Intel has no clue what it will be able to release in the next 12-18 months as they scrap all the obsolete crap they have been working on and hyping to the media. Until InHell sees how well they can copy the Opteron and A64, they won't know Jack about what they can or can't release. So basically Intel is dead in the water waiting for a clue...

Silence never leaves a good impression. I'll bet the 775 socket is a dead end and they don't want to tell anyone...

Ok I guess I'll read more carefully, but I still remain leery of 775. Its not like I don't WANT it to work, just makes me wonder how they would ever get a good dual core to work in there, when so much of it is seemingly designed to fit Netburst cores.

My concern is because I might consider a cheap Prescott and good 775 now, so I can ditch the Prescott and get a good dual core 64 bit in 2005.

But its times like now when sockets end up orphans... The more lack of concrete statements like "we will do xx" "parts will guaranteed work in yy" "64bit will be possible using 775 and chipset zzz" we get, the more concerned I get that they are going to make major structure changes.

Intel has talked about integrated memory controllers, which would invalidate the Alderwood/Grantwood. They've talked about no 64 bit in 2004, which might indicate both these chipsets can't do it. In the end its not like its overly hard to replace board and cpu, but it certainly is nice to have some assurity that you can reuse most of your system when upgrading in a short span like a year. And for me, the Prescott would be a bandaid until a better cpu came along.

Guess I'll have to sit tight and see, but the silence is disturbing, and has me looking carefully at AMD options.

There's always room for Intel to eventually bounce back with a competitive product. But as everyone's pointing out (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15795) this won't happen anytime soon. Intel is in a world of hurt now with Prescott on tap for at least 3 more speed increases (3.6, 3.8, 4.0 - can you say hot, hot, and even more hot!) after the 3.4 GHz. IMO Intel should be completely avoided for the rest of 2004 unless something miraculous changes with their problems. There'll never be 64bits enabled in any Prescott lest it fry itself and leave the nice black pattern on the motherboard.

Anenome, don't forget that upgrading may be harder than you think with reports that removing the processor even once from an LGA775 could break it due to its brittle design... which Intel is blaming motherboard makers for. I'm sure they're feeling pretty jerked around by now for first being forced to adopt and invest in all of Intel's new standards, and then learning about the uncertain future of LGA775 without Tejas.

Cancelling Tejas shows there will be little chance for resolving the thermal problems in Prescott since Tejas would have added dual core to the same Prescott architecture. Prior to the 90nm son-of-a-PentiumM coming out, the materials will not be Strained Silicon or SOI and so the problems will remain until I'd guess late 2005 or possibly 2H 2006 (delays along with the inevitable new technology bugs.)

My whole point is that Intel won't be ready by December anyways, so just wait for the FX-55 (or 4000+.) Even if AMD does report any problems with 90nm I can still buy a new PC with PCI-Express, faster Hyper Transport, and the 939pin socket version of the FX-53 as a much better band-aid. Then once any 90nm problems get resolved I can upgrade to an FX-57 or whatever that will eventually be dual core. I'm having a hard time finding any problems with AMD right now. I've always been a big fan of Intel, but lately it just looks like poor decisions and arrogance, followed by the neccessity to copy AMD over and over again. DDR2 is not important anytime soon, especially with performance increasing beyond DDR500 thanks to OCZ and others. I'm anxiously awaiting the benchmarks and over-clockability between the FX-55 and whatever else is available at the time. I just hope it comes out as soon as September, and that shortly after a PCI-Express ATI All-In-Wonder will be available too. I've been following this stuff every day since December and can only wait so long. My P3 1Ghz is in dire need of replacement since it's at the bottom of most 3d shooter support lists.

Have many Intel machines - have always worried about the "little misc things" that go wrong. Even now years later people write of the issues that the Nforce2 series still has, not totally disastrous issues save for the peripherals going away, but annoying things nonetheless. Intel, in side by side 24/7 boxes still gets the nod for rock solid stability after months and months of running. There just seems to be more tolerance, more testing done to make sure the Intel stuff runs, so its a bit more than the cpu I'm weighing in here.

But, how can one not look at the FX and not like it? It's the Porsche of the cpu world. Fast, 64 bit, and its not like this next machine won't have games on it 75% of the time. But with dual cores I'm thinking more heat problems. FX doesn't generate tons of heat but it does generate a fair amount, and dual core that chip and things could get toasty. AMD has not had some easier time with 90nm it seems. Then there is the cache design issues of the two chips and the shared data problems. Dual cores are simple in theory, but more complex to get the threads to work well. Given how fast the FX is, well that might not be any concern really, but we'll see on that. I think in the end, the 90nm AMD chips are going to be late, maybe very late, dual core will be very expensive and right now they've only promised it for Opteron, not the regular desktop. I guess the last issue is cost. I'm not fond of single channel options, and I've had them before, so the regular Athlon64 series isn't something I consider an option in my range of possibles. With Intel I can choose a moderate cost cpu, and then just replace it with something faster, but similar priced later, when a faster chip has fallen from "new" status. For example a 3.2 @ $250 or so, then to use the example a 4.0 at $400 when its fallen from its 617 intro. The pricing for FX is always the same, so it hurts now and it hurts later (but it IS FAST - so well that's kind of ok), but it plays into upgrading. The socket 775 thing though - uggh, those are going to have serious issues.

So FX I'll worry about stability, and I mean the rock solid absolutely perfect stability @ a moderate high clock, cost and the upgrade path.

Intel I worry about the upgrade path, the cost of that damn DDR2, the lifespan of the socket 775, even the lifespan of the DDR2 if they are just going to move to buffered. Its sad but given the idiotic cost of DDR2 the pricing of these two options is closer than makes any sense.

So in a pure performance for dollar the FX wins hands down and then some. If stability, or that nagging worry that components added later might be incompatible or there might be hidden issues later with Nforce3, then the Intel solution looks "ok", hardly good. Intel's silence on what we'll be able to do later with any platform bought now makes "ok" down to "kinda ok".

In the end I guess the FX is becoming the clearer and clearer option, but I foresee the 90nm version, with SSE3 and the improved 500mhz memory controller not coming maybe till near the end of the year, maybe 2005.

If Intel picked up the ball, things could change. If the FX-55 came, things could change. Or maybe I'll just listen to the constant advice of nearly everyone and wait for the FX-55. Thanks for constantly battering me with the advice, I'll listen sooner or later :)