P4 Extreme Edition discontinued

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yousuf Khan
  • Start date Start date
It looks like just the P4 3.2 EE is being cancelled. I wonder if we will soon
see a P4 3.6 EE? The 3.2 EE was priced too close to the 3.4 EE, so I
doubt it sold well. I don't know how well the P4 3.4 EE is selling, however
Intel needs something to try to compete against the Athlon 64 FX-53. The EE
chips are probably also quite expensive to produce. Let's see what Intel
comes up with for the holidays. I guess AMD is supposed to come out
with the FX-55 in October?
 
Yousuf said:
I wonder if that means AMD will also discontinue its FX line of Athlon 64's
now?
Click to expand...

Huh ? Why would you think the two things are related at all ?

P4-EE was Intel's answer to the Athlon FX. Just
because Intel has decided they now have a better
"answer" than the EE, it does not follow that AMD
should roll over and play dead.
 
This article states that the original P4EE is being discontinued. It doesn't
mention whether all further EE's will be discontinued or not, but it seems
to be the implication.

I wonder if that means AMD will also discontinue its FX line of Athlon 64's
now?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040807015441.html
Click to expand...

My reading of things is that it's JUST the 3.2GHz model that's being
discontinued, which would make sense. People paying a HUGE premium
for these top-end chips aren't going to be too worried about an extra
$80 to get the top-end, so it makes no sense to have a bunch of
different speed grades. FWIW current price of the P4EE 3.2GHz is $915
while the P4EE 3.4GHz is $995, ie less than a 10% difference in price.

Same reason why AMD has discontinued their Athlon64 FX-51 after the
FX-53 arrived.. though I suppose you can still kinda-sorta buy an
FX-51 under the Opteron 150 product name.
 
I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
$1,000 P4 3.4 EE. Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.
 
In reconsidering the Athlon 64 3800+ vs FX-51 benchmarks, I now
realize that the Athlon 64 3800+ seems like a much better performer
overall than the FX-51. So the FX-51 doesn't really make sense for
AMD to continue to produce, since imo the Athlon 64 3800+ is also
probably much cheaper to make.
 
Bitstring <[email protected]>,
from the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen
I guess that the EE stands for 'Expensive Edition'.
Click to expand...

'Extreme' actually, but I guess that the 'extreme' could indeed apply
mostly to the expense .. it sure as hell doesn't apply to the relative
cost benefit.
8>.
 
JK said:
I saw prices around $825 for the P4 3.2 EE. Still too close to the
$1,000 P4 3.4 EE. Imo the Athlon FX-51 is being discontinued since
the Athlon 64 3800+ is probably less expensive to make than the
FX-51, and seems to perform at least as well in almost all benchmarks.
Click to expand...

I guess that the EE stands for 'Expensive Edition'.
 
The P4 EE chips are also probably very expensive to make, so I
doubt that Intel would want to keep making the P4 3.2 EE, especially
if they felt they might soon need to drop the price to well under $600.
Perhaps it might also mean that there might be a P4 3.6 EE?
I wonder if there will be a P4 3.8 ghz before the end of the year, or
if Intel plans some 3.6 ghz chips with other enhancements besides
clock speed (and besides a huge cache) to boost performance before
the end of the year.

The Athlon 64 3800+ is a tough chip to compete against. The Athlon 64
4000+ on 90nm will be even more exciting. I wonder how it will benchmark
against the FX-53? It looks like it will be released around the time of the
FX-55, so AMD might decide to discontinue the FX-53 after the Athlon 64
4000+ and the FX-55 are out ? It looks like the FX-55 and Athlon 64 FX-55
are scheduled for October release.


http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1
http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/
 
Bitstring <[email protected]>,
from the wonderful person Johannes H Andersen


'Extreme' actually, but I guess that the 'extreme' could indeed apply
mostly to the expense .. it sure as hell doesn't apply to the relative
cost benefit.
Click to expand...

It could also be Extreme Envy. They had do do *something* to fill the
performace charts. Did anyone actually buy one?
 
It could also be Extreme Envy. They had do do *something* to fill the
performace charts. Did anyone actually buy one?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why the EE costs so much, how much more could it cost
them to make a EE, I thought Intel chips were supposed to get faster and
cheaper, 300mm wafers @ 90nm, what's the problem? Just pure greed?

I just ordered a nf3-250 mobo and 3200+ newcastle for under $300, I just
couldn't buy an Intel, not really sure why, must be because all my
friends have A64s, funny cause they wouldn't touch an AMD just a couple
years ago.

Ed
 
Ed said:
I don't understand why the EE costs so much,
Click to expand...

Chips with such a huge cache are very expensive to make. Production of
more complex chips probably results in a larger percentage of chips that
need to be discarded. Much fewer of the more complex chips fit on a
wafer since the die size is so large relative to chips with a much smaller
cache.
how much more could it cost
them to make a EE, I thought Intel chips were supposed to get faster and
cheaper, 300mm wafers @ 90nm, what's the problem? Just pure greed?

I just ordered a nf3-250 mobo and 3200+ newcastle for under $300
Click to expand...

A good choice.
, I just
couldn't buy an Intel, not really sure why, must be because all my
friends have A64s, funny cause they wouldn't touch an AMD just a couple
years ago.
Click to expand...

If you read this review, you will notice that the $210 Athlon 64 3200+
beats or comes close to the $1,000 P4 3.4 EE in many of the benchmarks.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1
 
from the said:
I don't understand why the EE costs so much, how much more could it cost
them to make a EE, I thought Intel chips were supposed to get faster and
cheaper, 300mm wafers @ 90nm, what's the problem? Just pure greed?
Click to expand...

Look at the cache size(s) on those suckers. Chips that big have to yield
really poorly (I believe the technical term is 'cr&p').
I just ordered a nf3-250 mobo and 3200+ newcastle for under $300, I just
couldn't buy an Intel, not really sure why, must be because all my
friends have A64s, funny cause they wouldn't touch an AMD just a couple
years ago.
Click to expand...

That's the followers for you. I haven't built an Intel based machine for
about 5 years now .. high prices, mediocre performance (except for
running prime95, where they really kick @$$).

Maybe the next one - if Intel get to proper dual cores before AMD do
(and if the price is right). Hmm .. fat chance, I guess.
 
That's the followers for you. I haven't built an Intel based machine for
about 5 years now .. high prices, mediocre performance (except for
running prime95, where they really kick @$$).
Click to expand...

My very first PC build used an AMD K5-90MHz, my last Intel was the
P2-400.
Maybe the next one - if Intel get to proper dual cores before AMD do
(and if the price is right). Hmm .. fat chance, I guess.
Click to expand...

I keep saying that too.. maybe the next one, maybe the next one.

Ed
 
I don't understand why the EE costs so much, how much more could it cost
them to make a EE, I thought Intel chips were supposed to get faster and
cheaper, 300mm wafers @ 90nm, what's the problem? Just pure greed?
Click to expand...

Again, did anyone actually buy one? It was there to fill the
performance/marketing slot. In case noone here has noticed 90nM has been
a serious problem for everyone.
I just ordered a nf3-250 mobo and 3200+ newcastle for under $300, I just
couldn't buy an Intel, not really sure why, must be because all my
friends have A64s, funny cause they wouldn't touch an AMD just a couple
years ago.
Click to expand...

AMD shill! ;-)
 
Back
Top