PDA

View Full Version : Why has AMD cpu price doubled and mhz increase has been half?


Graphicmaniac
07-25-05, 10:56 AM
Could somebody explain me why Amd is selling their high-end at a double price than what they used in the period of full war with Intel (athlon 1 and xp and 1st A64 times) ?

And looking the speed increase, with A64fx they have reached 2,8 ghz against the 2,2 of when they have stared 2 years ago !
only 600 Mhz in 2 years that represent just the 36% of the initial power, while in the "old" times they have jumped from 600 to 1,4 in 1 year more than 100% increase in performance and then again from 1600+ to 3200+ with athlonxp.

AMD getting the higher place of cpus performance is just acting like Intel did when was the faster cpu maker, high price and development just enought to keep other behind.

How will all this affect the GPU market?
higher cpu prices could make people wish to buy always lower priced GPU making the integrated gpu market even more important for Nvidia, Ati and Intel; about performance maybe we could see an increase in features, IQ instead of the reasearch of pure speed since many games will be cpu limited and this would also explain why Nvidia has choosen to release a new Gpu only any year instead of any 6 months like they used to do in the past.

MUYA
07-25-05, 10:59 AM
Maybe you oughta ask AMD.

Banko
07-25-05, 11:17 AM
It's because Intel hasn't come out with anything to make AMD really up the clocks.

|MaguS|
07-25-05, 11:25 AM
They can up the price because poeple will still buy them... also while the mhz hasn't gone up performance still has. Unlike Intel that gets its performance by numbers, AMD gets them by actually making a good chip.

Riptide
07-25-05, 11:37 AM
Clock speeds aren't increasing as fast as they used to because of problems with the process now. They simply can't create, easily, 4GHz P4's or 4GHz Athlon64's and make them cheap enough for the masses to afford. There was a while there where both AMD and Intel didn't expect to have so much trouble getting to higher clocks - but engineering experience has shown that it is much more difficult than they anticipated.

In short clock speeds aren't going up quickly not because of some corporate conspiracy but due to actual engineering issues. This is partly why there is a push for dual core now - they are up against a wall on clock speeds and had to do something in order to increase performance. Hence 2 CPUs and eventually 4 CPUs or more on one chip.

Now the software needs to start catching up and take advantage of this change in approaches.

Graphicmaniac
07-25-05, 12:05 PM
i was thinking that maybe AGEIA could get advantage of this as Creative has got with their sounds cards.

zoomy942
07-25-05, 12:14 PM
another thing to remember is that while AMD physical clock speeds havent increased as much as Intel's, it is irrelevant. its the design of the chip that makes things go. amd can afford to have a lower clocked CPU because the chip is so effecient. intel chose a design that relied on faster clock speeds, that they were unaware would be impossible to obtain. i bet a Prescott 5 GHZ would be a MONSTER, but it would set your house on fire first, therefore Intel's gamble didnt quite pay off.

Riptide
07-25-05, 12:19 PM
Clock speeds are not irrelevant.

But you're right - AMD has the more efficient design clock/clock. Their design hasn't scaled as well as the P4 w/regard to clock speed. But as you say, it doesn't really need to in order to remain competitive.

The next 4-5 years will be very interesting.

MrSavoy
07-25-05, 12:33 PM
This is an interesting topic and one that I have been thinking about for the last few months. I will be building a new rig this fall and am starting to watch the prices on the hardware I'm thinking of. That said, the prices for the high end CPU's from AMD is prolly at an all time high. I mean an FX 57 for 1000 bucks? I mean yes its a beast and all but jesus, same for the dual core x2 4800 nice cpu but a ton of money. Seems like the divide between enthusists high end PC's like us here and regular joe PC users is getting bigger instead of smaller. I mean betweek a high end CPU/NF4 SLI MB/just a single 7800 GTX your looking at approx 1800 bucks. Wtf? lol Thats a little absurd imo. Doesnt mean I'm not gonna spend it though come oct/nov cause I will buy whatever is top of the line at that time. :) I'm already figuring I'm gonna need about 2500 bucks to build the box I want at that time.

That said this has been on my mind for a while now and I havent really seen to many people talk about it. Just seems were all getting numb to the whole thing and just merrily paying whatever the price to get high end hardware. Where does it end? :(

TierMann
07-25-05, 01:19 PM
It does seem like the increase has gotten smaller in Mhz, but as everyone said, they're becoming more efficient with a better design. Look at all the venice cores now that OC nicely. I was doing some shopping recently (A64 X2 4400+ coming today or tomorrow) and prices seem about the same as what they were 7 months ago (relatively.. high end vs low end). The highest FX chip is still ~$1000. And it was same a few months before that. People paid it, and they'll keep charging it.

Marcos
07-25-05, 01:24 PM
MHZ is OFN

oldsk00l
07-25-05, 02:04 PM
AMD's clockspeed (as stated many times above) doesn't need to go up. AMD engineers the chip to do more work per clock.

And FYI, performance has DRASTICALLY gone up over the years for AMD chips......

My "old" opteron 246 server (duallies) hands my G5 it's own ass when it comes to video encoding/ripping/compiling. If you compare to similarly priced Intel CPU's they annihilate them.

zoomy942
07-25-05, 02:10 PM
AMD's clockspeed (as stated many times above) doesn't need to go up. AMD engineers the chip to do more work per clock.

And FYI, performance has DRASTICALLY gone up over the years for AMD chips......

My "old" opteron 246 server (duallies) hands my G5 it's own ass when it comes to video encoding/ripping/compiling. If you compare to similarly priced Intel CPU's they annihilate them.


and thats why AMD internal designs are so beautiful. i, personally, am a sucker for innovation more than raw power. AMD chips never needed to get uber-fast cause they created a chip that makes the most of the speed that its at.

Riptide
07-25-05, 02:50 PM
AMD's clockspeed (as stated many times above) doesn't need to go up. AMD engineers the chip to do more work per clock.
Who cares which happens as long as we get higher performance. I really don't give a crap whether it gets there by increasing clock speed or increasing efficiency. Ideally both would be good.

If you compare to similarly priced Intel CPU's they annihilate them.Annihilate seems like rather dramatic verbage. Can you provide some proof of "annihilation" here?

Take for example:
3500+ $249.00
P4 3.4GHz $251.00

Show me a review where the 3500+ completely wipes the floor with that 3.4GHz CPU.

rohit
07-25-05, 04:09 PM
i just know one thing. i made the biggest mistake by buying the prescott. (luckily there were fools who bought it off at nearly the M.R.P price, since it was intel).

AMD64 changed the way i used the comp. its not only faster, but also MUCH MUCH MUCH cooler and 70% QUIETER to intel. at stock HSF.

at this moment, i wont mind paying 300bux on amd, instead of paying 150 bux on intel. Its worth it for your piece of mind.

Riptide
07-25-05, 04:25 PM
Newer Prescott chips don't have quite the heat problems the original ones did and some of them even overclock quite well. Do a search of this forum for "prescott heat" and you'll see what I mean. Things were bad @ first but have improved.

Graphicmaniac
07-25-05, 04:38 PM
well but here all who says MHZ are not important forget a little thing, amd has done some innovations yes but is a bit different than make a jump in performance like seems reading ur comments

other years there was double performance at half today prices

now we have just 30% jump + 800to1000mhz bus + other little innovations at an huge price

ok i'm an AMD fan too, Fx57 rocks but if someone would have asked me when A64 was released what cpu i would have thought to see in end of 2005 i would have said a 4 ghz cpu while right now seems that fx59 will even be out in early 2006

and hope intel come back to hit hard coz i don't want spend 1000 for the best of cpus

ViN86
07-25-05, 09:44 PM
this is why i overclock. my $200 cpu is performing at what some of the $600 ones are. sure prices are increasing, but spend a little more on cooling, and OC that lower end chip.

if you keep it cool and dont overvolt it, you should be fine in terms of how long it lasts.