Intel's Pentium D Price Half That Of AMD's X2

Advertisement (Why?)

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.

View: Full Article @ Extreme Tech

View: Intel Pentium D Overview @ Intel

Changes:

* Thumbnail view of all Buddy List contacts
* Live Video with 3-D rendering
* Ability to clear IM History
* An additional Ads Setting that allows you to control where ads are displayed, as well as the size of the ads
* Buddy Info and Alert Me functionality when you ‘right click’ on the Buddy List feature

#1 sphbecker on 27 May 2005 - 13:18

Good news; the rumored prices of Intel's dual core processors were crazy!

(10 replies) #2 raskren on 27 May 2005 - 13:23

Its a bit unusual to see things the-other-way-around.

I'm sure Intel is losing money with prices this low. Hopefully this will speed the adoption of dual-core and spur the growth of multi-thread apps.

#2.1 Sawyer12 on 27 May 2005 - 13:37

We already have multi threaded apps lol

Prittey much most applications are multi threaded, You mean so we can execute 2 threads at once ?

#2.2 raskren on 27 May 2005 - 13:45

QUOTE

Prittey much most applications are multi threaded...

You're kidding, right? I can probably count the number of mainstream multi-threaded apps on three hands. Most of them are professional, highly cpu intensive pieces of software.

Lightwave, 3DS Max, Maya, Adobe Premiere...

I'm not aware of any multi-threaded games at the moment. I remember reading quotes from John Carmack stating that multi-threaded games were incredibly difficult to write.

#2.3 knotty on 27 May 2005 - 14:04

Look at task manager. Enable the thread count column. Almost all applications are mult-threaded. IE generally uses about 10 threads. Emule is using 6 on my machine at the moment. MSN messenger is using 14. Word is using 8.

Not that any of these applications will run that much faster on dual core machines.... but they will multitask better.

As for games, new design methodologies will evolve in time out of neccessity to squeeze the best possible performance out of the cell processor and the like.

#2.4 shao on 27 May 2005 - 14:43

i believe both q3 and d3 have always worked with smp. q3 engine covers quite a lot of games, and i'm sure this isn't the only engine to support it.

#2.5 raskren on 27 May 2005 - 15:49

No.

#2.6 Post-It Note on 27 May 2005 - 21:37

To the person who thought there aren't many multi-threaded applications, you probably don't program. Multi-threading is a pretty big thing in almost all programming languages. In order words, it's not difficult, nor undesirable, to write multi-threaded apps.

#2.7 dismuter on 27 May 2005 - 23:35

Well many applications are multithreaded, but not many divide their cpu-intensive calculations in several threads. They usually have a thread or two for networking, a thread for user interface, and one or two worker threads which each process a different task (usually one light and one intensive). But multiple threads working on the same intensive task is not often encountered in mainstream applications. And that's where multi-core really excels.

#2.8 Octol on 28 May 2005 - 16:53

Look at task manager. Enable the thread count column. Almost all applications are mult-threaded.

I'm on a Windows Server 2003 machine at the moment, and of the 87 processes currently running, only six are single threaded. My main System process is running 69 threads, svchost is running 58, and lsass is running 54—just to name a few.

One XP box I just checked is no exception. Only there, svchost is running 91 threads!

I'd say that I'd benefit immensely from a dual-core processor on either machine!

#2.9 SquareSoft0 on 28 May 2005 - 19:37

Octol, thank you for completely ignoring dismuter's post for no apparent reason.

#2.10 Octol on 29 May 2005 - 04:33

Thanks for the gratuitous slap, and for not noticing that dismuter and I were talking about two completely different things: he about installed applications and me about native OS processes—although I admit I may not have made myself perfectly clear on that.

#3 yudi_lks on 27 May 2005 - 13:24

crazy expensive or damn cheap?

(4 replies) #4 yudi_lks on 27 May 2005 - 13:27

Nope, Intel won;t lose money since they are selling chip which is completely over price

#4.1 raskren on 27 May 2005 - 13:29

Is it overpriced? I'm looking at it from the perspective of raw materials put in. Twice the silicon, twice the transistors, etc. It costs Intel much more to produce a dual core chip than a single.

...and if Intel's solution is overpriced, what is AMD then?

#4.2 nic on 27 May 2005 - 19:33

never mind any development costs that might incur.

#4.3 Shining Arcanine on 27 May 2005 - 23:29

I'm not an expert at processor fabrication but I would expect the fabrication costs to be no more than $50 per chip. Other costs would probably be R&D and the construction of the fabrication plants. If Intel wasn't getting a huge amount per chip, I doubt Intel would be making them. Sort of like with the memory market.

#4.4 Help on 28 May 2005 - 01:12

^ yeah, but how much R & D has been spent to make this processor?

(1 reply) #5 Hurmoth on 27 May 2005 - 13:28

I think that this is great news... might make AMD lower prices for their dual-core processors

#5.1 Toastyone on 27 May 2005 - 13:40

Yup, lower prices on Intel's side equals lower AMD prices which equals happy consumers who don't have to pay as much

(9 replies) #6 ThunderRiver on 27 May 2005 - 13:28

Man, I need more information about this type of stuff. Intel has a really bad naming system. How the hell do I know what D means to me.
Is Pentium D better than Pentium M?
Is Pentium D better than Penium 4 mobile?
Is Pentium D somekind of Celeron renamed stuff?

#6.1 Hurmoth on 27 May 2005 - 13:30

Pentium D means dual-core technology. It has two cores on one die. They are the fastest processors available because it is two processors (just one). Understand now?

Think of it like this, the Pentium D is the Pentium 5

#6.2 raskren on 27 May 2005 - 13:31

To help ease your apparent confusion, Intel adds a number to each product name.

Intel Pentium D 850 > Intel Pentium D 820

Not much better than Athlon XP 3000+, 64 3000+, X2 3000+ ...which is better here?

#6.3 Hurmoth on 27 May 2005 - 13:32

The X2 3000+ would be better because it is dual-core and 64-bit.

#6.4 sphbecker on 27 May 2005 - 13:33

D actually means Desktop. The Pentium 4 has been dropped. Now you have Pentium M for laptops and Pentium D for desktops and Xeons for workstations and servers.

The first number is like the family number. So this would be like a Pentium 8 (seems reasonable considering how many different families of P4s there were).

#6.5 sphbecker on 27 May 2005 - 13:34

It sounds like you are implying that Intel's processors are not 64-bit??? They are, and have been for many months (even before they had dual-cores).

#6.6 raskren on 27 May 2005 - 13:35

Geez, I know the answer. This was just to illustrate my point!

#6.7 raskren on 27 May 2005 - 13:41

D actually means Desktop. The Pentium 4 has been dropped. Now you have Pentium M for laptops and Pentium D for desktops and Xeons for workstations and servers.

No, "D" designates a dual-core product. We could see a Xenon D or a Pentium MD (huh?) in the near future.

The latest processors to roll out are still called "Pentium 4 670", etc.

#6.8 Hurmoth on 27 May 2005 - 13:41

No I'm not saying that at all! He listed Athlon XP in there and I was making the point that the X2 is better then the XP because they are 64-bit. Had nothing to do with Intel. Sorry

#6.9 sphbecker on 27 May 2005 - 14:29

I think not calling the P4 670 a Pentium D was just part of their marketing game. If D did nothing but denote that it has dual-core then these processors would be called Pentium 4D, not just Pentium D.

You have your theory and I have mine; I guess we will not see who is correct until dual-core Pentium M and Xeons come out. If they have a D in there name then you are right, if not then I am.

#7 yudi_lks on 27 May 2005 - 13:32

Hmm, perhaps you can look that info from intel.com?

(4 replies) #8 yudi_lks on 27 May 2005 - 13:33

D means Dual http://www.intel.com/personal/desktop/pentium_d/index.htm?iid=HPAGE+low_news_050526a&

#8.1 raskren on 27 May 2005 - 13:33

Yes, we all knew that. Thanks.

#8.2 sphbecker on 27 May 2005 - 13:36

D actualy menas desktop. It is just marketing that they started using the D name when dual-cores came out.

The Pentium M will soon be dual-core and they will not call it the Pentium M-D, it will just be a Pentium M with dual-cores.

#8.3 raskren on 27 May 2005 - 13:42

See my comment #6.7 above.

#8.4 Help on 28 May 2005 - 01:17

D = 'Different'

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21522

(1 reply) #9 jeavis on 27 May 2005 - 13:55

Finally Intel gets their head out of their ass. You either have to make a better chip than AMD or change a cheaper price.

#9.1 sphbecker on 27 May 2005 - 15:54

Or at least make a chip about as good for about the same price. They may not win back any AMD fans, but at least they would stop loosing.

(6 replies) #10 Galley on 27 May 2005 - 14:17

Half the processor for half the price! Seems fair...

#10.1 neufuse on 27 May 2005 - 15:41

more then the standard pentium 4 for little $ change..

and because I also doubt AMD's outragious prices on dual core procs also give you an outragious speed and performance increase..

#10.2 sphbecker on 27 May 2005 - 15:50

It looks as though Intel will be the low cost provider and AMD has the power. I hope Intel gets back up to speed with AMD and fixes their power/heat issues as well. As I long time Intel fan I would like my next computer to have an "Intel Inside" but I'm not going to buy a sup-par chip.

#10.3 xxpor on 27 May 2005 - 16:45

AMD hasnt had heat or power issues since thoughbred. Its intel haveing those issues. I dotn waht to know the hsf you have to put on pentium d's

#10.4 Smigit on 27 May 2005 - 17:27

" I hope Intel gets back up to speed with AMD and fixes their power/heat issues as well."

"AMD hasnt had heat or power issues since thoughbred. Its intel haveing those issues. I dotn waht to know the hsf you have to put on pentium d's"

Reread what the guy said, he was saying he wants Intel to catch up to AMD AND he wants INTEL to fix their power/heat issues.

#10.5 sphbecker on 27 May 2005 - 18:45

Yes, I guess I should have been more clean. Intel is the one with power/heat issues and I hope they are addressed by the time I want to buy my nexted chip.

#10.6 SquareSoft0 on 27 May 2005 - 23:58

The only Intel chips with power / heat issues are the single-core Prescotts. With their new dual-core setup, everything is scaled down and so temporarily solves the issue. Of course if they try to step up the power of the cores it will become an issue. By then they're expected to have moved to a modified Pentium M architecture, which means fast and cool high-powered CPUs.

#11 jas8522 on 27 May 2005 - 15:58

I've always been an AMD fan simply because Intel would charge so much more for either similar performance, or only marginally better performance. This is speaking in regards to the standard midrange chips - not delving into extreme high end like the EE's or the FX series.

If I'm not mistaken the Pentium D performs worse than the Athlon X2 in most tests, but the difference is usually only by a hair (although I know very well that this is not true for ALL tests). Although having the X2 in 939 for future upgrades might be a good idea for many users, the pricing of the Pentium D is proving to make it the first worthwhile Intel investment I will actually recommend. Although I dont' plan to upgrade soon, if I were building a computer in the summer on the new dual core technologies it seems that Intel may just be my choice!

jas8522

Last edited by 78979 on 27 May 2005 - 16:08

#12 asellus on 27 May 2005 - 17:24

Why you should not buy Intel Pentium D.

http://www.digitmag.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4915

DRM'ed.

#13 mr_demilord on 27 May 2005 - 18:27

Seems like Intel is a M$ fanboi either

#14 dolimite35 on 27 May 2005 - 18:39

Look online for the prices of the AMD x2's there are nowhere near the price AMD set out. the 4200 $537..no try around $590...retaliers why oh why

#15 HummerT30 on 27 May 2005 - 23:27

Yay!!!!! GO INTELLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#16 dnstest on 28 May 2005 - 04:30

I'm leaving my money in my pocket for another generation or two, I see the current offerings a waste of money for the performance. AthlonXP 3000+ w/10K Raptor and a gig of memory will do me fine until 64bit really catches on (and comes down in price, hopefully).

(1 reply) #17 sheer on 28 May 2005 - 13:08

I'm sure I read this on Anandtech's preview of dual core chips but the reason why A64 x2 are double the price is because AMD feels that there is currently no direct competitor from Intel. AMD's s939 single core chips are what AMD are pitching against Intel's dual core chips.

#17.1 scyphe on 28 May 2005 - 20:51

I don't know what all this hullaballo about Dual Cores is all about.. It's not like people will experience a huge benefit in all existing programs. Perhaps when doing some photoshopping etc. but overall, one of the cores will be idle most of the times. It'll take 6-12 months before we actually start to get most common apps + games to go true multithreading if we're lucky. Look at 64-bit. AMD has had 64-bit tech for over a year now and we still haven't seen the "revolution" arrive. Same thing will go for Dual Core. It'll take time. The industry must adapt, customers must buy the stuff in quantities enough to create a demand for multithreaded 64-bit apps & games.

#18 hardgiant on 28 May 2005 - 20:50

Yeah, but those new mobo's are $249 as well so it ends being the same $500 for an upgrade.

#19 Gary_Player on 30 May 2005 - 21:48

Well I'll be damned...if that's not a welcomed change i dunno what is!

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net