AthlonXP 2800+ In Stock! @ Newegg

[JJd]

Still consider my 1600XP @ $58 a nice deal, but damn...I can't keep up with the Smiths next door!

 

[LuNoTiCK]

Originally posted by: ThunderRoad

Originally posted by: tedinde1
in 2 months we'll be buying them at the AMD auction/sheriff sale . if they dont do something quick with their finances.

And then, sadly, two days later we will see Intel selling the 266Mhz celeron for $400 again.

So sad, so true.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Rollo
"AMD 2800 xp performance is better than Intel. this is not expensive compared with Intel CPU. Price is not bad compared with Intel $700.00+, $410 is a reasonable price. " Since when does an Intel 2.8 cost $700?! Last I looked they were $380. on Pricewatch. And what doe you get by spending more money for AMD? http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1718&p=11 Wow, you're right! The 2800+ is 4fps faster at UT2003. I bet you can really tell the difference between 186fps and 182fps. http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1718&p=12 Ooops, on this page the 2800+ gets beat in 2/3 games, although again you could never tell the difference. I went with AMD when I bought my 1GHZ Athlon 2 years ago, and my 1600+ a year ago. (and they weren't even close to $50 then) I don't know what I'm going to do for this years annual upgrade. My KT266A motherboard will take up to a Athlon 2600+. However, they've got them priced so close to Intel now that I don't know I won't try a P4. I've never had to monkey around with motherboard drivers as much with Intel as I have with VIA. (e.g. how many times have you seen try the latest 4 in 1s suggested?)

That really is a flawed arguement... If you look at the framerate, by spending $200 more on a 2.8gz P4 as opposed to a 2.4ghz you gain less than 10fps in UT2003.... so you can't really use those game benchmarks to base this decision. I'm not saying that it's cool that the CPU is so expensive, but don't go and say that the performance is not there.

 

[Shrooms420]

the 2400 = 266mhz
the 2600 += 333mhz

also Ai42 never said this was a hot deal. read the title, he's just letting us know that the 2800 is in stock at Newegg

 

[douggie]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Rollo
"AMD 2800 xp performance is better than Intel. this is not expensive compared with Intel CPU. Price is not bad compared with Intel $700.00+, $410 is a reasonable price. " Since when does an Intel 2.8 cost $700?! Last I looked they were $380. on Pricewatch. And what doe you get by spending more money for AMD? http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1718&p=11 Wow, you're right! The 2800+ is 4fps faster at UT2003. I bet you can really tell the difference between 186fps and 182fps. http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1718&p=12 Ooops, on this page the 2800+ gets beat in 2/3 games, although again you could never tell the difference. I went with AMD when I bought my 1GHZ Athlon 2 years ago, and my 1600+ a year ago. (and they weren't even close to $50 then) I don't know what I'm going to do for this years annual upgrade. My KT266A motherboard will take up to a Athlon 2600+. However, they've got them priced so close to Intel now that I don't know I won't try a P4. I've never had to monkey around with motherboard drivers as much with Intel as I have with VIA. (e.g. how many times have you seen try the latest 4 in 1s suggested?)

That really is a flawed arguement... If you look at the framerate, by spending $200 more on a 2.8gz P4 as opposed to a 2.4ghz you gain less than 10fps in UT2003.... so you can't really use those game benchmarks to base this decision. I'm not saying that it's cool that the CPU is so expensive, but don't go and say that the performance is not there.

Yeah, with that $200, you can get a much better video card and that would definitely give you more fps ... the bottleneck is with the video cards when it comes to games.

 

[nRollo]

"That really is a flawed arguement... If you look at the framerate, by spending $200 more on a 2.8gz P4 as opposed to a 2.4ghz you gain less than 10fps in UT2003.... so you can't really use those game benchmarks to base this decision. I'm not saying that it's cool that the CPU is so expensive, but don't go and say that the performance is not there. "

Actually, I think it's a really good argument. We're not talking about bang for buck, what if we buy a couple notches lower. We're comparing the $410 Athlon 2800+ to the ONLY processor it can be compared to, the $380 P4 2.8.
When you consider the Athlon costs more, does not perform better, and comes on more troublesome motherboards, it becomes pretty obvious which one is the better choice.
Or are you going to say VIA/SIS motherboards are more compatible, industry standard parts than Intel motherboards?
Or were you going to say that scraping 2/4 benchmarks is a clear victory?
Or that it's better to pay more than less for a comparable product.

I didn't say the performance isn't there, it obviously is comparable to a P4 2.8. I am saying that, like it or not, Intel is the industry standard and their boards are easier to set up, as well as compatible with a wider variety of hardware.

I'll probably get the AMD 2400 or 2600, just so I don't have to rebuild my box, but I think they should be a little less as we have to put up with non-Intel motherboards.

 

[Gilby]

Rollo, you sure you don't work for Intel? That was as good an example of standard FUD as I've seen in awhile, insinuating that Intel=Standard, I mean.

 

[tbates757]

douggie the gfx card isnt always the bottleneck for games, sometimes it's the processor with very cpu dependant games like commanche 4

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Actually, I think it's a really good argument. We're not talking about bang for buck, what if we buy a couple notches lower. We're comparing the $410 Athlon 2800+ to the ONLY processor it can be compared to, the $380 P4 2.8. When you consider the Athlon costs more, does not perform better, and comes on more troublesome motherboards, it becomes pretty obvious which one is the better choice. Or are you going to say VIA/SIS motherboards are more compatible, industry standard parts than Intel motherboards? Or were you going to say that scraping 2/4 benchmarks is a clear victory? Or that it's better to pay more than less for a comparable product. I didn't say the performance isn't there, it obviously is comparable to a P4 2.8. I am saying that, like it or not, Intel is the industry standard and their boards are easier to set up, as well as compatible with a wider variety of hardware. I'll probably get the AMD 2400 or 2600, just so I don't have to rebuild my box, but I think they should be a little less as we have to put up with non-Intel motherboards.

What I was saying (by comparing the lower clocked processors) is that you are comparing processors in a benchmark of a game where the difference between processors is a few fps... less than 3 in some cases... If you want to compare processor speeds use another benchmark. PLUS, the only reason the 2800+ is $405 is because NewEgg is the only place that has it. And it doesn't neccessarily perform worse than the 2.8ghz P4, once again, because you can't judge it based on a 3fps difference in one or two games.

Oh, and the "more troublesome motherboards" that the XP processors come on IS a flawed arguement. If you buy Epox or Asus or MSI you are gonna get a nice, stable system with no compatability issues... much like my Epox 8K5A2+ motherboard. Sure if you buy the cheapest socket A motherboard it will be unstable and performance will suffer, but categorizing all AMD motherboards as "troublesome" is an incomplete generalization at best.

 

[nRollo]

" Rollo, you sure you don't work for Intel? That was as good an example of standard FUD as I've seen in awhile, insinuating that Intel=Standard, I mean. "
No, like I said, I've been using AMD largely because I want them to succeed and for there to be competition. You can SAY Windows isn't the industry standard desktop OS, but it is. You can SAY Intel isn't the industry standard chipset manufacturer, but they are.

"If you buy Epox or Asus or MSI you are gonna get a nice, stable system with no compatability issues... much like my Epox 8K5A2+ motherboard. Sure if you buy the cheapest socket A motherboard it will be unstable and performance will suffer, but categorizing all AMD motherboards as "troublesome" is an incomplete generalization at best."
Trevor, I'm typing this on an Epox 8KHA+, rev. 2. You're generalizing as much as I am, if not more so. No issues with Epox? Head on over to Rage 3d and check out the Radeon 8500 tech support, as an example. (search Epox) Or how about the Ti4600s that didn't fit on AMD motherboards? Etc.
I'm not trying to trash AMD, I'm only saying there are more compatibility and driver issues with the VIA and SIS chipsets they run on. If you can point me at some info that says "AMD platforms easier to use than Intel" I'll reconsider.

 

[DEFIANT1]

Originally posted by: Shrooms420
the 2400 = 266mhz
the 2600 += 333mhz

2600+ = 333Mhz
and
2600+ = 266Mhz

 

[c627627]

This is escalating into a technical discussion. Please let?s stick to which CPU is better value.
For those who didn't hear: All AMD new CPUs will be priced close to Intel CPUs they're competing with.

It would be a mistake to take either Intel or AMD names as a reference of what to buy. Take $ and Hot deals as a reference.
Unless you're in the market for the newest latest, AMD is probably still going to be a better value.

If you're buying the expensive stuff, it used to be that you could save as much as $100 for AMD CPU that is negligibly behind Intel's flagship CPU.
Not no more, from now on, flagship CPU prices will be close.

 

[huesmann]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Actually, I think it's a really good argument.

It's a good argument ONLY if the benchmarks were taken with a superhot gfx card, like a GF4 4600 or Radeon 9700, running at 640x480.

 

[phreakyzen]

Yes down with AMD! I am just standing in line to pay 400% more for an Intel once there is no competition, YEAH!!

 

[corinthos]

Poor AMD.... once the darling of the industry and now getting trashed every which way...........

I may go with Intel for my next system but simply because VIA is a pain in the buttocks.... 4-in-1 drivers can kiss my butt...

 

[WHipLAsh13]

I agree with Rollo. I build a alot of different systems and have used both AMD and Intels. The Intel systems definately demand less maintence and are much more stable. While all the new systems I will build will all be Intel based I do agree that AMD needs to be around to keep Intel's pricing in check. With the new dual channel ddr and 8x board coming out from Asus, to me Intel is the clear decision.

 

[jm0ris0n]

As far as the ti4600 + epox goes...Just remember intel made their P4 chipsets incompatible with the Voodoo5500.

And there is no need to pity amd. In fact their stock price right now is higher than its been in a while.

Intel and AMD supported chipsets ALL WILL HAVE A PROBLEM SOMETIME WITH A CERTAIN PIECE OF HARDWARE. It is inevitable.


Instead of bitching about the price, people should be happy AMD release this 2800+ into the market. I feel its a hot deal if you want the second fastest processor!

 

[corinthos]

It's true all hardware will have problems... but c'mon... the VIA AMD chipsets have been nothing but a pain in the butt... and the incompatibility with Creative SB cards too... I doubt the Intel P4 chipsets have as many problems...

 

[c627627]

You can now put your doubts to rest, corinthos.
This doesn't apply to non-overclocked processors, but Pentium 4 Northwoods are dying like flies out there.

There's now even an official Sudden Northwood Death Syndrome (S.N.D.S.) Thread

So much for superiority under stress. If you own a Potato 4, better read this and save your CPU while there's still time.

Disclaimer *Does not apply to non-oc'd cpus. Your mileage may vary. ... *

 

[markrb]

I have been in the AMD camp for a few CPU's now, but lately I am not sure where I will be going for my next CPU.
I am not afraid of the chipset issues as I have never really had any.
Right now though in some sections the value seems to be shifting to Intel.
I was looking at the AMD XP 2600+ when I noticed that the P4 2.53 was actually about $48 cheaper and retail to boot.
I went back to Anandtech and read the reviews and in the conclusion he even says it's pretty much a wash between
these two. This same price issue seems to be hitting all the newer AMD CPU's. They seem to be more expensive
then the Intel, not at a close price point.

Accoding to the lastes CPU prices at www.sharkyextreme.com

AMD 2600+ OEM $284
Intel P4 2.53 Retail $236

AMD 2800+ OEM $405 as reported here from Newegg.
Intel P4 2.8 Retail $381

I want to support AMD. I really do and I think the new Nforce2 boards will be a help, but I cannot justify paying
this much more money for close to the same speed. AMD had a nice place for itself and gathered a great following
with reduced prices. Now we maybe seeing that this strategy didn't work and we may yet loose another competitor
to Intel and once again be looking at a monopoly.

Mark

 

[c627627]

Good post Mark.
All anyone doubting what you said has to do, is look at Pricewatch.com today.

Although CPUs such as Pentium 2.53 have been on the market for months now and AMD chips have just started to hit the streets, no one can dispute your valid arguments today.

 

[WHipLAsh13]

c627627 your disclaimer should read does not apply to non-oc'd processors or oc'd processors that were not physically modified(ie vid-pinned). Because in the great majority of the cases of SNDS the processors were vid-pinned locking the vcore at a higher setting than default in most cases over 1.8(1.5 is default). I have had my 1.6a running at 150 fsb for almost a year now with out an issue.

 

[Banana]

Originally posted by: Shrooms420

also Ai42 never said this was a hot deal. read the title, he's just letting us know that the 2800 is in stock at Newegg

Uhhh--then why did he post it in the HOT DEALS forum? He should have posted in the CPU forum, where this discussion, which dates back to the day Strom Thurmond was born, is more appropriate.

 

[nRollo]

I don't think the discussion here is strictly "AMD vs. Intel", it's got a new dimension in that now AMD is actually trying to sell their parts for MORE than Intel. Are they actually worth more? No, not in my opinion, they are worth the same if you only consider cpu vs. cpu. However; I do think they are worth less because they have to be run on non Intel chipset motherboards.
The ONLY reason AMD is pricing these new chips more than their Intel counterparts is that they're counting on people like me, in their installed user base to say,"I don't want to yank my board, I'll just flash the bios and put in a 2600+".
I'm not that lazy. I had a R8500 that locked up, and now I have an R9700 that gives me faint EMI waves at times. I want hardware compatibility, so I will probably use Christmas jing to go back to the darkside.