Reasons to go Intel over AMD

[PetNorth]

IMO, TechReport is a reliable site.

[Donnie27]

IMO, TechReport is a reliable site.

Sure they are, but there's no magic or any frackin difference in how Intel and AMD did *this version of Dual Cores. If they were talking Dual Pressler then I'd have not commented. This is two cores on one die=P Pressler is two Dies=P Tom Halfhill's comments in MaximumPC, page #13 I think. He says the same damned thing.

Yes, I read Tech Report and have them Bookmarked, and no, I don't blindly agree with or disagree with them. THey're just one of many sites that I read. They have screwed up before.

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

my last 3 comps have been AMDs (duron 1ghz, xp 2000+, 64 3200+), the last intel comp i've owned was a PII 200mhz 32mb one

can anyone give me reasons to go intel over AMD (btw, i won't be buying another comp for about 1 1/2 years, but i was just wondering)

AMD's prices too high is another reason to go Intel LOL!

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=4

Donnie27

[PetNorth]

oh well, if you want the cheaper DC (2.8 or 3.0) go Intel.
If you want the fatest, the cooler and the quieter DC, go AMD.

[Donnie27]

oh well, if you want the cheaper DC (2.8 or 3.0) go Intel.
If you want the fatest, the cooler and the quieter DC, go AMD.

Fastest, debates will rage, quieter depends on the cooler.

Donnie27

[PetNorth]

hehe fatest any dude here; and about noise, it's easy, less hot, less loud.

[Lithan]

No donnie, debates won't rage. Amd's dual cores kicked the living crap out of intel's dual cores.

(Of course, half the multitasking tests had a Single core P4 kicking the crap out of the P4 D's)

[Donnie27]

No donnie, debates won't rage. Amd's dual cores kicked the living crap out of intel's dual cores.

(Of course, half the multitasking tests had a Single core P4 kicking the crap out of the P4 D's)

Sure they did and Intel's prices kicked the living CRAP out of AMD's LOL! Of course you need to really read more than one review. Last but not least, what frackin' good is this sweet performance with such sour (read high) prices? A price only AMD could love, oh wait maybe there AMD employees here? WOW we want 5 to 30% more performance so we're supposed to jump on the AMD Bandwagon and pay 100to 150% more, right? You guys are Nuttier than AMD if you think people are that stupid.

I also noticed that the $530 Intel processor kicked the crap out of anything even close to its price range, sheesh! Pentium D 8400 EE has become a non-factor and a Gimmick.

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

hehe fatest any dude here; and about noise, it's easy, less hot, less loud.

It's real easy as well with Water, after market coolers and etc.. This is Xtreme Systems LOL, no one uses stock coolers, hehehe!

Donnie27

[PetNorth]

LOL water = expensive
Not to mention more expensive DDRII + more expensive board 955X (I've seen only one for sale, although not available, at affordable price of $250,99 LOL buy.com )

Not a big deal if you ask me: much less perfomance, and more expensive if you make numbers LOL

[PetNorth]

I also noticed that the $530 Intel processor kicked the crap out of anything even close to its price range, sheesh! Pentium D 8400 EE has become a non-factor and a Gimmick.

Donnie27

LOL where did you notice it?
are you talking about DC A64 X2 4400+ closed to its price range? :banana:

[EnJoY]

I also noticed that the $530 Intel processor kicked the crap out of anything even close to its price range, sheesh! Pentium D 8400 EE has become a non-factor and a Gimmick.



You don't even know what you're talking about. A 4000+ is less than that and it dominates every Intel processor on the market. In fact, last I saw, every Athlon 64 3400+ and above completely destroys every intel chip (even extreme editions) in nearly every test, especially in games and general usage which are really what's most important for us.

[AP0ll0UK]

I'm still in the predicument where by I don't know whether to go for a an AMD 64 or Intel Prescott 775 of some description. A guy on here had a 3.0 Prescott at 4.1 on air which is tempting but I'd still rather go with AMD. I've always found them better for gaming but then again I've never really given Intel much of a chance other than for business machines.

[Donnie27]

LOL where did you notice it?
are you talking about DC A64 X2 4400+ closed to its price range? :banana:

Honestly, I don't care if they call it 9400+ LOL!

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

You don't even know what you're talking about. A 4000+ is less than that and it dominates every Intel processor on the market. In fact, last I saw, every Athlon 64 3400+ and above completely destroys every intel chip (even extreme editions) in nearly every test, especially in games and general usage which are really what's most important for us.

Please go back under your Bridge :D You might find a clue there.

Donnie27

[PetNorth]

Honestly, I don't care if they call it 9400+ LOL!

Donnie27

of course!! I don't care neither!! LOL
From a long time ago, xxx+ is just a model number to me :P
I only watch similar price range and compare its perfomance ;-)

[Lithan]

Donnie, you said debates about which is fastest will rage, not which is a better deal. Fastest means price doesn't come into play. I agree that at $500 entrance fee, it's a joke for a desktop processor. But Intel's dual core loses more performance than it gains over their current single cores. Amd's dual core is the best all-around cpu available, but at an absurd price. Intel's dual core only has a few apps where it gains performance, loses performance in a LOT of apps, and has a price premium. So I think between the two, intel's is a much worse processor. Of course, if it overclocks like a **&^ing banshee, or a new revision comes out that puts it above Intels own single core procs in multitasking situations, then things will change. But right now, It's a gimmick proc at best.

[PetNorth]

Lithan, A64 DC models announced have a correct price/perfomance ratio if you ask me. Its price is absolutely logical, not absurd. It would be absurd if we were talking about $500 for a 1.8 DC. That would be not absurd, but cruzy and ridiculous. But for a DC 2.2, which outperform to the fastest Intel DC, definitively not, it has a much more reasonable price, and very close, than a PD 3.2 specially considerig both perfomance/price ratio. Not to mention EE, $450 more expensive than a $550 A64 DC and worse performer). The only question here is that AMD, at the moment, has not announced the affordable DC line (1.6 or 1.8 or even 2.0). Thats all.

[Donnie27]

Donnie, you said debates about which is fastest will rage, not which is a better deal. Fastest means price doesn't come into play. I agree that at $500 entrance fee, it's a joke for a desktop processor. But Intel's dual core loses more performance than it gains over their current single cores. Amd's dual core is the best all-around cpu available, but at an absurd price.

Price to performance as always been the case=P Where in the hell are all of the Dollar per Frame or Seconds per Dollar rates? There is no such thing is fastest at any cost for most of us. If that were the case, everyone would own FX-55 overclocked cooled with VapoChill :)

What are you talking about single P4 doing better, single threaded apps? Dewd, Single threads on similar cheaper single core processors should run faster.


Intel's dual core only has a few apps where it gains performance, loses performance in a LOT of apps, and has a price premium. So I think between the two, intel's is a much worse processor. Of course, if it overclocks like a **&^ing banshee, or a new revision comes out that puts it above Intels own single core procs in multitasking situations, then things will change. But right now, It's a gimmick proc at best.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

I already said AMD pretty much nailed the performance portion of the Launch. The friggen Prices they're asking knocks way too much shine off of an EXCELLENT product launch.

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

Lithan, A64 DC models announced have a correct price/perfomance ratio if you ask me. Its price is absolutely logical, not absurd. It would be absurd if we were talking about $500 for a 1.8 DC. That would be not absurd, but cruzy and ridiculous. But for a DC 2.2, which outperform to the fastest Intel DC, definitively not, it has a much more reasonable price, and very close, than a PD 3.2 specially considerig both perfomance/price ratio. Not to mention EE, $450 more expensive than a $550 A64 DC and worse performer). The only question here is that AMD, at the moment, has not announced the affordable DC line (1.6 or 1.8 or even 2.0). Thats all.

Again, playing pick the most expensive does NOTHING for the rest of the line=P Most Intel shoppers will not even give the Pentium D 8400XE passing thought. What will catch their eye are the cheaper ones. All anyone has to do is look at what's being used on this forum everyday. :rolleyes:

Too many shoppers have gotten use to processors priced at a certain levels. There's no turning back. Even if AMD is 100% correct in how the position their products, the past has spoiled most people in this sector, OEMs and VAR, there's no going back=P

Example, I remember you saying you owned a 3000+, why not a 4000+? 4000+ is a better processor than 3000+. You love to bring up P4EE and P840XE, these aren't high volume or everyday models that will bring in the real Profits. Hell they aren't meant to. That's what I meant by if AMD is using it as a starting point, no wonder their getting killed!

I didn't want Dual Cores yet, I wanted them to launch so Single Core Athlon Prices could fall, then get one of them. Now It seems like I wasted my time. Now, when you were right, I posted as such and gave you props. I clearly remember telling you that, "AMD's not announcing their prices mean they'll be expensive". Only An AMD Employee could see these as fair prices. I even underestimated them and said they'd be 1.5X LOL! If I were an AMD Fan, I'd be raising hell, not making excuses on why I would love to and should have to pay more, that's crazy! AMD pulled this same Crap, yes Crap, with the Hammers. :mad:

Donnie27

[IluvIntel]

You don't even know what you're talking about. A 4000+ is less than that and it dominates every Intel processor on the market. In fact, last I saw, every Athlon 64 3400+ and above completely destroys every intel chip (even extreme editions) in nearly every test, especially in games and general usage which are really what's most important for us.


I can fish out media articles that can put that idea to challenge, from computer magazines that show Intel CPU's beating AMD chips. Let me give you one example.

There is a magazine down here in Australia called "atomic - maximum power computing"

They did a test between a P4 3.73EE and Athlon FX - 55

Test rigs -

P4 3.73EE:

925XE mobo, 1Gb DDR2 (latency? they don't say...), 6600GT PCI-E.

Athlon FX - 55

nForce3 MoBo, 1Gb DDR (latency? they don't say....), 6600GT AGP

testing done in 32 bit environment - still real world for a lot of people.

Now the problem here is that they don't tell what kind of Hard Drive or the fact that they did'nt even put the FX-55 onto a PCI - express MoBo.

The winner in PCMarkO4 was P4 3.73EE @ 5738, Athlon FX-55 @ 4741.

They only did one other test, and that was in the Computer media's favourite game torture test - FarCry.

The winner in "Bunker" scene @ 800x600 was Athlon FX-55 @ 111.54 FPS, P4 3.73EE @ 106 FPS.

If you don't agree with the testing methodology (and I don't) there's nothing we can do about it except write a letter or send an email, but its too late now, its already been on the stands for about 4 days.

But people are going to read this, and because this magazine has been around for several years now and has some other great articles and features in it. There is a good chance that potential buyers of these CPU's have a good chance of being swayed over to Intel's side of the ring. Once FPS in a game get beyond a certain point - it just becomes an exercise in academia.

[Lithan]

Lithan, A64 DC models announced have a correct price/perfomance ratio if you ask me. Its price is absolutely logical, not absurd. It would be absurd if we were talking about $500 for a 1.8 DC. That would be not absurd, but cruzy and ridiculous. But for a DC 2.2, which outperform to the fastest Intel DC, definitively not, it has a much more reasonable price, and very close, than a PD 3.2 specially considerig both perfomance/price ratio. Not to mention EE, $450 more expensive than a $550 A64 DC and worse performer). The only question here is that AMD, at the moment, has not announced the affordable DC line (1.6 or 1.8 or even 2.0). Thats all.


Agreed. I worded my post a bit poorly. I'm saying that making us pay 500$ for a Dual core Processor, by not giving us the option of a lower cost/speed version is absurd. Hopefully this will be remedied soon.


Donnie, I'm not argueing with your opinion. In fact I agree with you for the most part on this subject. But here is what was said...

"Originally Posted by PetNorth
oh well, if you want the cheaper DC (2.8 or 3.0) go Intel.
If you want the fatest, the cooler and the quieter DC, go AMD.


Fastest, debates will rage, quieter depends on the cooler." -Donnie

I'm simply saying that it will be a very hard stance to take in a debate that the Intel P4-D is flat out faster than the Amd X2. Which is a better deal, sure people can argue. (Personally I don't think either are a good deal.)

[PetNorth]

Again, playing pick the most expensive does NOTHING for the rest of the line=P Most Intel shoppers will not even give the Pentium D 8400XE passing thought. What will catch their eye are the cheaper ones. All anyone has to do is look at what's being used on this forum everyday. :rolleyes:

Too many shoppers have gotten use to processors priced at a certain levels. There's no turning back. Even if AMD is 100% correct in how the position their products, the past has spoiled most people in this sector, OEMs and VAR, there's no going back=P

Example, I remember you saying you owned a 3000+, why not a 4000+? 4000+ is a better processor than 3000+. You love to bring up P4EE and P840XE, these aren't high volume or everyday models that will bring in the real Profits. Hell they aren't meant to. That's what I meant by if AMD is using it as a starting point, no wonder their getting killed!

I didn't want Dual Cores yet, I wanted them to launch so Single Core Athlon Prices could fall, then get one of them. Now It seems like I wasted my time. Now, when you were right, I posted as such and gave you props. I clearly remember telling you that, "AMD's not announcing their prices mean they'll be expensive". Only An AMD Employee could see these as fair prices. I even underestimated them and said they'd be 1.5X LOL! If I were an AMD Fan, I'd be raising hell, not making excuses on why I would love to and should have to pay more, that's crazy! AMD pulled this same Crap, yes Crap, with the Hammers. :mad:

Donnie27



OK, Time to remember ;)

Let's remember our own prices previsions ten days ago:




Well let's make numbers ;)

A64 3000+ (1,8GHz) --> around $145
A64 x2 1,8GHz --> around $240-250. Is it impossible? no way will be affordable?

A64 3200+ (2,0ghz) --> around $190
A64 x2 2,0GHz ----> around $325 for example. Is it impossible? And IMO this price is affordable yet (remember, we are talking about dual core).

A64 3500+ (2,2GHz) ---> around $275
A64 x2 2,2GHz ------> $525-550. Of course, this isn't affordable generally speaking.


So we are talking about prices at the same level PD equivalent.


One 2.4GHz Athlon64 costs what?

A64 4000+ (2,4GHz) ----> around $640
Top A64 x2 2,4GHz (1MB L2 per core) ----> around $1000 why not? (same price PXE).





$275=1.8
$365=2.0
$695=2.2
+ or - $20 for each.
2.4GHz=$1,100 512K. All 1MB L2 models will ship as Opterons. AMD isn't making enough to ship as lower priced Desktop models.

I hope the prices are lower than what either of us listed. ;)

I don't disagree that much first two price points but disagree with the 3rd, I think it will ship at about $700.Now you can save that and throw it back at me later. It will surely ship above the $675 price point. This is NOT high volume AMD needs to get healthy. Too many more Quarters of AMD making crumbs and we'll be able to get them ALL real cheap LOL!

Now why not? If you are an AMD employee, it's fine. If you are an AMD user, it sucks to pay that much=P If you're an AMD Fan and would never buy an Intel processor, why in the hell would you worry about its price? So it's OK for AMD to act slimy like Intel? Sorry, I pull for consumers, not business'. Intel don't have to sell many PD-XE's, AMD doesn't have the option. AMD should be worrying more about AMD and less about Intel.

Donnie


Interesting, isn't it? :rolleyes:


So, now the official (or semi official) announced prices:

-A64 X2 2.2/512: $537 (my estimation was: $525-550; yours: $695)
-A64 X2 2.4/1mb: $1,001 (my estimation was: $1,000; yours: $1100 but for 512kb model!!! LOL: 512 announced price, $803).





Now you can save that and throw it back at me later.


indeed, it is the moment ;)



The question here is that AMD has not announced, at this moment, the affordable part. Period. But prices announced are absolutely fine (we are talking about four CPUs trouncing to competition. Comparing it with Intel DC, the slowest is faster than the fatest Intel DC, and much more faster than 3.2 no EE). So in fact, they are cheap if you compare them with same Intel DC price range.

[Lithan]

Donnie, Petnorth. You guys are in agreement, you're simply presenting the same arguement (That AMD ought to release lower speed X2's) differently. Worst case scenario I see, is we have to wait till 2Q 2006 for .65 to become available from AMD to see nice price drops. I can't imagine even wanting 2 core before then.

[PetNorth]

Agreed. I worded my post a bit poorly. I'm saying that making us pay 500$ for a Dual core Processor, by not giving us the option of a lower cost/speed version is absurd. Hopefully this will be remedied soon.

yeah, that is the negative and odious issue for us. Like you say, let's hope that affordable part will be here, at least, before year end ;)

[Donnie27]

OK, Time to remember ;)
.....much more faster than 3.2 no EE). So in fact, they are cheap if you compare them with same Intel DC price range.

You're right on the one hand and wrong as hell on the other. No matter what you compared it to, it still cost what it does, A LOT=P :rolleyes: Then AMD should be holding any lower speed cheaper processor back. That's to help them, NOT you, AMD Fans or anyone else.

No, these price points aren't OK LOL!. I'm glad as hell they weren't as high I thought they could be. No *spin can make these prices easier to swallow IMHO. If you think their price is fine, by all means buy a few.


A64 3000+ (1,8GHz) --> around $145
A64 x2 1,8GHz --> around $240-250. Is it impossible? no way will be affordable?
A64 3200+ (2,0ghz) --> around $190
A64 x2 2,0GHz ----> around $325 for example. Is it impossible? And IMO this price is affordable yet (remember, we are talking about dual core).

Since there are no prices lower than 2.2GHz that you also missed by $200+ why bother? I only estimated some of their Greed as I already said, they meaning Intel and AMD are greedy bastards. I find it hard to like either as you seem to do too often. That's not the only post I made were I SPECULATED not posted as fact just as you did too LOL! I also said they would be expensive. Then you throw out the P4EE and XE as always!


Originally Posted by Donnie27, 04-14-2005, 03:21 PM
$275=1.8
$365=2.0
$695=2.2

Mine
695 - 537 = $158
Yours
537- 325 = $212
I was closer on that one LOL!


Donnie27

[PetNorth]

No matter what you compared it to

WTF?
LOL of course it matters!!



Then AMD should be holding any lower speed cheaper processor back. That's to help them, NOT you, AMD Fans or anyone else.

I don't care them LOL!!



Mine
695 - 537 = $158
Yours
537- 325 = $212
I was closer on that one LOL!

WTF? xDDD

[PetNorth]

hey! Donnie I want to upgrade my s754 to a DC system in the next months!. I have 2x512GB DDR500 2,5-3-3-8 (it does 2,5-3-3-5 DDR500 2.7v or 2-2-2-5 DDR400 2.6v). What do you recommend me?

P4 DC 820 2.8 = $241
Board = hmmm where the hell is? I've only seen for sale, but not available, an Intel 955X $250,99
mem = 2x512 DDR2-533... some decent ram at least not crappy one!! Mushkin 4-4-4-11 $216?

$707,99 total


OR


A64 X2 4200+ 2.2/512 = $537
DFI Lan Party UT NForce4 Ultra-D $139

$676 total

wait!!

what the hell is this? A64 is cheaper for me and a hell faster!!! I can't believe it LOL!!!

;)

[Lithan]

And if they already have a ddr2 system, intel will be cheaper. This is an arguement neither side can really win, and I doubt either of you plans on spending $600+ on an upgrade to a DC system, so it's really a moot point. Of course if Intel Motherboards really are going to be $200+, then that will do a lot to even out the prices.

[PetNorth]

that upgrade is my case (and s754 owners like me), it is AXP owner case, it is P4 s478 owner case, it is P4 s775 owner with DDR case...

[MTXR]

If you wait, and purchase an AMD Dual Core Processor, you will see much benifits to having that system over an INTEL system. Benchmarks are already showing very very good numbers favoring the AMD side.

[IluvIntel]

Seems Intel CPU's are preferred over AMD for users of steam games:

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

mmmm, I wonder why... comments?

[PetNorth]

hmmm considering Intel 80% - AMD 18% in total x86 market share; an Intel 52.67% - AMD 47.32% in this area, is a great result for AMD if you ask me ;)

[Lithan]

1 person has less than 1gb hard disk. What's the minimum required to install H2?

[IluvIntel]

hmmm considering Intel 80% - AMD 18% in total x86 market share; an Intel 52.67% - AMD 47.32% in this area, is a great result for AMD if you ask me ;)

I disagree its a great result when you consider the reputation that AMD is suppose to have with the gaming community. ;)

[PetNorth]

differents points of view indeed ;)

[uiboliit]

mmmm, I wonder why... comments?

Was that even a serious question? And yes even people who buy dell play Half-life 2. :D ;) I believe atleast some part of the Intel owners have'nt heard anything about "AMWhat." And I found out about these hardware review sites after I got my first computer and access to the internet, not before.
This Valve got these numbers from the mandatory "activation"? The top 3. videocard was gf4mx440, very few people who know that AMD is better than Intel in gaming would go with such a card, this is the kind of card they put in those Celeron big GHZ computers.

edit:
"Approximately 22% of all chips featured Hyper-Threading technology" so thats less than half of the intel cpu-s

[Donnie27]

hey! Donnie I want to upgrade my s754 to a DC system in the next months!. I have 2x512GB DDR500 2,5-3-3-8 (it does 2,5-3-3-5 DDR500 2.7v or 2-2-2-5 DDR400 2.6v). What do you recommend me?

P4 DC 820 2.8 = $241
Board = hmmm where the hell is? I've only seen for sale, but not available, an Intel 955X $250,99
mem = 2x512 DDR2-533... some decent ram at least not crappy one!! Mushkin 4-4-4-11 $216?

$707,99 total


OR


A64 X2 4200+ 2.2/512 = $537
DFI Lan Party UT NForce4 Ultra-D $139

$676 total

wait!!

what the hell is this? A64 is cheaper for me and a hell faster!!! I can't believe it LOL!!!

;)

I agree with Lithan!


And if they already have a ddr2 system, intel will be cheaper. This is an arguement neither side can really win, and I doubt either of you plans on spending $600+ on an upgrade to a DC system, so it's really a moot point. Of course if Intel Motherboards really are going to be $200+, then that will do a lot to even out the prices.

Then add to that AMD will ship Socket M, with DDR2 early 2006, then what? That's the Point Intel is at right now. I too was looking at AMD because I didn't want to buy DDR2 right now. Many of my friends already have DDR2 and just the reverse of what you're looking at, going AMD would be more expensive for them. :rolleyes: BFD!

No gamer Intel user with a current system would pay $537, $139 then buy DDR1 when they already have DDR2. Many with 4+ GHz overclocks, sheesh, get real! Many folks got those overclocks on 180 to $300 processor making your option look even more stupid! :slobber: I really find it hard to read you talking about the market when AMD is dragging ass on RAM, and at their price points of the Dual Core Procs, they damned sure ain't pushing for broad market acceptance. Hell, more like fill their pocket as quickly as possible and Phuck the Market.

I know you don't care but $537 is what it is. This is not 1998 when that price would have been accepted without question, those bad old days are gone. For folks who like to talk about Intel trying to force something, here's a case where AMD is doing just that. Then we have you, AMD fans and spokespeople alike saying this is OK? :woot: YEAHHH!!!! AMD! No PetNorth I still might go AMD but not any with of this crap or Intel's at this time.

You keep missing what went on with Stream's numbers. It's that most of steam's users use less than what AMD or Intel sees as Gamer systems, be they AthlonXP or P4 2GHz, Lower end ATI and nVidia video cards.

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

hmmm considering Intel 80% - AMD 18% in total x86 market share; an Intel 52.67% - AMD 47.32% in this area, is a great result for AMD if you ask me ;)

That's not true. That's yearly sales you quote. That's NOT the same as Install Base where is still closer to 90%. When AMD had a party cheering going past 100 million CPUs :toast: , two months later Intel went past 1 billion ;) Yes, these are X86 CPUs, not MIPs and etc....... Intel will reach 1.5 billion long before AMD reaches 200 million or what Intel could build in about 6 to 7 quarters. :D

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

And if they already have a ddr2 system, intel will be cheaper. This is an arguement neither side can really win, and I doubt either of you plans on spending $600+ on an upgrade to a DC system, so it's really a moot point. Of course if Intel Motherboards really are going to be $200+, then that will do a lot to even out the prices.

There will be a few 200+ dollar motherboards, but trying to say all them will be is very misleading. All RAM prices are falling and the RAM manufactures know they can't jack them up as high again.

$106 - PC2-5400 DDR2-675 512MB
$66 - PC2-5400 DDR2-675 256MB
$180 - PC2-5400 DDR2-675 1GB
$322 - PC2-5300 DDR2-667 2GB
$157 - PC2-5300 DDR2-667 1GB
$81 - PC2-5300 DDR2-667 512MB
$76 - PC2-5300 DDR2-667 256MB
$228 - PC2-4200 DDR2-533 2GB
$104 - PC2-4200 DDR2-533 1GB
$41 - PC2-4200 DDR2-533 512MB
$22 - PC2-4200 DDR2-533 256MB

I have 1GB Cheap CAS3 (CAS 2.5 at stock speeds) PQI PC-4000+ that sold for $184.99 shipped from Newegg. It's now $179.33 RAM (http://www2.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820141139)

DDR2 RAM (http://www2.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820227010)

I think if I were going that way, I'd wait on the more expesive but faster PC-800 DDR2 that should ship in June or so. Only for lower latency, not overclocking that much.

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

Seems Intel CPU's are preferred over AMD for users of steam games:

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

mmmm, I wonder why... comments?

Processor Vendor
AuthenticAMD..... 478,204--47.32 %
CentaurHauls...............93---0.01 %
CyrixInstead ...............10---0.00 %
GenuineIntel ........532,309--52.67 %
GenuineTMx86............. 10---0.00 %


I loved this number, AMD CUP Speeds, Above 3.7 Ghz 216 0.02 % :D :woot: I wonder how many of those folks belong to this forum?

Donnie27

[Donnie27]

Was that even a serious question? And yes even people who buy dell play Half-life 2. :D ;) I believe atleast some part of the Intel owners have'nt heard anything about "AMWhat." And I found out about these hardware review sites after I got my first computer and access to the internet, not before.
This Valve got these numbers from the mandatory "activation"? The top 3. videocard was gf4mx440, very few people who know that AMD is better than Intel in gaming would go with such a card, this is the kind of card they put in those Celeron big GHZ computers.

edit:
"Approximately 22% of all chips featured Hyper-Threading technology" so thats less than half of the intel cpu-s

Yeah right!

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1788913,00.asp

Argue some more!

Donnie27

[PetNorth]

Then add to that AMD will ship Socket M, with DDR2 early 2006, then what?

then probably nothing :D

AMD May Skip DDR2 Altogether (http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1196)

and...

to Adopt DDR500 Officially (http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1210)

:woot:

[Donnie27]

then probably nothing :D

AMD May Skip DDR2 Altogether (http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1196)

and...

to Adopt DDR500 Officially (http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1210)

:woot:


The industry insider also reported that DDR3 may very well have high latencies, but due to its immensity in bandwidth, the performance will be quite comparable to DDR2. Other sources confirmed that DDR3 has already started hitting initial production lines for prototypes.


Should AMD adopt the DDR3 standard, Intel will get hit in the enthusiast market again, but Intel may end up following AMD with memory standards in the end.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Intel has been investing money in DDR2 and DDR3? WTF are they talking about? Dewd that source is whacky!

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/40732.html

Google it Intel invests in RAM and far back as this,
http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-216788.html?part=msnbc-cnet

500 Million pops up! 200 Million to Hynix, 100 Million, 200 here, 400 million. Thank goodness we don't have to wait for AMD to invest LOL!

Donnie27

[PetNorth]

Long life to my DDR500!!! LOL!!!
:woot: