PDA

View Full Version : AMD 64bit Cost?


TaP
07-06-03, 11:33 PM
I coulda swore I read somewhere that the Chip itself is going to cost like $900+ .... but I can't remember where...can someone verify this?

Thanks!

The Baron
07-06-03, 11:39 PM
/me coughs up his lungs

No.

Little bit more than top-of-the-line Barton at the time. Maybe $400 or so for a Athlon64. Now Opterons, they're expensive.

And 2Ghz Opteron soon. Gives me faith for the A64 launch.

b00bie
07-06-03, 11:59 PM
looks more like a price of a new Opetron rather than A64. I think the 1.8 Opetron is like $800 or somethin.
Well, all these prices should drop when A64 comes out. I guess it's September when it comes out so let's wait and see :)

I'm actually thinking it will be closer to $500 for the A64.

TaP
07-07-03, 12:07 AM
And I haven't read much about the Intel Tejas, but whats so special about it? Is it using 64bit tech too...and how much will it be going for if the AMD will be going for so high...

b00bie
07-07-03, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by TaP
And I haven't read much about the Intel Tejas, but whats so special about it? Is it using 64bit tech too...and how much will it be going for if the AMD will be going for so high...

Well, the big thing about the Tejas are their large caches. From what I know, they are to have 24kb of L1 cache, and 1MB of L2 cache. It'll still have hyperthreading with 800/1066Mhz FSB. It'll start with 4.4GHz and up. ;)
Now, from what I know the Tejas are to be 32-bit chips.
Tejas is expected to be a 32-bit chip that may contain 64-bit support for IA-64 instructions in some form. Whether it contains any 64-bit fun is still unclear.

The Intel Tejas CPUs should come out around the second half of 2004 from what I know ;)

EDIT: As for the price of these, I really have no clue. I imagine they will be more expensive than AMD as usual :p

Smokey
07-07-03, 01:38 PM
As the Athlon64 is going to be AMDs next mainstream cpu, I would expect them to cost around the same as current AMD cpus, a top of the range will always be close to $400.

b00bie
07-07-03, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Smokey
As the Athlon64 is going to be AMDs next mainstream cpu, I would expect them to cost around the same as current AMD cpus, a top of the range will always be close to $400.

well, I dunno about that, seeing as the P4 3.2GHz is in the $700's range. I am thinking the price of the Tejas will be around the same ;)

reever2
07-07-03, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by TaP
I coulda swore I read somewhere that the Chip itself is going to cost like $900+ .... but I can't remember where...can someone verify this?

Thanks!

It will be the same as cpus now. Top of the line when it is first introduced will cost 500-600 bucks

Geforce4ti4200
07-08-03, 02:06 PM
well 64 bit wont be cheap initally but prices will drop once 64 bit has been out some time. If Intel does not have full support for 64 bit soon, they will fall behind as we see 64 bit games and apps emerge.........

Sazar
07-08-03, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
well 64 bit wont be cheap initally but prices will drop once 64 bit has been out some time. If Intel does not have full support for 64 bit soon, they will fall behind as we see 64 bit games and apps emerge.........

IIRC intel stated they would not get into the 64bit game till either next year or the year after..

that could well change depending on how well amd does... but amd is already running about a year behind schedule

prodikal
07-08-03, 03:59 PM
I read an article somewheres that said Intel could not see themselves getting into the home 64-bit market unless it did extremely well with amd.

Riptide
07-08-03, 04:12 PM
Makes sense to me... Let AMD take the plunge first. Sink or swim...

b00bie
07-08-03, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by prodikal
I read an article somewheres that said Intel could not see themselves getting into the home 64-bit market unless it did extremely well with amd.

There is no hurry for Intel to realease their 64-bit processors at the moment. Most applications that use 64-bit are not found in the mainstream yet.

Madison and Gallatin (http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=1190527124&fp=2&fpid=1)

yoladude
07-08-03, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by b00bie
There is no hurry for Intel to realease their 64-bit processors at the moment. Most applications that use 64-bit are not found in the mainstream yet.

Madison and Gallatin (http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=1190527124&fp=2&fpid=1)

but i think that it's a very good thing for the computer industry and speed freaks for AMD to move the technology ahead (even if it's horrible for my wallet). this is because when the A64 comes out, developers will have a reason to program in 64-bit, as opposed to waiting for developers to write 64-bit programs and THEN producing the cpu's to take advantage of it. technology simply moves faster when risks are taken.

so, even if the software to take advantage of the new hardware isn't released when the hardware itself is, it will eventually.

Geforce4ti4200
07-08-03, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by prodikal
I read an article somewheres that said Intel could not see themselves getting into the home 64-bit market unless it did extremely well with amd.


64 bit will happen and be a success. after all, how did we get to 32 bit? Intel better be able to rush 64 bit pentium5 processors within 3 months after amd does. Also maybe Intel has a point in waiting for 64 bit, since amd's 64 bit cpu wasted precious die space implementing 64 bit code no one really uses yet. Kinda like 3dfx didnt support 32 bit color on their voodoo3 line nor TL

b00bie
07-08-03, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by yoladude
but i think that it's a very good thing for the computer industry and speed freaks for AMD to move the technology ahead (even if it's horrible for my wallet). this is because when the A64 comes out, developers will have a reason to program in 64-bit, as opposed to waiting for developers to write 64-bit programs and THEN producing the cpu's to take advantage of it. technology simply moves faster when risks are taken.

so, even if the software to take advantage of the new hardware isn't released when the hardware itself is, it will eventually.

I agree with you completely. It is competition that ensures us with better products. I am happy with AMD coming out with their 64-bit processors that will push the software companies to get some software out there that will utilize that. All I am saying is that I think Intel doesn't have the pressure to release their 64-bit when AMD does. Although I am sure they have something in mind to compete with the A64 in the near future. Whether they make the Tejas 64-bit is still "unclear". It will be a while before they come out, so a lot can change until that time. :)

StealthHawk
07-08-03, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by b00bie
There is no hurry for Intel to realease their 64-bit processors at the moment. Most applications that use 64-bit are not found in the mainstream yet.

Madison and Gallatin (http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=1190527124&fp=2&fpid=1)

Chicken and egg syndrome. As gamers, we are more apt to see this behavior(look at DX8 hardware as an example). We need the hardware out before the software will follow. Not only that, but we need the hardware market penetration at the low end to really get things rolling.

Steppy
07-09-03, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
64 bit will happen and be a success. after all, how did we get to 32 bit? Intel better be able to rush 64 bit pentium5 processors within 3 months after amd does. Also maybe Intel has a point in waiting for 64 bit, since amd's 64 bit cpu wasted precious die space implementing 64 bit code no one really uses yet. Kinda like 3dfx didnt support 32 bit color on their voodoo3 line nor TL This is a typical misconception. As a programmer you ran into the walls imposed by 8 and 16 bit processors literally all the time. There was a pressing need for the next level as evidenced by the 5 years or less between transitions(1978-82 was 8 bit, 82-85 was 16, 85-present(18 years) is 32 bit). There's good reason why we're still at 32-bit 18 years after the 386...there's not much mainstream stuff that pushes the 32-bit envelope. Intel has very little need to "rush a 64-bit desktop" chip out, because even if every AMD user bought a a64 on release day, 64-bit processor would still only account for less than 20% of the home market. AMD isn't is a position to push standards. the A64 if it's a hit may be able to put amd in position to then try to push standards, but by that time Intel most likely will have a 64-bit solution ready to go. Intel may be waiting for AMD to put all their eggs in the hammer "basket" and then release an incompatible 64-bit desktop processor(though Intel is likley wary of getting the feds on their ass). Intel IS in position to push standards.

B&R
07-12-03, 08:16 PM
I dont it would $900..if it is i pity the ones who buy it. But i am sure it is goin to be around $600 -$700 when it comes out.

SavagePaladin
07-22-03, 04:41 AM
900 is a ridiculous thought for an enduser processor.
Opterons prices are coming down supposedly in about a week, Athlon 64s should be significantly cheaper and come in several speed grades as well.

What with WinXP64 for AMD64 supposedly enhancing more than just 64 bit apps, I'm gonna want one.

And when I get all that crap, I'll need the 64 bit UT2004 and HL2 to play on it. :)

As a matter of fact, if the processors cost more than $500, I'll choke on whatever I'm eating at the time. I'm relatively sure AMD said they wouldn't cost more than high end Bartons, but I don't even remember.

Originally posted by Steppy
This is a typical misconception. As a programmer you ran into the walls imposed by 8 and 16 bit processors literally all the time. There was a pressing need for the next level as evidenced by the 5 years or less between transitions(1978-82 was 8 bit, 82-85 was 16, 85-present(18 years) is 32 bit). There's good reason why we're still at 32-bit 18 years after the 386...there's not much mainstream stuff that pushes the 32-bit envelope.
If I'm not mistaken, what we're running into now more than ever is efficiency issues, not bit issues, and AMD64 does a few things to help that considerably.
I hear a lot about how crappy X86 is, and I'm glad to see someone take a few steps to improve it for a change.