 processor, Mobo, and RAM. Yes...I believe the RAM has to be certified. I also think I read that AMD is changing the configuratioin to a different pin count to compensate for the "Certified" RAM issue mid year.
I'm running a P4 2.6C w/Radeon 9800XT, and scored 6398 on 3dMark03. No OC'ing.
So whoever said that "AMD64 chips are insane for gaming" can think again.
My PC is right in their with any 3Dmark03 AMD64 score...if gaming is all that matters to you.
~Animal
We all thought that the prescots were going to be the next big thing, it seems however, that they offer roughly the same perf and the now common P4-c chips.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html
They look a bit like a marketing excercise rather than any wonderful new speed or feature CPU.
When windows for 64 is finally realeased things will start to get interesting. I think we all know this.
Interesting indeed....but don't count Intel out yet. When 64 bit games, programs, and etc. get mainstream which I think will be in later 2005, rest assured that Intel will have an answer, and the price will be competitive with AMD. By this time they will have everything they need to bring a 64/32 bit processor to consumers.
I just don't think that they are in no hurry to release one yet. Just because AMD was the first that released the 64/32 it doesn't make them superior, its the person that comes along and improves on the idea.
Which comes to another thing that humors me....when ppl their kicks out of WHoEver comes out with something first...thinking that this certain company is ahead of the game. Who is smarter? The one that spends all of the money being first...or the one that comes in second with a better product?
Hmmmm
Its all a big Chess Game.
Just my opinions.......
Oh yeah....Awesome site you guys have here.
~Animal
Don't want to double post, see this article I posted:
http://sysopt.com/forum/showthread.p...hreadid=156017
I think Intel may be feeling some heat here, quite literally!
Looks like the intel group is playing catch-up, and not at a good time, or with a competitive product.
Oh yea, I don't have a 64, just a 3200 xp, but I do run Linux. And I am going to upgrade here soon so I can take advantage of those extra bits.