"Aaron R Salp" <nomail@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:9566CAB19896617E5@127.0.0.1...
It looks about right. The Sempron XP2500 is just about £1 less than an
Athlon XP2500, even though it has half of the L2 cache.

Quite how the S754 Semprons line up against the A64s though, I'm not sure.

JW

"Never anonymous Bud" <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
news:gkrjk0djoq9u5gm1db145s6kfmk237ulq7@4ax.com...
£40 for the XP

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:

They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are rated
with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the
resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

"Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.09.17.00.02.45.857004@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
Good information. It would be a terrible thing to learn after buying one.

Wes Newell wrote:

Good info and that explains a LOT.

"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10kkf3ebv68go8e@corp.supernews.com...
So that makes them even less value for money then!
With computer hardware something new is usually better and often cheaper,
doesn't seem to be the case here.

Are AMD in trouble and need to hike the price up on their products?

Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

Dear Lord. What a mess.

"Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
news:95676877C99D531E75@127.0.0.1...
cheaper than the 1600 duron and gives a better bang for your buck at the
bottom end of the market

"CrackerJack" <binaryblobNOTTHISBIT@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:9567B60C91E4C6AD265@130.133.1.4...
dur to its higher bus speed

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:40:22 +0100, Aaron S
<nomail@thankyou.com> wrote:

<snip>

New products entering a market are often priced a bit too
high, then price normalizes after demand is less than
anticipated, or lower than production. It is still a bit
odd though, even a lowly Duron 1.6 is going for $48 on
pricewatch, seems like it should've dropped to $38 already.

kony wrote:

What if demand is greater than anticipated or greater than production?

Why? They probably aren't being made any longer. Perhaps soon
the supply of Athlon XP chips might start dwindling?

Keep in mind, though, that the Sempron 2600+ is on a 333MHz FSB, whereas
the Athlon 2200+ is on a 266MHz FSB. That doesn't give it quite enough
of a boost to justify its higher price, but the real-world PR rating
difference is probably closer to 300 than 400.

Lachoneus wrote:
FWIW, the slowest 256KB L2, 166MHz FSB Athlon XP was the 2600 at 2083MHz.
The highest Sempron (absolutely identical to the 256KB L2, 166MHz Athlon
XPs), the 2800, has a speed of 2000MHz, which pretty much exactly equates to
a 2500 (if it esisted with the 256/166 spec) under the old scheme. So in
this particular case the rating on the Sempron is very close to 300 points
too high.

At the lower end, we have the Sempron 2200 at 1500MHz. 1500MHz would put you
at an 1800 rating with a 256/100 config, ~1750 (yeah, it's backwards) with a
256/133 config, ~1950 with a 512/100 config, and ~1950 with a 512/133
config. So it looks as though at this speed, AMD thinks that the bus speed
has very little impact on the performance of the CPU, so a 256/166 part at
1500MHz would be somewhere around 1850 rating or so at the most. This means
the Sempron is overrated by about 350 points. Now, there is some variation
at each speed, due to the requirements that the speed must be a half-integer
multiple of the bus speed (hence why the 133MHz FSB part is "slower" than
the 100MHz FSB part at 1500MHz). However, I would say that overall, the
Sempron is over-rated by something in the range of 300 to 350 points.

As for the prices in New Zealand (in order from cheapest to most expensive,
skipping those where the lower rated part is more expensive, and including
the two closest-in-price Athlon XP chips):

Sempron 2400+: $106
XP 2000+: $100
XP 2200+: $116
Should be XP 2100+ at ~$108 (-2%)

Sempron 2500+: $124
XP 2200+: $116
XP 2400+: $133
Should be XP 2200+ at $116 (+7%)

Sempron 2600+: $145
XP 2400+: $133
XP 2500+: $148
Should be XP 2300+ at ~$125 (+16%)

Sempron 2800+: $187
XP 2600+: $155
XP 2700+: $190
Should be XP 2500+ at $148 (+26%)

So, the Sempron 2400+ is priced "about right". However, the 2500, 2600, and
2800 Semprons are clearly overpriced, coming close to the price of an Athlon
XP with a 100 point lower rating.

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

Since the Athlon XP chips may start disappearing pretty soon, this might
not be an issue for very long.


Michael Brown wrote:

Fishman wrote:

I'm sure they set their prices so as to maximize their profit, whether
they "need" it or not.

And I doubt they are in trouble. They make great CPUs!

kony wrote:
Yes, and the XP 2500+ costs more today than it did a year ago.

chrisv wrote:
But at least now we understand the mess.

Fishman wrote:

True, but it explains why I was having such a hard time making sense of the
new numbering scheme.

From their vantage point it is because the Sempron replaces the Duron.

AMD has always been in price trouble.

Matt wrote:
If you only sell only one product, you simply set your price so that you
have a few people standing in line _waiting_ to buy. Not too many, but
some. If they don't have to wait, the price is too high. If they have
to wait too long, the price is too low.

It gets more complicated when you sell some products that compete with
each other.

Maybe they can't produce the low-end chips fast enough because they've
given over much of their production capacity to the 64-bit chips. The
tide raises all boats, so to speak.

But I am not an economist.

Franklin wrote:
Well, that's a crock of shit for a start, an Athlon XP2500+ Barton is 11 x
166.6Mhz for 1833Mhz
--
~misfit~