Home

News

Forums

Hardware

CPUs

Mainboards

Video

Guides

CPU Prices

Memory Prices

Shop



Sharky Extreme :


Latest News


- Acer Fires Up Two New Ferrari Notebooks
- Belkin Debuts Docking Station for ExpressCard-Equipped Notebooks
- Logitech 5.1 Speaker System Puts Your Ears At Eye Level
- Dell, Nvidia, and Intel Fire Up Overclockable Gaming Notebook
- Gateway Puts Premium Components Into Affordable Home Desktop
News Archives

Features

- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with ATI's Terry Makedon
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Seagate's Joni Clark
- Half-Life 2 Review
- DOOM 3 Review
- Unreal Tournament 2004 Review

Buyer's Guides

- September High-end Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- September Value Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- October Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide

HARDWARE

  • CPUs


  • Motherboards

    - DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 Ultra-D Motherboard Review

  • Video Cards

    - Gigabyte GeForce 7600 GT 256MB Review
    - ASUS EN7900GT TOP 256MB Review
    - ASUS EN7600GT Silent 256MB Review
    - Biostar GeForce 7900 GT 256MB Review





  • SharkyForums.Com - Print: Intel to cut prices by up to 40%

    Intel to cut prices by up to 40%
    By Fat Elvis January 24, 2001, 09:57 PM

    A lot of the discussion on the AMD vs Intel debate has centered on the fact that AMD certainly provided more bang for the buck, however, with Intel's upcoming price cuts (Sunday, I believe) the differentiation in price contracts dramtically. AMD says they don't need to cut their prices any more. As I've read on these posts, Intel platforms seem to provide quite a bit more stability than do the AMD systems (I know, I know, some folks are pretty adamant about AMD being just as, if not more, stable). The question that I have is not whether which is better, AMD or Intel, but rather, now that Intel is going to dramatically reduce their prices to be more competitive with AMD, would some of you who have been thinking about getting/building an AMD system switch to Intel now that their prices are coming down?

    By ParrotHead January 24, 2001, 10:00 PM

    I really do hope Intel lowers prices. Because that only means one thing. Increased competition. AMD will be forced to lower their prices too. Which will be a great thing for us.

    Competition = Lower prices, better products.

    By iamsostupid January 24, 2001, 10:00 PM

    ill see it when i believe it. Furthermore, If Intel was $100 less than AMD, I would still get AMD, because in the Apps I run, AMD has a $200 performance lead.

    By iamsostupid January 24, 2001, 10:02 PM

    lol i'll see it when i believe it. whats wrong with me??? I'll BELIEVE it when i SEE it!!! geez

    By AMD_Forever January 24, 2001, 10:02 PM

    AMD is barely making a profit with current cpu prices. They can't go lower.

    If Intel can go lower in price, and 300mhz higher in clockspeed, I'm scared.

    By ParrotHead January 24, 2001, 10:10 PM

    I being a Pentium 4 owner myself, can vouch that the Pentium 4 has nothing more to offer than a thunderbird.

    Same price? I choose Thunderbird.

    Keep in mind, to use the P4 you need to buy a $300 mobo and RDRAM.

    By iamsostupid January 24, 2001, 10:14 PM

    quote:Originally posted by AMD_Forever:
    AMD is barely making a profit with current cpu prices. They can't go lower.

    If Intel can go lower in price, and 300mhz higher in clockspeed, I'm scared.

    for the love of pete dude! clock frequency!!!

    Now everyone in this forum will start calling it speed just to get me wound up! geez!

    By Newbie-Overclocker January 24, 2001, 10:15 PM

    The p4 1.3GHZ system that I am building is only 50 dollars more then a T-BIRD 1.2GHZ DDR system for what I do games INTEL is and always will be leader!

    By iamsostupid January 24, 2001, 10:18 PM

    more likely than not, those who predict the future will be proven incorrect.

    By Doppelganger January 24, 2001, 10:20 PM

    But the AMD system can be upgraded, plus I don't think you'd see that much of a difference...my god, DDR ram NOW? Jeez, that's just asking to be ripped off something fierce - the mobos that support it don't even get that much of a performance gain. Recompute with SDRam or wait till DDR ram get some more supporting mobos/PC2133 version

    By Newbie-Overclocker January 24, 2001, 10:26 PM

    with current mobos for the p4 they are going to 2.0GHZ! AMD is forceing every1 to buy new DDR bords that MAY! hit 2.0GHZ and thats a big MAY I dont think the k7 will get past 1.7 and the palamo is going to 2.0GHZ thats it.

    By ParrotHead January 24, 2001, 10:35 PM

    Newbie, have fun with your P4. Trust me I own one. They are overhyped and underperforming. I don't really care that I have on though. The 'rents bought it.

    You are saying though you would rather not save $50 and get a faster computer? Your numbers don't add up.

    By Fat Elvis January 24, 2001, 10:41 PM

    quote:Originally posted by iamsostupid:
    more likely than not, those who predict the future will be proven incorrect.

    http://www.zdii.com/industry_list.asp?mode=news&doc_id=ZD2677783

    By iamsostupid January 24, 2001, 10:42 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Newbie-Overclocker:
    with current mobos for the p4 they are going to 2.0GHZ! AMD is forceing every1 to buy new DDR bords that MAY! hit 2.0GHZ and thats a big MAY I dont think the k7 will get past 1.7 and the palamo is going to 2.0GHZ thats it.

    core enhancements will make it seem like a 2.3GHz TBird. and no, AMD is certainly not forcing people to buy DDR. Neither is VIA. They both have their own socket-a SDRAM and DDR RAM chipsets. I am not buying DDR until palomino, when the memory controller is perfected. A good memory controller will make or break the subsystem's performance. Pretty much the same thing whem we blame VIA's problems on AMD, we think DDR sucks because VIA's RAM controller is constructed of dung. Once we get a RAM controller that sucks all the benefit from DDR, you will understand. Palomino does not need to go to or beyond 2GHz anyway, because Palomino is competing with Wilammete, and since the K75 core 300MHz behind Willamette provides the same performance, a Palomino 1.7GHz vs 2GHz Willamette will slightly tip the balance of power in AMD's favor, providing the consumer a very simple CPU-buying decision. Got anything else for me?

    By Doppelganger January 24, 2001, 10:44 PM

    How is AMD "forcing" you to buy this new DDR stuff? As far as I remember there are at least three producers of chipsets, and the now reputable VIA has deemed the DDR tech too new right now, so did not include it in their 133A chipset. You don't HAVE to buy DDR, it just may be a good idea to wait for it to mature. Looking from your sig, you can afford to wait.

    As for the P4...even Intel isn't going very far with that. They make new mobos and shtuff, but in the end it'll be an expensive investment in the product that was just slapped together with high clock frequency to fend off AMD while P5s (the 'real' product?) are being engineered. Tbirds are going to be giving way to Pals. eventually, but at least they are a good product.

    As for your $50 more for a P4 scenario for your computer...I really would like to know what you skimped on to make up that huge price deficit between AMD and P4 parts. Even though DDR ram is a ripoff, it is still cheaper than high quality RIMMs by a good margin, not to mention the chips themselves are way different in price.

    By iamsostupid January 24, 2001, 10:46 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Fat Elvis:
    http://www.zdii.com/industry_list.asp?mode=news&doc_id=ZD2677783

    oh theres no doubt in my mind that Intel will eventually slash prices, but they will not all at once. My response was to Newbie-Overclocker's post on Intel's always being superior. I am sorry but this is just not true. The Duron kills the celeron. The Thunderbird kills the Coppermine. The Classic Athlon kills the Katmai. The Palomino will kill the Pentium 4. And they will all cost less. I cannot guarantee Palomino's victory, but if you follow the statistics, you will find that the odds are in favor of the stallion.

    By Doppelganger January 24, 2001, 10:51 PM

    I dunno stupid, to me it really looks like P4s are a sorta half-assed effort to stall, which may not be a bad strategy for Intel.

    By Newbie-Overclocker January 24, 2001, 10:56 PM

    HAHA dont say those lies about the p4 for what I want it to do GAMES! q3 FPS the p4 is the best and Im pretty sure ill get to 1.6-1.7GHZ with it.

    By iamsostupid January 24, 2001, 10:56 PM

    of course, because intel has only profit-based goals. The Pentium 4 was definitely a great move for Intel, because they will make quite a bit of money off of it. What I am saying is that for anyone who enjoys having money, it is not a good buy for them. It will go to 2GHz, and nothing more will be made on that platform or chipset again. I certainly doubt VIA will clean up intel's mess and make a P4 chipset as well. It is just a bad buy. Lots of money for bad performance. If you go on a cruise to Alaska, you pay for the whole trip, but you only get to see the tip of the iceberg. With the P4, you pay for the frequency, but the amount of clock cycles utilized (efficiently of course) is not good.

    By iamsostupid January 24, 2001, 11:04 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Newbie-Overclocker:
    HAHA dont say those lies about the p4 for what I want it to do GAMES! q3 FPS the p4 is the best and Im pretty sure ill get to 1.6-1.7GHZ with it.

    ohhhh i see! you play at 512x384x16!!! lolololololololol!!!! At 1600x1200x32 in Quake III, there is precisely a 4.0FPS gain by the P4 1.7GHz over 1.2GHz TBird, and thats with a GF2 Ultra. 4 frames per second in any application or game is not worth $750. ParrotHead was correct. Your numbers do not add up.


    EDIT: I am not lying.

    By iamsostupid January 24, 2001, 11:11 PM

    Arcadian! get in here!!

    By Doppelganger January 24, 2001, 11:11 PM

    aren't profits what business is all about?

    Hmmm...I harken back to the old days where you would look at Cyrix, then AMD and think they were equal in their lameness.

    I dunno. It seems like when the PII generation ended the PIIIs have only been able to keep up with AMD in speed but fall behind in price...P4 argueably manages to fail on both counts.

    Oh well. Right now I'm waiting for Durons to fall to realistic bargain chip prices...I mean look, a 700 tbird and 700 duron cost nearly the same! what is that?

    By iamsostupid January 24, 2001, 11:12 PM

    it means AMD is on your side, and wants you to get the TBird.

    By Doppelganger January 24, 2001, 11:18 PM

    oh yes yes...it seems all so clear to me now

    By iamsostupid January 24, 2001, 11:20 PM

    C'mon NewB! I am sincerely curious to see what you'll say next.

    By FaTs January 24, 2001, 11:24 PM

    quote:Originally posted by iamsostupid:
    core enhancements will make it seem like a 2.3GHz TBird. and no, AMD is certainly not forcing people to buy DDR. Neither is VIA. They both have their own socket-a SDRAM and DDR RAM chipsets. I am not buying DDR until palomino, when the memory controller is perfected. A good memory controller will make or break the subsystem's performance. Pretty much the same thing whem we blame VIA's problems on AMD, we think DDR sucks because VIA's RAM controller is constructed of dung. Once we get a RAM controller that sucks all the benefit from DDR, you will understand. Palomino does not need to go to or beyond 2GHz anyway, because Palomino is competing with Wilammete, and since the K75 core 300MHz behind Willamette provides the same performance, a Palomino 1.7GHz vs 2GHz Willamette will slightly tip the balance of power in AMD's favor, providing the consumer a very simple CPU-buying decision. Got anything else for me?

    According to AMD's roadmap they will not make a palimno over 1.7ghz. There chips will need a complete resdegin to go faster.

    By iamsostupid January 24, 2001, 11:30 PM

    I still have no objections, problems, or complaints with that dude. Think about it. The 1.2GHz TBird provides equal performance to the 1.5GHz Willamette, yet the frequency is 300MHz lower with AMD. Well, a 1.7GHz Palomino is 300MHz lower than a 2GHz Willamette. Back where we started?

    By Newbie-Overclocker January 24, 2001, 11:38 PM

    HAHA!! There is a HUGE differece in FPS I have a friend with a tbird 1.1@1.2 and one with a p4 1.5 not OC they both have ultras and the one with the p4 gets a hell of alot more fps in all res.
    Also I can put a 1.3GHZ computer together for less then a amd 1.2 and im sure ill get 1.73GHZ witch in most if not all benches games programs will be way ahead or tie with the t-bird 1.2. This is why I get pissed somtimes u think u knwo it all but u are 100% pro AMD and u own 1 witch makes your opinion go from 0 to -100 try owning 2 systems a AMD 1ghz and a p3 ghz witch I have done I have also alot more different system configs AMD and INTEL and I knwo witch is better.
    I want a system that IN THE STUFF I DO will be BETTER! I realy dont care about mpeg decodeing or whatever or how fast I can open word or sisoft benches I care about real world performance in the stuff I do.

    By Doppelganger January 24, 2001, 11:47 PM

    can someone check stupid's logic.....because it seems to me that relitive speed would be based more on proportion. Lets set up a little mind experiment, eh?

    1.2a = 1.5i (figure out the variable names )

    therefore, A = 1.5i/1.2

    therefore, based upon this horrible assumption: A = 1.5i*1.33 / 1.2*1.33
    (I just multiplied by 1.33 top and bottom)

    meaning a clockspeed of about 1600 for AMD should equate to a projected 2ghz for intel....but of course once new cores come out that assumption just goes totally out the window.

    looking back, I could have made this math simpler and easier....but....nah.

    By Stryfe January 24, 2001, 11:48 PM

    I'd like to see where you can build a P4 system for less than a T-bird. The high end P4 is almost $1000, the 1.2GHZ T-bird is $274. I understand you get 128mb of ram with the P4 (big woohoo), but even with DDR memory, the T-bird is about $400.

    By Doppelganger January 24, 2001, 11:51 PM

    wait a second, so you are performing a benchmark with a computer that does not have fresh installation of windows etc etc controlled environment etc? that's a horrible way to conduct a benchmark: I'll just go and test my friends compy against my own fresh installation of windows. That's no way to do it. Does he even have the same periphals, ram, bios settings, and windows tweaks?

    and where are you materializing this extra cost to make an AMD system match up with a P4 Intel? argh! cuz I really would like to know

    By W__Wallace January 24, 2001, 11:58 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Stryfe:
    I'd like to see where you can build a P4 system for less than a T-bird. The high end P4 is almost $1000, the 1.2GHZ T-bird is $274. I understand you get 128mb of ram with the P4 (big woohoo), but even with DDR memory, the T-bird is about $400.

    I hear that!!

    WW

    By iamsostupid January 25, 2001, 12:02 AM

    quote:Originally posted by Newbie-Overclocker:
    HAHA!! There is a HUGE differece in FPS I have a friend with a tbird 1.1@1.2 and one with a p4 1.5 not OC they both have ultras and the one with the p4 gets a hell of alot more fps in all res.
    Also I can put a 1.3GHZ computer together for less then a amd 1.2 and im sure ill get 1.73GHZ witch in most if not all benches games programs will be way ahead or tie with the t-bird 1.2. This is why I get pissed somtimes u think u knwo it all but u are 100% pro AMD and u own 1 witch makes your opinion go from 0 to -100 try owning 2 systems a AMD 1ghz and a p3 ghz witch I have done I have also alot more different system configs AMD and INTEL and I knwo witch is better.
    I want a system that IN THE STUFF I DO will be BETTER! I realy dont care about mpeg decodeing or whatever or how fast I can open word or sisoft benches I care about real world performance in the stuff I do.

    Looks like i need to get back to the numbering thing. I like it organized

    1. The 'HUGE' difference bit. Well, I guess you have me pinned there. I have looked at quite a few hardware sites, and with the Willamette and TBird both OC to their max, and the GF2 Ultra that they use OC to their max, there is only a 4-6FPS difference (1600x1200x32). Furthermore, even if there was a difference, huge or not, in AMD's favor or in Intel's favor, you could not notice it. I myself cannot notice the difference of anything more than 40FPS. I'll give you this: you might be right.

    2. "Also I can put a 1.3GHZ computer together for less then a amd 1.2 and im sure ill get 1.73GHZ witch in most if not all benches games programs will be way ahead or tie with the t-bird 1.2. "

    Well, I can put a 1.3GHz computer together too. We share that, which is a great start. I see a beautiful friendship brewing between us. Also, about the 1.73GHz P4 vs 1.2GHz Tbird will be way ahead or tie, hmm what are you saying here, that there can only be a tie, and then a huge difference? What about a slight one? Makes no sense. The differences will be neglegeable. Let's say that everything except the CPU, RAM, HSF, and Motherboard are the same in our two simulated systems.

    Youre Pentium 4 1.3GHz system:
    Willamette 1.3GHz- $565
    GlobalWin VAW58 Socket-423 HSF- $23
    ASUS P4T $235
    Total: $823
    Lowest prices on pricewatch.com, VAW58 courtesy of inflowdirect.com

    My Athlon 1.2GHz system:
    Athlon 1.2GHz RETAIL $289
    Taisol CGK742092 w/ Delta 38CFM $30
    Abit KT7A-RAID $155
    128MB Mushkin 150MHz 2-2-2 SDRAM $133
    Total: $607
    Lowest prices on pricewatch.com, Taisol courtesy of inflowdirect.com, RAM prices courtesy of Mushkin.com

    What you have here are the most effective 1.3GHz willamette and 1.2GHz AMD Thunderbird setups. Unless you have some sort of a discout on everything, your numbers, once again, do not add up. Also, if you can find someone that sells any of these components for cheaper, believe me, I would love to find out.


    EDIT: "Oh my gosh! i am so sorry! I totally forgot that Retail Pentium 4's come with 128MB of PC800! I took the RAM out of your Pentium 4 system because it comes with 128MB, and I scaled down the Mushkin in my system to 128MB. Man what was I thinking?!?!? IAMSOSTUPID!!!!"

    LMAO! that just proves my point even more. I dont need rediculous RAMBUS prices to help my argument. Intel is doing fine.
    END EDIT.

    By iamsostupid January 25, 2001, 12:06 AM

    quote:Originally posted by Doppelganger:
    wait a second, so you are performing a benchmark with a computer that does not have fresh installation of windows etc etc controlled environment etc? that's a horrible way to conduct a benchmark: I'll just go and test my friends compy against my own fresh installation of windows. That's no way to do it. Does he even have the same periphals, ram, bios settings, and windows tweaks?

    and where are you materializing this extra cost to make an AMD system match up with a P4 Intel? argh! cuz I really would like to know

    please do. my curiosity burns.

    By Stryfe January 25, 2001, 06:55 PM

    The other thing that's funny is Quake III ( a notoriously intel friendly game) is faster.

    What a shock. Why don't you bench MDK2 (I've read it's a AMD friendly game), and let's see what happens.

    By Arcadian January 26, 2001, 12:07 PM

    quote:Originally posted by iamsostupid:
    Arcadian! get in here!!

    Hehe... leave me out of this.

    By Un4given January 26, 2001, 03:58 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Stryfe:
    The other thing that's funny is Quake III ( a notoriously intel friendly game) is faster.

    What a shock. Why don't you bench MDK2 (I've read it's a AMD friendly game), and let's see what happens.

    Exactly. Q3A has SSE support, but lacks 3DNow! support. I say lets optimize Q3A to add 3DNow!, or disable the SSE, then see what happens. Besides, many of us play other games besides Q3A. The MDK2 shows the T-Bird at 1.2GHz beating the P4 1.5GHz. In UT the 1.2GHz T-Bird (KT133) was on par with a P4 1.4GHz, and on the 760 w/PC2100 DDR, the 1.2GHz T-Bird outperformed the P4 even at 1.6GHz.

    By Mr Roboto January 26, 2001, 04:17 PM

    I too will have to see it to believe it, but if thay do get the prices close to AMD, i might stick with them, ive been thinking about upgrading to a T-bird, but id have to change the mobo, so i might go Intel.

    I bought stock in AMD

    By Mr Cherry January 26, 2001, 07:03 PM

    Okay, this place seemed like the best thread for me to post this. This is in no way an attack on anyone, I'm seriously curious. I have had intel systems since my lowly 486/SX (25mhz ). Now I read a few articles when the new Thunderbirds came out that the mobos (Socket A I think) seemed to be pretty frail, increased chance of breaking the board when installing the cpu, is this still true? I'm sticking with my Intel system because I have the parts for it, I will be getting a P3 sometime soon, but I have also been looking at AMD.


    Contact Us | www.SharkyForums.com

    Copyright © 1999, 2000 internet.com Corporation. All Rights Reserved.


    Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46

    previous page
    next page




    HardwareCentral
    Compare products, prices, and stores at Hardware Central!


    Copyright © 2002 INT Media Group, Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. About INT Media Group | Press Releases | Privacy Policy | Career Opportunities