# Intel`s New Processor



## Biplav (May 29, 2005)

Intel launced there new processor range named" Pentium D.

*The "D" in "Pentium D" apparently stands for "discount". 
Intel Corp. lowballed its way into the mainstream dual-core market on Thursday, launching the Pentium D at a price that's less than half of AMD's own dual-core chip.

As expected, Intel introduced three models of the Pentium D on Thursday: the 2.8-GHz Pentium D 820, the 3.0-GHz Pentium D 830, and the 3.2-GHz Pentium D 840. The three chips are priced at $241, $316, and $530, in lots of 1,000 units. 
Intel also introduced the Pentium 4 670, a 3.8-GHz 64-bit chip that will round out the top end of its single-core platform, at $851. 

Compared to the AMD Athlon X2, however, Intel's new Pentium D offers a dramatic discount. AMD's slowest 2.2-GHz 4200+ Athlon X2 is priced at $537, while the slowest Intel Pentium D, the 2.8-GHz 820, is priced at $241. Intel also offers a premium dual-core part, the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, priced at $999. AMD has yet to update its microprocessor pricing page with the price of the X2, although executives have quoted those prices in briefings. 

The discrepancy casts the differences between AMD and Intel into sharp focus. All of Intel's production fabs are producing wafers using 90-nm wafers; AMD has but a single fab, although it is close to ramping a second facility next door in Dresden, Germany. 

As AMD and Intel segment their product lines to meet the needs of divergent markets, AMD's fab capacity may be stretched thinner. One analyst had already suspected that the X2 would be a premium part, given that AMD is restricted to a single fab. 
"AMD is not in a position to move its product line to dual-core until it brings on an additional fab--either it's own Fab 36 or a foundry," Kevin Krewell, an analyst for In-Stat and editor of the Microprocessor Report, said Thursday. "Dual core equals two regular CPU dice, so it's not cost effective for AMD to ship dual-core [chips] for the same price as single-core. AMD needs to keep dollars per wafer growing, and aggressive pricing of dual-core would reduce it." 

AMD, meanwhile, views the X2 as a boutique chip. 

"Our desktop dual-core AMD Athlon 64 X2 products are priced based on performance," said Cathy Abbinanti, an AMD spokeswoman, when asked for comment on the pricing discrepancy. "Based on the performance benchmark information in recent third-party reviews of the competition's dual-core desktop product, we believe our lowest performing AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processor will outperform Intel's highest performing dual-core part." 
That's true, according to ExtremeTech tests. However, it may end up being a moot point. 

"So while Intel is losing in the performance game, it may very well win in the perceived value side of the equation,"

 Full Source:Click here*


----------



## dinesh_singh (May 29, 2005)

thanx for such a nice read.


----------



## goobimama (May 29, 2005)

good one. I'm happy for intel....hope it comes back on top of AMD....


----------



## Biplav (May 29, 2005)

but i think amd is here to stay. 
why do people prefer intel eben though they know that amd offers better performance?i recently met a guy who was goin to upgrade.
i suggested go for amd but he said" man intel offers the best service and has a larger market share. so its there to stay".


----------



## girish_b (May 29, 2005)

I think AMD is gonna come up with something...


----------



## rohanbee (May 30, 2005)

I posted this once before and am doing so again. I dont know why we all love to criticise the guys at the top:
example
microsoft
intel
General motors
Nokia
and numerous other leaders...
I call it the David vs Goliath effect-- where we tend to support the underdog (David/Amd) over the evil well to do all powerfull bully which would be intel in this case.

Fact of the matter is intel is still a leader in technology and will be for many years to come. The others are followers. Yes, i agree amd did come up with tech. faster and better than them in certain cases. Intel still makes a lot of good products and they are not as bad as they seem its just that intel sells a 1000 and gets 80 complaints, amd maybe selling 100 and getting 15 complaints..........Which will we tend to look at first wven though the % of intel would be lesser.


----------



## sumitava_b (May 30, 2005)

I too agreed with Rohan. I have seen three of my friends who bought amd. One's sys clicked superbly without any complain. But for other two, it was staggering xperience. They had to contact the vendor many times to get their sys okay. They took an oath to never get an amd in future.


----------



## iinfi (May 30, 2005)

will this pentium's new masalas be better than Athlon64 3000+ ??


im planning to buy this system .... i have posted this in many topics but am getting confused whether to go for AMD or Intel ...... i want a 64-bit system which will b useful after microsoft launches its 64-bit OS (which will not run on current machines )..... 
if i buy a 32-bit P4 then it will be useless when 64-bit OSs are launched ..... am i rite???

this is what i m planning to buy ....

ATI RS480 motherboard
Athlon64 3000+
512MB DDR400 RAM
160GB SATA HDD
17" monitor

any comments ....


----------



## Biplav (May 30, 2005)

@iinfi- ur combination is good. and u r rite in thinkin that 32 bit computing ll be outdted but not for now.
@Rohan- its not supporting the underdog or anything of that sort.
see if intel had launched 64bit desktop computing first then we must have all praised intel for that.
now that amd is doin gr8 business ,so why should we take theircredit away? i think they deserve it.
and more or less every performance tests show that amd performs better than p4 in gaming section. So all game enthusiast will go 4 amd as it not only performs better but also has better Value for money.

@Sumitava -See amd processors are good - its just that u should handle it properly. if u tweak it and are not sure of how to do so, then u might damage ur processor.
As u had said one of ur freind`s amd is working superbly.I am not saying that intel doesnot have better stability but comeon Amd is not far behind either.


----------



## sumitava_b (May 31, 2005)

Yeah, atleast AMD is giving intel a hard run for money. 3- years back intel was reigning the market like anything njoying the monopoly. But after AMD's entry in the market and specially the launch of 64 bit processor, it's the customer like us who is getting benefitted in terms of quality.

@iinfi: ur config is absolutely perfect for a gamer. If u r so then u havnt mentioned any graphics card in ur config!!


----------



## iinfi (May 31, 2005)

doesnt the motherboard have a built-in graphic card ??
wont it work !!!


----------



## rohanbee (May 31, 2005)

biplav said:
			
		

> @Rohan- its not supporting the underdog or anything of that sort.see if intel had launched 64bit desktop computing first then we must have all praised intel for that.
> now that amd is doin gr8 business ,so why should we take theircredit away? i think they deserve it.
> and more or less every performance tests show that amd performs better than p4 in gaming section. So all game enthusiast will go 4 amd as it not only performs better but also has better Value for money.



Yes, you have a valid point there. Amd is better for gaming and a lot of tests prove that. I do not disagree with that in any way. But maybe that is what all amd wants to be the best in and intel is looking at the overall package.

I still feel that for a person with less knowledge and not to much of a keen interest in computers intel is still the way to go.

Amd will always be more competitive to intel in its pricing : in buisness that is always so, you keep your pricing always lower than the leaders in your field. I would truly believe that AMD has grown is ths day when they are pricier than their counterparts. 

Problems !! all brands will have problems. Intels will be more pronounced and  amd's less because of the lower market share.

At the end of the day i would like to see another company apart from these two to come into the market. More competition means more the customers benefits.


----------



## sumitava_b (May 31, 2005)

iinfi said:
			
		

> doesnt the motherboard have a built-in graphic card ??
> wont it work !!!



Sure, it will work definitely. But I was trying to say that if u r an avid gamer then u can go for some dedicated graphics card. You will feel the difference!


----------



## iinfi (May 31, 2005)

sumitava_b said:
			
		

> iinfi said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ok fine .... will take ur advice .... thanks for the same...


----------



## indro (Jun 1, 2005)

@ sumitava_b : Look its the peoples perception , If they buy a system and some kind of a problem occur in it , its the processor to blame ?Just because its AMD and not a famous iNTEL procssor ?

OMG,I am sure people who blame the processor for the system not working correctly will be both ironic and stupid enough to buy intel . 

If it would have been an intel processor, they would have blamed something else , 

BTW , can your friends give the technical explanations based on how they thought that because of the processor their system got screwed ?  :d

As far as the main topic is concerned ... 

WTF , All of a sudden , Intel became a value for money processor provider instead of the performance segment  ? JPCOMN (Just Puked Coffee Outta My Nose)!!! 

Haha !


----------



## Biplav (Jun 2, 2005)

@indro- lol.*
i think intel is now concerned as amd is eating up its market hold. and as Amd is Cheaper and offering better performance, Intel was more or less, left with no option than to come with such a thing.
lets Just wait and watch on how it Performs.-
The Intel`s EE edition is called by many as "EMERGENCY EDITION" rather than Extreme Edition*


----------



## goobimama (Jun 2, 2005)

I'm gonna buy an Intel Dual-core over an AMD one...


----------



## Biplav (Jun 2, 2005)

@goobimama
Check this Before ur Purchase


----------



## indro (Jun 2, 2005)

Hey , i told you guys about it , Anyways i just wanted to add on that is , intel's core to core talking happens throught the 800 Mhz shared Bus architecture , and through the motherboard southbridge , then to the other core , whereas the AMD has the memory controller onboard ,and they have a crossbar in it , which allows it to talk to core to core directly , thats what AMD calls it ,direct connect architecture, which is double the spped of the fastest dual core intel , and 4 times faster than the fastest Hypertransport Link .

Intel is 1-2 yrs behind AMD in terms of processor architecture .Moreover ,Athlon 64's and Opteron's were initially build with Dual core in mind .

Again , there are people who will emit these stuff in question and Buy an Intel processor .Thats the way it is .


----------



## Biplav (Jun 3, 2005)

hey goobimama: still stuck on ur purchase with intel.
???


----------



## makarand (Aug 7, 2005)

did you get the info abt PEntium D from Tigerdirect.com?


----------



## QwertyManiac (Aug 7, 2005)

wow ! pretty old post...

Well, Pentium 5 is comin up or not ?


----------



## indro (Aug 7, 2005)

Hey , the 3800+ is out and is rocking , it beats the hell out of all the pentium D range , including the EE .Not equal in performance with the 4200+ and the 4400+ parts , but still rock .Very good upgrade @  360 $ if you buy in quantities of 1000 that is .

But its worth a move .Price cuts on all the AMD parts are done just recetly , There is just one thing that i am thinking  ,that is about the Sempron parts , 3400+ with AMD 64 is out @ same price as a 3200+ A64 , dont know what PR amd is following on these ones.They come in 256 kb cache parts .

AMD @ 1 point of time had one  a few processor range .Now it has over 30 different processor types .More confusion for the consumer ,even intel with 9 different types of its 2.8 and 3.0 ghz processors .. Lolz .


----------



## QwertyManiac (Aug 7, 2005)

I like Intels more than AMDs thogh amd is faster, i jus dunno y, maybe time will heal it ?


----------



## ASH18MARCH (Aug 8, 2005)

i just at  time fail to undrestand why people get so attched to brand name and big companys like intel  lets be practical for once and think logicaly intel  is a big brand name they used to spend a lot of money on hyping their products  when p4 was relesed  but as we all know it dint realy prove to be that much of a performance diffrance over p3 it just duped its customers this is the time amd spend less money on hyping them selves and gave us bettr value for money come on guys i just read one guy who want a to buy a intel dual core over an amd dual core u are kidding aret u do u know this that a intel dual core is not even actually a proper dual core when  as  it has to core which actually communicte with each other using a another chip  amd dual core beat the hell out of xenon and pentium d any time  and as for the market amd is the leader of today and there is no denying it if any one is still  so admant on buying a intel please give me 5 good technical reason for the same  . please dont give me some reason without proof  i have heard people telling me that amd  is not good for 3d modelling intel is better i read a article of the the realese of 3800x2  and there it clearly thrashes intel d in most 3d application so forget about a opteron or a 4000+dual core and higher just for a proff i am attching a link


*www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x2-3800.html



people thinking of upgrading to  intel xenon or pentium d read carefually especiall the last few pages 

me right now i have a intel 3 but i will be buying a new rig which other then amd but if intel can put a good product then intel will be considerd
what matter to me is value for money and no brand name is going to foll me


----------

