Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Myths about AMD/Intel *Fanboi's Should Read*

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 1:43:52 PM

AMD the Consumer Conscious Corporation, there plants don't pollute, there employee's are ALL happy, they price cheaper then Intel and try really hard not to jack up the prices and they follow every law. Well that's the sort of Bullshit I hear from fanboi' just about everyday.

So, I figured I'd make a post to dispel at least one of these Myths. That is the ones bolded above.

How did I do this? Simple, I took some Magazines I receive in the mail from TigerDirect.ca to illustrate the price difference on AMD's processors from May 2006 to Sep 2006.

Here's how this works I'll be looking at AMD's Dual Core Lineup first.
As we know (some peeps here don't) CPU prices are DIRT CHEAP now... thanks to Intel (Although there aim was probably more towards undercutting AMD then helping out the consumer). When Intel was set to release there Core 2 Duo they announced prices and performance figures that forced AMD to stop scr*wing over the consumer's. Sure Intel have been guilty of this in the past (which pretty much puts them both on even ground).

Then:
AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+ $419.99 CDN
AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ $507.99 CDN
AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+ $761.99 CDN
AMD Athlon64 FX-60 $1,523.99CDN

Wow.. talk about price Gouging

So what of AMD's Prices nowadays... well.

AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+ $151.99 CDN
AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ $252.99 CDN
AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+ $325.99 CDN
AMD Athlon64 FX-60 $1,142.99CDN

So we know AMD were forced to drop there prices in order to compete with Intel. So you'd think Intel would have done the same thing and released there new Core 2 Duo's at around the same price AMD had there Athlon64 X2's priced at.. (Companies usually have target prices for new products that are almost the same with each generation raiding the bar slightly like a price permium for new technology) but no.. Intel released there CPU's at AFFORDABLE prices (MUCH MUCH lower then the traditional MRSP for such a new product). For $900 CDN I was able to get an Intel Core 2 Extreme x6800.. compare that with AMD's $1,523.99 CDN for the FX-60.

It's cheap really when compared to what we've normally seen from Intel in the past.

So I suppose those complaining still that CPU prices are high are being a tad hypocritical. Prices are LOW.. LOWEST i've ever seen then for a high-end brand. And guess who we have to thank for this.. not AMD.. but Intel.

So this dispels the Myth about AMD. Like any other Corporation they seek only profits. So all those other Myths above... they tie into this logic as well. AMD's sh!t stinks just as much as Intel's... but who cares.. it's all about the performance and the products.

So in the end, we have Intel who have done the same in the past and AMD doing so in the present. So what is the point of this post?

Simple... both AMD and Intel are Corporations serving special interests that catter to there Investors and Shareholders before even thinking about there Consumers.

So please, stop bashing Intel and claiming AMD have some sort of moral superiority over Intel. Both are exactly the same. Save for one is the underdog.. and we soo love to route for the underdog.
September 23, 2006 2:00:34 PM

Same old story, just leave the fan boys to their opinions. Another post about how they are wrong and their holy AMD isnt the god they think it is will change nothing. There are hundreds of such posts on the forum and ive only been here for a short time and im sick of them.

Im not sayin ur right or wrong, those of us who arent fannatical about a brand dont need to hear it again, and those who are just arent going to hear it full stop. Just another excuse for flaming....
September 23, 2006 2:00:37 PM

We don't have to thank AMD, nor Intel.
We have to thank their competition.
The company who has the technology leadership, has the price premium, as the Athlon 64 has shown.
The reason why there are more AMD fanboys, is because AMD has been a "cheap alternative" for far longer than Intel has.
However, to keep the prices low, we should all support the competition, which somehow means, supporting the underdog, whoever that is. (that does not mean necessarily buying inferior products at higher prices)
But of course, in the end everybody judges with his wallet..
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 23, 2006 2:03:47 PM

Elmoisevil, Congrats on being:

The only one that didn't welcome the price drop and take advantage of it (aka me saving $150 on an X2 3800+)

One of the few who bash a company for making a smart business decision, because let's face it, we're all here to make money. Competition is the best part of business, at least in the eyes of the consumers.

One of the many who can't distinguish between the word "there" and "their" and use them effectively.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 2:13:38 PM

Quote:
We don't have to thank AMD, nor Intel.
We have to thank their competition.
The company who has the technology leadership, has the price premium, as the Athlon 64 has shown.
The reason why there are more AMD fanboys, is because AMD has been a "cheap alternative" for far longer than Intel has.
However, to keep the prices low, we should all support the competition, which somehow means, supporting the underdog, whoever that is. (that does not mean necessarily buying inferior products at higher prices)
But of course, in the end everybody judges with his wallet..


Ohhh... I agree the Company who has the Technology Leadership has the price premium normally... but this is the first time that this hasn't happened. Which is why I wanted to highlight it. Also AMD gouged consumers with there Athlon64 X2 Prices. If you compare those prices with there previous AthlonXP and Intel's previous Pentium 4 C you'll start to understand just how BAD AMD gouged with the X2 series.

That's the point of this post. It's to dispel the Myth that AMD has some sort of Moral superiority to Intel. I'm not a fan of either.. I place them both on the same pedestal.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 2:14:19 PM

Quote:
*prepares for BaronBS's arrival*

You are a FUD. Piss off


This is why I made the post... LMAO.
September 23, 2006 2:17:46 PM

The company that bases its business practices on morals is the one that goes out of business.

New products start at their highest prices, then when new technology starts to trickle in, they drop...that's just how it works...How is this scenario different from that? Do explain.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 2:18:21 PM

Quote:
Elmoisevil, Congrats on being:

The only one that didn't welcome the price drop and take advantage of it (aka me saving $150 on an X2 3800+)

One of the few who bash a company for making a smart business decision, because let's face it, we're all here to make money. Competition is the best part of business, at least in the eyes of the consumers.

One of the many who can't distinguish between the word "there" and "their" and use them effectively.


Well... first of all let's see how many languages I speak and umm where does English fall into.. Oh it's my fourth language. I'm Abenaki, French(Quebec) and Spanish before English. So of course you'd like to be able to discredit me because of a grammar mistake.. good luck :p 

I welcome the price drop, I dislike it when a company practices price gouging but what I dislike much more are the legion's of brainwashed Neanderthals who believe AMD is morally superior to Intel.

Quote:
The company that bases its business practices on morals is the one that goes out of business.

New products start at their highest prices, then when new technology starts to trickle in, they drop...that's just how it works...How is this scenario different from that? Do explain.


You're spinning around the subject to avoid looking like an Amateurish politician.

I'm not asking or expecting that either AMD or Intel will start to practice and follow higher morals, I'm highlighting that some people (particularly AMD Fanbois') believe that AMD is morally superior to Intel. I'm dispelling this Myth.

Also worth noting that I know where you stand Guruboy :p  I mean you agree with MrsBytch and you're one of the people I aimed this thread towards.

Quote:
I agree with MrsBytch. I vote for an X2 3800+, and then you should spend the extra money on a more decent video card and some better memory. Stick with 2Gb of RAM, but make it DDR2-800, which matches up to the 2.0Ghz 3800+.

I just built a system with an X2 3800+, 2 Gb or DDR2-800 CAS 5, and a sweet 7900 GT KO Superclocked from eVga. Runs everything at max settings, including F.E.A.R, Oblivion, etc. So what I'm saying is with a setup like that you can run anything, and you can wait for any of the newest AMDs to drop in price.

However, if you REALLY want to go Core 2 Duo, go with the E6300 and again spend the (however less) extra money on a better graphics card. Any socket AM2 mobo will be able to have socket AM3 chips, when they come out. HOWEVER you'll never be able to stick, say an AMD Quad core socket AM2 into a socket AM3 motherboard because socket AM2 CPUs will lack the memory controler necessary to run DDR3 RAM, when this all comes out.


Also your inability to understand system bottlenecks as highlighted in this THREAD clearly indicates that I am the teacher and you are the student.

Of course no one knows everything, and I learn from other members on here as well such as Wusy (his overclocking experience) and Jumpingjack (his VERY broad and knowledgeable posts).
September 23, 2006 2:34:57 PM

You are obviously emotionally unsettled and trolling.

Do you recognize that you are not only wasting everyone else's time but also your own? The sign of intelligence is not looking down upon a contrived fictional stereotype of a fanboi, but rather, putting your time towards something productive.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 2:40:37 PM

Quote:
You are obviously emotionally unsettled and trolling.

Do you recognize that you are not only wasting everyone else's time but also your own? The sign of intelligence is not looking down upon a contrived fictional stereotype of a fanboi, but rather, putting your time towards something productive.


Ahh productive. On a rainy day, it is amusing and educational to make a post that places both AMD and Intel on par in the eyes of THG readers. That is my goal and my aim.

Instead of looking at it from an insulted perspective, perhaps you would be better served looking at it from my perspective. Which is that of a centrist. I wish to dispel a Myth. One that has been worded and posted MANY times before by Extremist Fanbois.

Or of course you could continue on with a closed minded approach. I leave that up to you.
September 23, 2006 2:41:53 PM

Let's hear it for all-out flames!

Maybe you should look over your shoulder, past the AMD price drops and the intro of C2D, and remember all the crap Intel was in. I don't even have to explain it because apparently you know. Now with this one smart business decision you're attempting to put Intel and AMD on the same bench of immorality? Maybe you should take a good, hard look at the word "fanboi" which you've used so loosely against other people time and time again.
September 23, 2006 2:44:52 PM

I agree 100% ....
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 2:47:24 PM

Quote:
Let's hear it for all-out flames!

Maybe you should look over your shoulder, past the AMD price drops and the intro of C2D, and remember all the crap Intel was in. I don't even have to explain it because apparently you know. Now with this one smart business decision you're attempting to put Intel and AMD on the same bench of immorality?


Yes.

Both companies have committed atrocities to-wards consumers. But that is business. I wish to enlighten those who would still believe that one company is morally superior to the other.

People like to root for the underdog. It's human nature.. like David and Goliath we like to see the underdog win from time to time. But, in the name of innovation, we need Strong competition.

As such I wish to remove a common Myth. Those who would believe that AMD personally caters to them rather then upholding an obligation to there shareholders and investors are being naive.

I'm not Pro-Intel or Pro-AMD. As I am writing this on my AMD Athlon64 X2 4800+ rig running Windows VISTA x64 RC1 :wink:

PS.. Sometimes the truth hurts. But as Ghandi once said There is no absolute truth. Truth is relative, subjective, variable. There is no authority for truth except the individual. Therefore we base the Truth on Facts. And the fact is that Corporations serve special interests which come before consumer interests.
September 23, 2006 2:49:22 PM

OH MY GOD!!! IT'S SO CLEAR NOW THAT NOT ONLY IS AMD A COMPANY, BUT THEY'RE ALSO IN THE MARKET TO MAKE MONEY! THANKS ELMOISEVIL FOR ENLIGHTENING ME! I THOUGHT AMD WAS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION HERE TO PROVIDE US ALL WITH COMPETITIVE COMPUTING SOLUTIONS; BOY WAS I WRONG!

I'm fairly confident that everyone understands AMD like Intel, is in the market to make money; you're simply wasting your time. Where were you when Intel was charging more than $1000 for the Pentium X 840EE, but the X2 4800+ could be had for less than $800? Please, just stop with the BS. We all know Intel and AMD are simply in the market to make money, however and whenever they can.
September 23, 2006 2:49:28 PM

I am no phanboi for either camp and I wouldn't want to come across as an asshat here, however with a title like that one I guess that’s the mentality we are at here.

How could someone who speaks 4 languages be so incredibly short sighted and naive?

My suggestion would be to do allot more research before posting such excrement. You might try starting with a 100 level college course on marketing. Then try looking back at the industry longer than one quarter and then you might be headed in the right direction.

Once you’ve completed that then take a very hard look into both companies, their makeup, capital resources, market share, manufacturing capabilities, staffing etc. etc.

Accomplish those tasks then ask yourself what you would do if you were CEO of AMD or of Intel given the current climate they find themselves in.

Theres nothing to see here can we move along now?
September 23, 2006 2:54:34 PM

Quote:

Ohhh... I agree the Company who has the Technology Leadership has the price premium normally... but this is the first time that this hasn't happened. Which is why I wanted to highlight it.

Why not?
If you exclude the FX series, it is pretty obvious that Intel has the high-end in performance but also a price premium.
You can roughly compare the FX now with the Pentium EE back then when AMD was leading (ok, performance wise, the EE was more competitive than what the FX is now, but still it was way overpriced for its performance).
Gee, this thread is a flame-bait, i'm outta here.
September 23, 2006 2:56:01 PM

Quote:
Gee, this thread is a flame-bait, i'm outta here.


you're right, not going to read this crap anymore.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 2:56:30 PM

Quote:
I am no phanboi for either camp and I wouldn't want to come across as an asshat here, however with a title like that one I guess that’s the mentality we are at here.

How could someone who speaks 4 languages be so incredibly short sighted and naive?

My suggestion would be to do allot more research before posting such excrement. You might try starting with a 100 level college course on marketing. Then try looking back at the industry longer than one quarter and then you might be headed in the right direction.

Once you’ve completed that then take a very hard look into both companies, their makeup, capital resources, market share, manufacturing capabilities, staffing etc. etc.

Accomplish those tasks then ask yourself what you would do if you were CEO of AMD or of Intel given the current climate they find themselves in.

Theres nothing to see here can we move along now?


None of you are even getting the point of the post. Which is a HARD one to convey. I am of course not happy that processors cost soo much, what consumer would be. I understand why they cost so much.

The point of this post is far different. WE KNOW THAT INTEL HAS CHARGED ENORMOUS AMOUNTS of money in the past for processors. But there is this feeling that AMD is NEVER guilty of this practice. People seem to believe that AMD charges less for there processors and that they do so due to a moral obligation to there customers.

This is the Myth I wish to dispel. AMD and Intel are no different and I chose this example to prove that AMD is guilty of this practice as well.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 2:58:32 PM

Quote:

Ohhh... I agree the Company who has the Technology Leadership has the price premium normally... but this is the first time that this hasn't happened. Which is why I wanted to highlight it.

Why not?
If you exclude the FX series, it is pretty obvious that Intel has the high-end in performance but also a price premium.
You can roughly compare the FX now with the Pentium EE back then when AMD was leading (ok, performance wise, the EE was more competitive than what the FX is now, but still it was way overpriced for its performance).
Gee, this thread is a flame-bait, i'm outta here.

Intel do NOT have a price premium That's a Myth. Explain to me how Intel's Core 2 Duo's come at a price premium to an equivalent performing AMD processor.

E6300@180USD is equivalent to a 4600+@249USD
E6400@225USD is equivalent to a 5000+@519USD
E6600@319USD is equivalent to an FX-62@726USD.

Care to compare the prices?

You see, my point is proven. Folks perceive AMD to be the less expensive processor without actually looking into the prices. It's a common Myth that WAS true at one time.
September 23, 2006 3:01:09 PM

Quote:


I believe Intel's financial woes forced Intel to offer bargin prices. Amd's Athlon processors played a major role in Intel's pricing IMHO.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 3:05:18 PM

Quote:
Prices are LOW.. LOWEST i've ever seen then for a high-end brand. And guess who we have to thank for this.. not AMD.. but Intel.


I believe Intel's financial woes forced Intel to offer bargin prices. Amd's Athlon processors played a major role in Intel's pricing IMHO.

That's probably true. They wanted to undercut AMD... because AMD is stuck on 90nm.

But that's not what I wanted to dispel. I wanted to focus not why the prices were lowered but on a certain even level between AMD and Intel when it comes to Moral fibre. Both are Corporations and none should be treated with more respect over the other.
September 23, 2006 3:30:45 PM

The point of the post is agitation, nothing else. You haven't dispelled any myths with your "special" insight. You make a blanket statement concerning AMD supporters and then attempt to qualify it using an argument founded upon a dubious conclusion by citing one quarters worth of retail price information. I am supposed to be convinced by this?

Sorry brother but people have sought to convince me all my life that an invisible man in the sky created and controls everything and that it is all only 5,000 years old. They might have gotten away with it to, if hadn’t been for that whole dinosaur thing.
September 23, 2006 3:31:30 PM

Quote:

Prices are LOW.. LOWEST i've ever seen then for a high-end brand. And guess who we have to thank for this.. not AMD.. but Intel.


w/o AMD Intel wouldve charged and arm and a leg for their Conroes. Is thanks to competition that comes the low prices for consumers. If theres no AMD competition, Intel can charge w/e they want.

Theres no point in actually debating this, this will go on for ages. Back and forth performance crowns, and high and low prices.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 3:35:35 PM

Quote:
The point of the post is agitation, nothing else. You haven't dispelled any myths with your "special" insight. You make a blanket statement concerning AMD supporters and then attempt to qualify it using an argument founded upon a dubious conclusion by citing one quarters worth of retail price information. I am supposed to be convinced by this?

Sorry brother but people have sought to convince me all my life that an invisible man in the sky created and controls everything and that it is all only 5,000 years old. They might have gotten away with it to, if hadn’t been for that whole dinosaur thing.


Actually I had another purpose in making this post. It was to expose all the FAKE usernames with a VERY low post count that ALL belong to the same individuals. ;) 

Also, my pricing information was based on the entire Core 2 Duo lineup. If there was an equivalent Core 2 Duo to the lower AMD Athlon64 X2 Processors in performance I would have posted them as well. Regardless, one can barely claim a $180 processor to be high-end. As $180 you pay for a Core 2 Duo E6300 couldn't even buy you a Sempron64 3400+ or an AMD Athlon64 3000+ back in May.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 3:39:29 PM

Quote:

Prices are LOW.. LOWEST i've ever seen then for a high-end brand. And guess who we have to thank for this.. not AMD.. but Intel.


w/o AMD Intel wouldve charged and arm and a leg for their Conroes. Is thanks to competition that comes the low prices for consumers. If theres no AMD competition, Intel can charge w/e they want.

Theres no point in actually debating this, this will go on for ages. Back and forth performance crowns, and high and low prices.

And that is my point.. I've clearly illustrated that in my main post as well. Intel released the Core 2 Duo's at a lower price point in order to undercut AMD. They knew they could use there own advantage (65nm on 300mm waffers) to put a competitive strain on AMD who are stuck will 200-300mm waffer at 90nm.

But of course that's again the reason why AMD sold there Athlon(K7) and there AthlonXP for less then Intel did there P!!!'s and P4's. It was in order to be competitive. Back then the Intel Pentium brand was quite a powerful name in the industry and AMD lacked the marketshare and brandname to compete on performance alone.

So again this dispels the Myth that is AMD. The only reason they sold processors at lower prices was to gain marketshare. Once they gained marketshare they raised there prices equal to Intel and now are more expensive then Intel on the price/performance front.

The entire point of my post.
September 23, 2006 3:44:13 PM

Haha,

Sorry but you get no bite on that rotten bait. I have one user name, so you will have to continue trolling. It is just that this board is full of the same threads and the only real point to them is agitation.

I am just feeling a little sassy this morning and you looked like someone who could take it without loosing it. Bravo.
September 23, 2006 3:48:37 PM

Elmo you are Evil :twisted: I understand your point but you bring up a topic that stirs up as much heat as the 'abortion' issue.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 3:51:46 PM

Quote:
Elmo you are Evil :twisted: I understand your point but you bring up a topic that stirs up as much heat as the 'abortion' issue.


Yes, because it needed to be said by someone who isn't a fanboi. I understand it will agitate things but I can't stand another BaronMatrix, MrsBytch or the Tuux post that glorify AMD as the champion of the consumer and vilify Intel as the evil Corporation.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 3:55:17 PM

Quote:
I find it interesting that you're avatar is of ATI. It seams you are an ATI fanboy. Yet you are bashing AMD. :?

You do know AMD and ATI have joined forces right? :) 

Well anyway. I have no loialties to any brand. I go with what i can afford and what performes best at my price range.


Nope.. I have been an extremist in the past but for good reason.

My Avatar dictates the Hardware I'm currently running not a brand loyalty. It changes quite often, for a while it was the Athlon64 X2 logo and for a while it was the nVIDIA logo (when I had my 7800GTX SLI setup).

Reason why I have been an extremist in the past is age and maturity. I used to Push Intel, then I started to push AMD... then I realised it was stupid to push a company seeing as what I liked was the product.

I did the same with ATi and nVIDIA.
September 23, 2006 3:57:13 PM

Quote:

Prices are LOW.. LOWEST i've ever seen then for a high-end brand. And guess who we have to thank for this.. not AMD.. but Intel.


w/o AMD Intel wouldve charged and arm and a leg for their Conroes. Is thanks to competition that comes the low prices for consumers. If theres no AMD competition, Intel can charge w/e they want.

Theres no point in actually debating this, this will go on for ages. Back and forth performance crowns, and high and low prices.

And that is my point.. I've clearly illustrated that in my main post as well. Intel released the Core 2 Duo's at a lower price point in order to undercut AMD. They knew they could use there own advantage (65nm on 300mm waffers) to put a competitive strain on AMD who are stuck will 200-300mm waffer at 90nm.

But of course that's again the reason why AMD sold there Athlon(K7) and there AthlonXP for less then Intel did there P!!!'s and P4's. It was in order to be competitive. Back then the Intel Pentium brand was quite a powerful name in the industry and AMD lacked the marketshare and brandname to compete on performance alone.

So again this dispels the Myth that is AMD. The only reason they sold processors at lower prices was to gain marketshare. Once they gained marketshare they raised there prices equal to Intel and now are more expensive then Intel on the price/performance front.

The entire point of my post.


Well yea, Intel couldve charged alot more for their Conroes, but they wanted to hurt AMD more than they wanted to help themselfs, Given; making a profit nonetheless.
September 23, 2006 3:58:47 PM

Quote:

Ohhh... I agree the Company who has the Technology Leadership has the price premium normally... but this is the first time that this hasn't happened. Which is why I wanted to highlight it.

Why not?
If you exclude the FX series, it is pretty obvious that Intel has the high-end in performance but also a price premium.
You can roughly compare the FX now with the Pentium EE back then when AMD was leading (ok, performance wise, the EE was more competitive than what the FX is now, but still it was way overpriced for its performance).
Gee, this thread is a flame-bait, i'm outta here.

Intel do NOT have a price premium That's a Myth. Explain to me how Intel's Core 2 Duo's come at a price premium to an equivalent performing AMD processor.

E6300@180USD is equivalent to a 4600+@249USD
E6400@225USD is equivalent to a 5000+@519USD
E6600@319USD is equivalent to an FX-62@726USD.

Care to compare the prices?

You see, my point is proven. Folks perceive AMD to be the less expensive processor without actually looking into the prices. It's a common Myth that WAS true at one time.
Didn't i say explicitly to exclude the FX line?
And the 5000+ can be had for 313USD (Link)
also you should consider the total cost of a platform, not the CPU alone.
And the fact that most people buys the low end of AMD CPUs, like the x2 3800+.
At least, you should understand the concept of the pricing curves, which Tom's hw is using to compare the prices of the CPUs and that the manufacturers use to place their products into the market (link) and the fact that Intel is still selling its Netburst stuff at ridicolous prices...
September 23, 2006 4:04:18 PM

While I refuse to read through intel fanboism post, let me just remind you guys of the premiums and gouging intel has done in the past..

Heatbursts were sold at a premium, even when AMD showed they clearly had the price AND PERFORMANCE lead over intel.

When intel refused to innovate and AMD clearly had the performance lead, they raised their prices.

When intel finally innovated, took 5 years for them to learn, AMD lowered its price because they no longer had the Performance lead.

Intel came out at decent prices, only because in the past they put out crap at premium prices. Something about intel fanboi's that over pay for their heatburst CPU's that still amazes me.

Now, nowhere do I agree with any gouging, but to say only 1 company out of the 2 did it, is just wrong and show's your bias.

Both companies do it. Trust me, if AMD doesn't respond to C2D quickly, you'll see Intel releasing a revision CPU at a much higher price.

Why? Because they have the performance chip right now and they can charge what they want and if you want that performance you'll pay for it.

Both companies do it, just seems intel has the longer track record of doing it than any other CPU company. Yes I remember the $1000 486 cpu's, and how long intel milked the 486's before they released their Pentiums.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 4:04:36 PM

Quote:

Ohhh... I agree the Company who has the Technology Leadership has the price premium normally... but this is the first time that this hasn't happened. Which is why I wanted to highlight it.

Why not?
If you exclude the FX series, it is pretty obvious that Intel has the high-end in performance but also a price premium.
You can roughly compare the FX now with the Pentium EE back then when AMD was leading (ok, performance wise, the EE was more competitive than what the FX is now, but still it was way overpriced for its performance).
Gee, this thread is a flame-bait, i'm outta here.

Intel do NOT have a price premium That's a Myth. Explain to me how Intel's Core 2 Duo's come at a price premium to an equivalent performing AMD processor.

E6300@180USD is equivalent to a 4600+@249USD
E6400@225USD is equivalent to a 5000+@519USD
E6600@319USD is equivalent to an FX-62@726USD.

Care to compare the prices?

You see, my point is proven. Folks perceive AMD to be the less expensive processor without actually looking into the prices. It's a common Myth that WAS true at one time.
Didn't i say explicitly to exclude the FX line?
And the 5000+ can be had for 313USD (Link)
also you should consider the total cost of a platform, not the CPU alone.
And the fact that most people buys the low end of AMD CPUs, like the x2 3800+.
At least, you should understand the concept of the pricing curves, which Tom's hw is using to compare the prices of the CPUs and that the manufacturers use to place their products into the market (link) and the fact that Intel is still selling its Netburst stuff at ridicolous prices...

The total cost of the platform is NOT an Intel or AMD dictated segment therefore it's irrelevant in this argument.

But with rising memory prices, Core 2 platforms are now cheaper then equivalent AM2 platforms. I've highlighted this on several occasions.
September 23, 2006 4:08:11 PM

But you cannot cherry pick only a few comparisons which are favourable to make your point!
1) you have to compare the offerings of AMD and Intel as a whole (i.e. the price/performance curves)
2) you made the comparison in the high end, where everybody agrees that AMD is not even competing!
But those CPUs you mentioned are still their top bins, and AMD cannot price them more aggressively!
September 23, 2006 4:08:28 PM

"There is no place in a fanatic's head where reason can enter."
Napoleon

I would categorize believing AMD or Intel to be morally superior compared to the other as fanaticism.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 4:10:33 PM

Quote:
While I refuse to read through intel fanboism post, let me just remind you guys of the premiums and gouging intel has done in the past..

Heatbursts were sold at a premium, even when AMD showed they clearly had the price AND PERFORMANCE lead over intel.

When intel refused to innovate and AMD clearly had the performance lead, they raised their prices.

When intel finally innovated, took 5 years for them to learn, AMD lowered its price because they no longer had the Performance lead.

Intel came out at decent prices, only because in the past they put out crap at premium prices. Something about intel fanboi's that over pay for their heatburst CPU's that still amazes me.

Now, nowhere do I agree with any gouging, but to say only 1 company out of the 2 did it, is just wrong and show's your bias.

Both companies do it. Trust me, if AMD doesn't respond to C2D quickly, you'll see Intel releasing a revision CPU at a much higher price.

Why? Because they have the performance chip right now and they can charge what they want and if you want that performance you'll pay for it.

Both companies do it, just seems intel has the longer track record of doing it than any other CPU company. Yes I remember the $1000 486 cpu's, and how long intel milked the 486's before they released their Pentiums.


You clearly didnt read my post :roll: .. typical low post fanboi's trolling the forums. You'd be better off quitting before you make a TOTAL fool out of yourself.. here.. i'll quote what I said.

Quote:
As we know (some peeps here don't) CPU prices are DIRT CHEAP now... thanks to Intel (Although there aim was probably more towards undercutting AMD then helping out the consumer). When Intel was set to release there Core 2 Duo they announced prices and performance figures that forced AMD to stop scr*wing over the consumer's. Sure Intel have been guilty of this in the past (which pretty much puts them both on even ground).


AMD prices fell because they anticipated the Core 2 launch mainly due to the preview reviews where Anandtech and Toms etc all published the prices Intel were going to release there Core 2's at. Had Intel released there Core 2's at a premium, AMD prices would have never fallen so drastically (they would have fallen to Intel somewhat equivalent levels).

Also AMD has not responded to Intel. Intel wil release a VERY expensive processor.. but it won't be a Dual Core it will be the Core 2 Quadro which will take on the Extreme moniker. Can't expect that to be cheap.

Your arguments are flawed. I've chosen a middle ground, not a Pro-Intel stance. Had you actually read my post you would have clearly seen this.
September 23, 2006 4:11:37 PM

Quote:

The total cost of the platform is NOT an Intel or AMD dictated segment therefore it's irrelevant in this argument.

AMD CPUs include a memory controller, which instead is part of the platform on Intel CPUs.
And the high cost of memory as a factor, its true only for the enthusiast segment, which again, is the high end.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 4:13:40 PM

Quote:
But you cannot cherry pick only a few comparisons which are favourable to make your point!
1) you have to compare the offerings of AMD and Intel as a whole (i.e. the price/performance curves)
2) you made the comparison in the high end, where everybody agrees that AMD is not even competing!
But those CPUs you mentioned are still their top bins, and AMD cannot price them more aggressively!


No I chose the entire Intel Core 2 Duo product line. How can I compare an AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+ to an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 when one is $30 more but performs like an AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+ ?

Again, I'm comparing Core 2 Duo to Athlon64 X2's of the same performance levels. If Intel had a lower Core 2 Duo that had similar performance to an AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+ then I would have posted it.

It's worth saying that the Core 2 Duo E6300 has a better price/performance ratio then the AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+ FYI.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 4:18:35 PM

Quote:

The total cost of the platform is NOT an Intel or AMD dictated segment therefore it's irrelevant in this argument.

AMD CPUs include a memory controller, which instead is part of the platform on Intel CPUs.
And the high cost of memory as a factor, its true only for the enthusiast segment, which again, is the high end.

You're not comparing Apples with Apples. You need to find something, a baseline to compare both offerings on. And 9/10 Performance is that baseline.

A CPU's performance is it's number 1 priority. Everything else comes after. Take two CPU's that perform equally and compare the prices. Just try it and you'll understand where I'm coming from.

If you use anything bellow PC2 6400 on an AM2 platform you get a tangible and noticeable reduction in speed. This is not the same with a Core 2 Duo platform.

So compare Apples to Apples. If you want to use cheaper memory on an AM2 system, then forget any of the benchmarks you've seen as a means to compare the performance. You then have an E6300 performing like a 4800+ and an E6400 almost at FX-62 performance. That's how much of a difference memory makes on an AM2 platform (2-10FPS in games).
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 4:20:48 PM

Quote:
But you cannot cherry pick only a few comparisons which are favourable to make your point!
1) you have to compare the offerings of AMD and Intel as a whole (i.e. the price/performance curves)
2) you made the comparison in the high end, where everybody agrees that AMD is not even competing!
But those CPUs you mentioned are still their top bins, and AMD cannot price them more aggressively!


I disagree --- many people budget for a system and set aside a certain amount they are willing to spend on the CPU. If that number is 150 to 200 bucks, then you look at the processors with in that price range.

Furthermore, below the 150 dollar price point, AMD is the right choice. Above 150, there is no major compelling reason, other than brand preference or upgrade/savings to go with anything other than C2D.

Jack

And what about price/performance?

What would you say is the best Bang for the buck in Dual Core processing?
September 23, 2006 4:22:43 PM

But Intel is still selling the Pentium EE 965 at more than 1000$!
And here you're talking about company pricing policies i.e. Intel (as a whole) VS AMD (as a whole)!
And the Core 2 CPUs down to the E6600 are the absolute high end at the moment, and if you remove that segment, you'll see how Athlon X2s are ver competitive in price/performance.
But to get to your overall point:
AMD is more ethical than Intel? No.
Prices are dictacted from perfomance and market position? Yes.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 4:26:20 PM

Quote:
But Intel is still selling the Pentium EE 965 at more than 1000$!
And here you're talking about company pricing policies i.e. Intel (as a whole) VS AMD (as a whole)!
And the Core 2 CPUs down to the E6600 are the absolute high end at the moment, and if you remove that segment, you'll see how Athlon X2s are ver competitive in price/performance.
But to get to your overall point:
AMD is more ethical than Intel? No.
Prices are dictacted from perfomance and market position? Yes.


The Pentium 4 (Netburst so the 500, 600, 800, 900 series) were processors where Intel was overpricing.

Core 2 Duo changes all that. But I'm not naive enough to think that Intel did this for the benefit of the consumer. So this isn't what my post is all about.

Also, notice the amount of low post count posters on here? And notice all of them favoring AMD... interesting no?
September 23, 2006 4:55:07 PM

Quote:

The total cost of the platform is NOT an Intel or AMD dictated segment therefore it's irrelevant in this argument.

AMD CPUs include a memory controller, which instead is part of the platform on Intel CPUs.
And the high cost of memory as a factor, its true only for the enthusiast segment, which again, is the high end.

You're not comparing Apples with Apples. You need to find something, a baseline to compare both offerings on. And 9/10 Performance is that baseline.

A CPU's performance is it's number 1 priority. Everything else comes after. Take two CPU's that perform equally and compare the prices. Just try it and you'll understand where I'm coming from.

If you use anything bellow PC2 6400 on an AM2 platform you get a tangible and noticeable reduction in speed. This is not the same with a Core 2 Duo platform.

This is a myth, spread mostly by the Horde to scream that early Conroe benchmarks were rigged.
If you look at this comparison that Anand did when AM2 was about to be introduced, DDR2-667 has the same performance of S939 on DDR-400, and DDR2-800 will buy you roughly 2-3% of performance accross the board, so definitely not worth paying a huge price premium, for non enthusiasts.

Quote:
So compare Apples to Apples. If you want to use cheaper memory on an AM2 system, then forget any of the benchmarks you've seen as a means to compare the performance. You then have an E6300 performing like a 4800+ and an E6400 almost at FX-62 performance. That's how much of a difference memory makes on an AM2 platform (2-10FPS in games).

To compare apples to apples, you have to compare the cost and performance of CPU + MB + RAM on both systems.
And again, the price/performance curves of Tom's HW also include (as a factor which cannot be forsaken) the market placement of a CPU within its peers, i.e. "extreme" or top bin CPUs must always carry a fat price premium.
And comparing accross the board, in the low end AMD is competitive in price/performance against Intel.
September 23, 2006 4:59:54 PM

Quote:

Also, notice the amount of low post count posters on here? And notice all of them favoring AMD... interesting no?

Well, you wanted a provocative thread, and you got it. :) 
As someonelse said here, there's not so much to discuss, for a non-fanboy, corporations are not ethical, good, evil, etc, they're just trying to make money, and they act differently only depending on their marketing position.
And for fanboys, there is nothing you can do to change their mind about their beloved brand(s) and its enemy.
a c 99 à CPUs
September 23, 2006 5:08:04 PM

No, when you consider that a Pentium D 930 cost $330 at its intro and the X2 3800+ was $297 at that time, it hardly seems like gouging since the X2 3800+ was much faster than a PD 930.

AMD charged what they did for the X2s because they were much better dollar-for-dollar than the slightly-less-expensive Pentium Ds. It wasn't until Intel sacked prices of these chips that AMD brought theirs down some to keep price-performance parity. In fact, if you can say ANYTHING about the X2 prices it is that Intel kept them propped up by charging nearly as much for its poorer-performing Smithfields and Preslers.

Go take an econ class someday. You might learn something important.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2006 5:28:03 PM

Quote:
No, when you consider that a Pentium D 930 cost $330 at its intro and the X2 3800+ was $297 at that time, it hardly seems like gouging since the X2 3800+ was much faster than a PD 930.

AMD charged what they did for the X2s because they were much better dollar-for-dollar than the slightly-less-expensive Pentium Ds. It wasn't until Intel sacked prices of these chips that AMD brought theirs down some to keep price-performance parity. In fact, if you can say ANYTHING about the X2 prices it is that Intel kept them propped up by charging nearly as much for its poorer-performing Smithfields and Preslers.

Go take an econ class someday. You might learn something important.


Ummmm I don't need to take any course at all. Part of what I'm saying is that these companies charge way too much for processors that they could sell for less and still make a profit. But that wasn't the point of my post.

I wanted to dispel a Myth about AMD caring about the consumer more-so then Intel. It's a Myth and I've proved that.
September 23, 2006 6:02:54 PM

Quote:

Well anyway. I have no loialties to any brand. I go with what i can afford and what performes best at my price range.


Right on, I never can afford the "best of the best" anyway. When everyone else is playing Oblivion, I am just now able to play Halo and FarCry on the highest settings.... lol
September 23, 2006 6:13:01 PM

I also agree with this. If your CPU budget is above $150, it makes absolutely no since to go with AMD at this point. Afterall, this is my first build in quite some time, and I went the CPU that I did b/c it was the best performer at my budget. Plus AM2 Mobos are cheaper right now (at least the one I got) and I prefer ATI chipsets over nVidia ones (out of the ones I have had) I prefer Intel chipsets over nVidia even... lol

Anyway, I think everyone knows that everyone is in it for the money. WTH would you R&D like crazy and not try to make a killer profit! IMO I think CPU prices right now are awesome. You can get alot of bang for your buck at any price range. RAM is where they are gouging our eyes out right now.

I am not an AMD or Intel Fanboy. I have one AMD system total, and am working on my second. I have 3 Intel systems, so I'm pretty evened out.
(2 Dothans, P3, Duron 700, and 3000+)
September 23, 2006 6:44:35 PM

I am a Intel Fan why? Because i prefer perfomance over price no i am not going to spend 1k for a processor but ima get a good one to last for 1 year thats mid price. My cerleron (not cerleron D) 1.8 GHZ and Pentium D 805 costed less than $100 and have an outstanding performance. My cerleron beats my grandmas amd 3200 my computer coted $400 (desktop) versus my g-mas $1600 (labtop) same graphics same ram. she cannot play the games i can and the dude who sold it to her said it would play any game in 2005. Everyone i know who has a AMD hate ever owning one they look at my computer then they know what to get. Intel is better if they arnt then why do schools and buisnesses buy it?
September 23, 2006 6:46:54 PM

I will never buy Intel!!!!



Intel turned me into a newt!





I got better....
!