AMD raises prices

[joker_927]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11527

$400 "entry level" Athlon 64

"Since AMD perfmorce is now equal to Intels, so should the price"

!!!!!!

Price fixing bastards

[SiliconJon]

Too bad, AMD. If you don't have an advantage, then why should we choose you over Intel?

I personally like both chipmakers, but have favored AMD since their bang-per-buck has outweighed Intel's. If they no longer take this lead, it will be fun to give Intel a few builds...

[vass0922]

One reason to continue buying AMD is to insure that Intel still has competition.

Why do you think Intel's prices are as low as they are?
Its certainly not because they make too much money

[Mr. Goodbytes]

You know, they have to make money somehow. Their lower prices have always served us knowledgeable users quite well. But look at the average dolt going to the store to buy a computer. When you tell a customer that not only is the AMD system faster, but it's also cheaper, you oftentimes get funny looks. I think of it like buying a car. There are those POS Kia's out there. You see the commercials: all the options a Camry has, but standard, a longer warranty, plus 5 grand cheaper. But we all know Kia's are junk. You get what you pay for, but AMD is an exception to the rule. Maybe it's time they stopped selling themselves short, and stop acting like they have an inferiority complex.

[SiliconJon]

I'm not saying I'm going to buy only Intel! That would be crazy...that would be like just buying nVidia or ATI, or just Abit or Asus...

[DPA]

gahhh! thats some pretty shameful pricing.

they either have something very good, or they are bluffing real good

[SPEEDO]

They probably figure that it's time to get their fair share. And I don't blame them.

[vass0922]

So is the Athlon 64 3200+ going to be faster than a Intel 3.2 Ghz or is the actual Mhz vs. Mhz going to be closer to being equal?

[originel]

i can't say for certain vass, but from what i've read and seen (the had athlon64's at quakecon), the athlon64 will actually make the mhz v mhz even further apart. If you look at the opterons this would make since. the opteron's have been out for a while and i read an articel at THG where they compared the newest XP and P4, and threw in two opteron's just for the heck of it and i read that a 1.8mHz opteron was comparable to a 3.2gHz P4 (except for certain areas where server architecture doesn't fare well). i can't find that article...but here's another one comparing the 3.06gHz xeon and the 1.8gHz opteron: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030811/index.html

As for the pricing i'm going to reserve judgement at the very least until the chip comes out...and possibly even longer. it is entirely possible that the article was right and that they won't be able to keep up a large supply until 2004 rolls around.

[Terminal23]

I think the point is moot now.I've used both now for a long time and quite frankly can't tell any difference between them.They both perform out standing.I don't use any particular test.This is just from everyday use.From games to office to getting on line.