Price Guides October 2003: CPU and Memory
by Kristopher Kubicki & Larry Barber on October 13, 2003 11:50 PM EST- Posted in
- Guides
DDR Memory
Memory is often something we overlook when writing our guides. Afterall, what good is a 3GHz CPU if you don’t have any good memory for it? Right now, we only list the cheapest timings per clock and size for each memory vendor, but soon enough we will be expanding our guides once again to take each timing into account. However, overall we can see some interesting trends in our memory prices.
The PC2100 1GB sticks were the only modules that showed major change this week. However, even with a $30 drop in price, $265 is still a bit much to be paying for two $80 512MB sticks of memory glued together. As you can probably tell, any memory clocked under PC3200 is priced about the same. Unless you have an overclocked P4 this wont matter much anyways.
While at a recent tradeshow we heard several complaints from the memory manufacturers on how quickly prices spun out of control. Considering that decent timed PC3200 costs about the same as equivalent PC2100, we are not surprised manufacturers are upset. Memory continues to be a buyers market, even with some products occasionally correcting themselves. PC4000 and higher memory seems extremely silly right now, considering no processor other than well overclocked P4’s will be able to take full advantage of the bus speed benefits.
Is a correction due? Let’s just say with the relatively low prices of high end memory, we shouldn’t expect manufacturers to plummet prices like PC3200 and PC2700. On the other hand, memory manufacturers debuted PC4000 (and higher) way too early. If the product is on shelves for 9-12 months before the mass markets can take full advantage of it, does it make sense to assume it will just sit at the MSRP before resellers start slashing prices? Stay tuned tomorrow as we are going to bring you a second installment of the guides with Video Cards and Motherboards!
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
19 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link
#8 I can understand if people are cautious about early motherboards, but I find people using the Athlon 64 core as their sole excuse not to purchase just naive.Since the basic core of the Athlon 64 has been on the market for over 6 months in the form of the Opteron I have to ask how old should this "1st generation processor" be before it can be safely recommended?
Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - link
As for spending 400 bucks on a 1st generation processor, I could never recommend that. I would never recommend the 3.2GHz P4 either!Kristopher
Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - link
The main reason I did not recommend an AMD system over an Intel system this time is because AMD prices are on the rise. I personally would have bought a 2500+ myself, but it is my opinion to wait a couple weeks for the prices to stabilize.Kristopher
Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - link
#3 recommending a 2.4 GHz P4 at more than twice the price of a AXP 2500+ as a "bargain" stinks also - how comes? Aces used to be a reliable source, but i do not get their reasoning this time.Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - link
2.6c has a $30.50 premium over the 2.4c, not a $20 one.Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - link
#3 I second that. Now is a great time to build an amd system. The athlon 64 for $404 that is a great price the 3.2ghz p4 is $600 and that's only 32bits. The reviewer dropped the ball here.Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - link
they say it's not a good time to build an amd system on the first page when you can get the barton 2500+ for $85 which is an awesome overclocker and awesome processor in general....then they say the celeron line is looking attractive with a 2.6ghz celeron at $85-90....is it just me or is that a load of crap....who would buy a celeron over a 2500+ barton? Somewhere I missed the logicAnonymous User - Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - link
Hi, just want to let you know that the word "effected" on the front page should be "affected" instead. No biggie, just a common mistake!Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - link
would it be possible to put a price per megabyte column for the ram?