Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2.66GHz Nehalem to sell for $284???????

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
July 24, 2008 12:03:13 PM

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...


Quote:

We managed to get some hot details about Bloomfield CPUs and as you can imagine 3.2GHz the fastest part will sell for $999.

The real surprise comes from 2.66GHz part that will be selling for very acceptable $284. This money gets you the real native quad core at 45nm with 4.8 QDI and 8MB of total CPU L2 cache. We suspect that this CPU supports only dual channel DDR3 memory and naturally it fits to socket 1366. Let's not forget that this quad core supports total of eight threads.

This is a slightly higher price compared to 2.66GHz Core 2 Quad Q9400 or slightly lower than current price of Core 2 Quad Q9450 with 2.66GHz and full 6MB of memory.

Clock to clock Nehalem should be 10 to 15 percent faster than Core 2 Quad and with these prices, it looks like a really nice deal.

Deneb will have some fearsome competition.



Nehalem for $284 ONLY??????? i thought it was goin to cost a fortune and was only for sever untill Q2 of 2009 or sumthing.......

if this is true than amd is going to fall behind again after whatever gains it made with phenom in clock for clock department. dam, i lik amd. i have been using amd from ever since windows98 and i was hoping 2 get 45nm phenom but now it looks lik intel is getting realy attractive specially with the low cpu voltage and all.

More about : 66ghz nehalem sell 284

July 24, 2008 12:05:33 PM

Question is - does that say something about its performance?

If it did, it wouldn't be anything good.

Its not as if Intel would have a problem shuttling Penryn based CPUs down to form the low end.
a b à CPUs
July 24, 2008 12:23:52 PM

i read in tomshardware that nehalem is only 5 to 10% faster than current penryn. and that was a test system only.but even so cpu will have low voltage requirement and that means it will run cool, this matters to ppl like me who live in hot country.
but i dont think we can overclock it so much as intel plans so lock its memory controller in the cpu in order to prevent OC. now that would be realy sad coz ppl would then rather buy penryn coz it OCs.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
July 24, 2008 12:39:53 PM

Yes, The Article states about 10-15% faster which matches some early reviews I've read.

The Price would also come close to Intel's current pricing model.
I would be surprised if it was priced much higher.

Remember, AMD will be shipping 45nm Quads by the end of the year.
These will be cheaper to make and possilby clock higher.
For this reason, Intel needs to keep shipping faster processors and moving them down the line so the slow ones bump off the price list.

They make profit by keeping still faster processors at the higher end of the price list.

Intel has said more than oncce that the Nehalm will be around in Q4 and not just the enthusiast models. The question will be supply.

One thing that will help shortages is that the chip will require a new Mobo.
This will limit demand slightly as upgrades will be a little more difficult.

The other thing that will help, is these chips are built on the same 45nm process so the ramp will be fairly easy. Intel had an easier time ramping into the Core2Duoe 65nm than to the 45nm, even though the 65nm was a new design.
July 24, 2008 12:42:06 PM

It's 25-50% faster clock per clock than penryn and it OC's very well on every preview I've seen. Still talking about engineering samples though. It will only use DDR3 which is the major down side unless those prices fall.
July 24, 2008 1:10:17 PM

Honestly, I think we are in for a bit of disappointment. There's *absolutely no fre@king way* Intel would price an ultra-kick-ass *NEW* arch this way. Just look at QX9770. Just look at the price of Yorkfields when they arrived. Of course we also have the very expensive 3.2 Nehalem version, but even so...

Probably it is not doing THAT well in what we, buyers of enthusiast tech, do: Games.

Just speculation, anyway. I hope it's nice, but I don't have that many hopes...

(PS: This 25/50% is just in heavily multi-threaded applications, if I remember correctly. I have seen slides from Intel claiming 1.2x performance clock-per-clock vs Penryn in a single-threaded environment, which is kinda pointless if you own a fast/overclocked Penryn, if you ask me)
a c 127 à CPUs
July 24, 2008 1:15:00 PM

The article has a major flaw though. If that is a LGA1366 then it is triple channel DDR3 not dual. The dual channel DDR3 will be on the other socket with less contacts. Thats the whole reason why there are 2 sockets for desktop users.

As for the price determining performance, I doubt that. I think its because Intel has gotten the 45nm process to yeild very well. The more ya have the less it can cost in the begining and the more you will sell sooner and faster.
a c 127 à CPUs
July 24, 2008 1:19:08 PM

dattimr said:
Honestly, I think we are in for a bit of disappointment. There's *absolutely no fre@king way* Intel would price an ultra-kick-ass *NEW* arch this way. Just look at QX9770. Just look at the price of Yorkfields when they arrived. Of course we also have the very expensive 3.2 Nehalem version, but even so...

Probably it is not doing THAT well in what we, buyers of enthusiast tech, do: Games.

Just speculation, anyway. I hope it's nice, but I don't have that many hopes...

(PS: This 25/50% is just in heavily multi-threaded applications, if I remember correctly. I have seen slides from Intel claiming 1.2x performance clock-per-clock vs Penryn in a single-threaded environment, which is kinda pointless if you own a fast/overclocked Penryn, if you ask me)


If I remember the Yorkfields they came out priced quite decently. In the $300s for the lowest quad core. Thats not too bad considering the advantages (new process, HK/MG/45nm, and SSE 4.1) it had over Kentsfield.

The 20-50% was in an array of apps. 20% in single threaded is a nice bump but the advantage of 50% in multithreaded apps (and games when the software developers get off their ass) is great.
July 24, 2008 1:27:41 PM

jimmysmitty said:
The article has a major flaw though. If that is a LGA1366 then it is triple channel DDR3 not dual. The dual channel DDR3 will be on the other socket with less contacts. Thats the whole reason why there are 2 sockets for desktop users.

As for the price determining performance, I doubt that. I think its because Intel has gotten the 45nm process to yeild very well. The more ya have the less it can cost in the begining and the more you will sell sooner and faster.


I agree with you regarding the 45nm process, however, we are not talking about AMD/ATI: we are talking about Intel - who can afford to price their top-end CPUs at 1000$+. Do you think that, if it delivered what it promised, people wouldn't happily spend 600$+ for the lower clocked model? There are even guys buying QX9770 for an unlocked multiplier, I mean, WTF.
July 24, 2008 1:27:51 PM

Do you not remember the pricing of Conroe when that was released? Very aggressive price strategy that forced AMD to lower their prices. These suspected prices of Nehalem chips do not suprise me in the slightest, neither do the 10-15% performance gains. However i believe that currently the few programs that AMD is faster in (some weird server calculation things) due to their IMC and therefore increased bandwidth, will, upon the release of Nehalem, be Intel dominated due to the shift from FSB to an IMC.

Then again, this is all just speculation. Noone can actually know until we get some decent samples to test!
a c 127 à CPUs
July 24, 2008 1:41:21 PM

dattimr said:
I agree with you regarding the 45nm process, however, we are not talking about AMD/ATI: we are talking about Intel - who can afford to price their top-end CPUs at 1000$+. Do you think that, if it delivered what it promised, people wouldn't happily spend 600$+ for the lower clocked model? There are even guys buying QX9770 for an unlocked multiplier, I mean, WTF.


And there were people who payed a butt load for Quad FX. There will always be people who buy the most expensive everything. Heck why buy a Ferrari that cost half a million when you can get a Ford GT that will smoke it for only $150k? Why people buy the uber expensive I do not know.

I think what Intel is doing is quite smart. Setting prices at a good point to get more sales faster. This may be because they want to try to phase out the FSB as fast as possible. Or they could just have been working on Nehalem so long that the yeilds are so good that they will still make a butt load at this price point.
July 24, 2008 2:04:58 PM

jimmysmitty said:
And there were people who payed a butt load for Quad FX. There will always be people who buy the most expensive everything. Heck why buy a Ferrari that cost half a million when you can get a Ford GT that will smoke it for only $150k? Why people buy the uber expensive I do not know.

I think what Intel is doing is quite smart. Setting prices at a good point to get more sales faster. This may be because they want to try to phase out the FSB as fast as possible. Or they could just have been working on Nehalem so long that the yeilds are so good that they will still make a butt load at this price point.


Exactly, somethings value is what people are willing to pay for it. There are people who would be willing to pay a great deal of money for a very quick new cpu....if it really is this cheap then it really wont be much quicker. Its not due to intel being nice and thinking of our wallets in a time of hardship.

Us enthusiasts have had it very good the past few years....Core 2 represented a massive jump...as did nVidia 8800 series. Its unrealistic to expect such a jump each new generation. People have been dissappointed with nVidias new offerings because the jump wasn't as big as the previous generation jump. I think people might be a little underwhelmed with intel's new chip simply because we have come to expect a jump like netburst to core2 and i dont think that will happen.
July 24, 2008 2:07:39 PM

jimmysmitty said:
If I remember the Yorkfields they came out priced quite decently. In the $300s for the lowest quad core. Thats not too bad considering the advantages (new process, HK/MG/45nm, and SSE 4.1) it had over Kentsfield.

The 20-50% was in an array of apps. 20% in single threaded is a nice bump but the advantage of 50% in multithreaded apps (and games when the software developers get off their ass) is great.


It was $300 for the lowest quad-core, which had a 5-7% advantage (SSE4.1 is barely used even nowadays) over a Q6600. *NOW* I would get a Yorkfield over a Kentsfield anyday, but not at that time. That's just me, anyway. Also, I don't have that faith in multi-threaded gaming - at least not in the CPU part. Multi-GPUs solutions will probably find their place. Just my 2 cents, again, since we simply can't tell.

Quote:
Do you not remember the pricing of Conroe when that was released? Very aggressive price strategy that forced AMD to lower their prices. These suspected prices of Nehalem chips do not suprise me in the slightest, neither do the 10-15% performance gains. However i believe that currently the few programs that AMD is faster in (some weird server calculation things) due to their IMC and therefore increased bandwidth, will, upon the release of Nehalem, be Intel dominated due to the shift from FSB to an IMC.

Then again, this is all just speculation. Noone can actually know until we get some decent samples to test!


The problem is that Intel was taking a beating by that time. It's not like they need - or want - to be nice to their customers or need to be competitive (in the desktop arena) right now and, believe me, they always price what they have the higher they can. It's not even like they need any price cuts right now.
July 24, 2008 2:43:43 PM

The real determining factor here that most people are missing is...

We're in a terrible economy right now, and Intel is smart enough to know they cant expect to have the same pricing scheme as the last generation.

I mean seriously most people are struggling to keep their house not buy a over priced Intel processor.
a c 127 à CPUs
July 24, 2008 2:46:24 PM

^I like how you know this when we don't have any of that info. Lovely.

As for DDR3 expensive? Not as bad as it was. 4GB for under $200 bucks Makes it less than $50 bucks/GB:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

This one is more expensive but thats because it has CAS 6 timings:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Still not that bad for 4GB when DDR2 (4gb) of equal memory (1333) is still $100-$160.

I would say in 4 more months the price should drop down a bit more. Add that in with higher bandwidth and Nehalems IMC to take advantage of that (tripl channel will be awesome) Plus the fact that there have not been any true reviews on Nehalem, how can you say its a disapointment?
July 24, 2008 2:49:33 PM

bydesign said:
It's 25-50% faster clock per clock than penryn and it OC's very well on every preview I've seen. Still talking about engineering samples though. It will only use DDR3 which is the major down side unless those prices fall.


They will definitely fall shortly.
From what I read, the Cost of make DDR3 is not really higher, it's just a matter of scale.
DDR2 sells more because of demand and hence the lower price.

DDR3 has been coming down and once Nehalm increases the DDR3 demand, the price will begin to normalize.
July 24, 2008 2:50:51 PM

quantumsheep said:
Do you not remember the pricing of Conroe when that was released? Very aggressive price strategy that forced AMD to lower their prices. These suspected prices of Nehalem chips do not suprise me in the slightest


They do to me.

P4 was losing market share to K8 by the bucketload before Conroe arrived. Intel had to redress the balance and quick.



Now the only thing Nehalem at that price is doing is taking market share from Yorkfield.

Which doesn't make sense as the Yorkfield (214mm^2) from 2 separate dies will always be cheaper to make than Nehalem (270mm^2 on 1 die).



No - the sub $300 price point can only indicate one thing - a lack of earth shattering performance. Nehalem will not be the AMD-killer that many Intel fanbois (and others) are predicting.
July 24, 2008 2:51:35 PM

No info on a poor economy? Yeah I dont know where I get these facts, or the fact that Intel has returned to its traditional pricing scheme for Nehalem...
July 24, 2008 2:53:06 PM

Hovaucf said:
No info on a poor economy? Yeah I dont know where I get these facts, or the fact that Intel has returned to its traditional pricing scheme for Nehalem...


I think that was almost certainly aimed at the post above yours :) 
July 24, 2008 2:54:29 PM

OK first $284 is the price if you buy 10000 of the little buggers.
So the street will be over $300.
I can get a quad for $200 and clock it faster than the Nehalem, run it with less expensive ram and on a cheaper motherboard. So why would I bay $100 for a 10% speed bump? Not to mention the cost of the board and ram.
I'm not seeing bang for buck here.
July 24, 2008 2:58:47 PM

I would agree with you bob, but there are still people out there like me running pretty sweet systems like a FX-57 and perhaps when this comes out those people maybe interested in building a new system.

As for the people with Penryn's it really comes down to price/performance, ugh meetings...
a b à CPUs
July 24, 2008 3:04:11 PM

if nehalem was indeed out of the world and is 30-50% faster, intel would price it like mad.......thats what everyone does in order to recover the money that wen into research. nvidia did it with 8800.and knowing intel, they will price them as high as possible.

the only 2reasons not to overprice it is:
-product not good enof.
-to price the product much lower than what the compitition(amd) is providing to gain market share. just lik ati did wit 48xx

but intel does not have compitition in that segment of performance.only other reason left is that the product does not liv up 2 its expectations.
if nehalem doesn perform that well, den ppl wouldn buy it if it is priced high.plus u need to add the price of a chipset that also required significant money to devolop.this is the reason i think y we have the low price. but thats just my thoughts.

PS:nehalem must beat current intel quad core by more than 50% in multithread enviornment to prove itself coz it haz 8 threads.
a c 127 à CPUs
July 24, 2008 3:06:19 PM

I still love the judging of the performance without truly seeing it. Ahh the wounders.
July 24, 2008 3:07:44 PM

bobbknight said:
OK first $284 is the price if you buy 10000 of the little buggers.
So the street will be over $300.
I can get a quad for $200 and clock it faster than the Nehalem, run it with less expensive ram and on a cheaper motherboard. So why would I bay $100 for a 10% speed bump? Not to mention the cost of the board and ram.
I'm not seeing bang for buck here.


1st Off, you have bad math.

#1 - Its a 10-15% or more than a Penryn not the older Core2Quad Clock or Clock. You are actually
Looking at a consistent 15-20% boost.

#2 - You can't clock a Q6600 faster than a Nehalm. The Nehalm will clock fater.

Yes, you can build a slower computer for less money.
No need for a Quad. You can save even more with an E2180 and DDR2-667.

And that is why Intel is not stopping the production of cheaper chips.
Some people don't want to pay for extra performance.
July 24, 2008 3:09:50 PM

jimmysmitty said:
I still love the judging of the performance without truly seeing it. Ahh the wounders.


I love the arrogance of some that refuse to accept the obvious based on the evidence and common sense.


Fanbois will be fanbois.
July 24, 2008 3:13:17 PM

10~15% faster clock for clock, at the same price as Yorkfield? I would say its a good tradeoff if you're looking for a quad. Its actually priced below Yorkfield because 300USD only gets you a Q9300, which only runs at 2.5Ghz.

The DDR3 will continue to decline as mass market shifts away from DDR2. I believe DDR3 should be at DDR2 level by the spring of next year.

I agree that the motherboard would be very expensive, but afterall, you're buying an enthusiast / workstation system, not mainstream.
a c 127 à CPUs
July 24, 2008 3:14:20 PM

Quote:
It will not be 25-50% faster clock for clock. If they were they would start out at $1000.


Um yea Intel always starts the EE @ $999. And there is one. But does that mean every last chip needs to be $1k? No.

People seem to forget that Intel is a business. And they have been through a slumping economy before so they know quite a few good business tactics.

Now here is a good question for you. Why is it that you can get a 4870 for sub $300 and it easily challenges the GTX280 (I am sure the OCed SuperR770s will make the GTX280 jealous)? Why did AMD not price it much higher? They certainly could have.

Maybe its because AMD knew that they could price it lower and sell more faster?

Now take this into account with Intels situation. Instead of releasing one $1K chip in Q4 2008 they release 3 differently priced chips which means more people will buy more chips sooner instead of having to wait until Q2 2009. Now does that make sense? Hell yea it does.
a b à CPUs
July 24, 2008 3:18:08 PM

zenmaster said:


#2 - You can't clock a Q6600 faster than a Nehalm. The Nehalm will clock fater.


don bet on it.

Quote:

the company implemented a lock that prevents these new processors from being overclocked by adding two PLL clock generators, one inside the CPU itself and one in the PCH.


Quote:

We've learned that Intel is going to change its policy on overclocking once it moves away from the LGA775 platform onto the desktop Nehalem platform, which is currently known as Bloomfield, which uses the LGA1366 socket. This will be the only platform from Intel which will overclock in the future, as the company is not going to support overclocking on other platforms.


http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...
a c 127 à CPUs
July 24, 2008 3:21:37 PM

Amiga500 said:
I love the arrogance of some that refuse to accept the obvious based on the evidence and common sense.


Fanbois will be fanbois.


What evidence is this may I ask? Since when do you get to see results before others?

Seriously. Don't talk about arrogance when you are judging before anything solid has been released.

As I said. Lets see what the benchmarks start saying in the next few months not based off of what people think. Anyone can guess what a low price means without any true proof.
July 24, 2008 3:39:34 PM

Quote:
I bet the top model is still $1000+


Wow, I bet water is wet. Of course the top model will cost $1k. The top yorkie costs well over $1k as well.

I may get one of the ~$300 chips myself, but I don't expect too much improvement in single threaded apps. Multi-threaded apps should benefit, as should server/memory intensive apps.
a b à CPUs
July 24, 2008 3:47:32 PM

Quote:
I bet the top model is still $1000+


Ummm.. Intel Extreme Editions are *always* a thousand bucks a tray. Mainstream editions vary in the few hundreds range. Then resellers mark up/down based on demand. So how is the proposed schema different from now?

***

Quite frankly, all I see here are the same Pro-AMD people bashing, and the same Pro-Intel peeps cheering. All making leaps in logic based on Truthiness, and then dragging in (made up/reinterpreted/misinterpreted/cross quoted/misquoted) garbage from whatever source is handy in order to support their hype and hyperbole... Were the news AMD~centric, the players would be the same, except the sides reversed. There's way more "Prove The Other Guy Wrong So My E-Peen Grows" than there is content of any value. Frankly, it's tiring, guys. <snore> :sleep:  :non: 


Look - When this stuff hits the street and you are needing a new comp, then you buy components based on your budget and build the stinkin' thing. If you don't need a new comp, then you don't. If you want the latest/greatest/fastest, then you will pay a premium to do that. Always have. Always will. If you buy middle of the range, you'll get good performance and overclock a little to get more. It's not any different from the last umpteen product releases.

Jeeez... Why's every little thing have to turn into a battle... :pfff: 
July 24, 2008 4:27:19 PM

Well said scotteq.

I would like to see some additional sources confirm Intel will no longer allow over clocking. It seems like Intel would be opening a huge door for AMD to capture the enthusiast market if they did that.
July 24, 2008 4:27:22 PM

Fudzilla is also only worth 10-15% trust....that site is filled with rumors...imo. sometimes wring...simetimes right
July 24, 2008 4:28:40 PM

jimmysmitty said:
What evidence is this may I ask?

Anyone can guess what a low price means without any true proof.



It doesn't take a rocket scientist to mean what pricing a brand new arch on the same (or lower - as indicated by yomamafor1) than current stuff.



Intel priced Conroe low to regain market share after a difficult time vis-a-vis its competitor.

AMD priced R770 low to regain market share after a difficult time vis-a-vis its competitor.

See a common theme there?



Intel currently dominate - launch a smokin' CPU at sub $300 and they are only taking market share (and money since it costs more to make Nehalem than Yorkfield) from themselves. But you go ahead... stay in your little dreamland.




Example:

If Nehalem has 15% better IPC in single threads, that means at 2.66 GHz it is roughly equivalent to a 3.0 GHz Yorkfield, with improved multi-tread performance due to IMC.

The Q9550 at 2.8GHz is currently $550 on the egg - a 2.66 GHz Nehalem **should** (if it does have even a 10% IPC gain) beat that. Why are Intel taking nearly HALF the money they'd lift from themselves?


404FanboiLogicNotFound


Nehalem will be decent - if that $285 is a true price point it is nothing special.
July 24, 2008 4:30:17 PM

$1000 just for a 10-15% performance upgrade over the quad pff not worth it. $1000 Nehalem chips that are 50%+ better then the top of the line quads then that would be worth it.


And for the $289 chip I rater buy a sexy video card for that much because I would get more permanence upgrade from my 7950 gt to a 9800GTX then I would with a $289 Nehalem that only gives u 10% performance upgrade from the quads.
July 24, 2008 4:31:42 PM

liljone said:
$1000 just for a 10% performance over the quad pff not worth it.


It' should have more than 10% over 4 threads.


It may only have 10% on 1 thread.
a c 127 à CPUs
July 24, 2008 4:41:55 PM

Amiga500 said:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to mean what pricing a brand new arch on the same (or lower - as indicated by yomamafor1) than current stuff.



Intel priced Conroe low to regain market share after a difficult time vis-a-vis its competitor.

AMD priced R770 low to regain market share after a difficult time vis-a-vis its competitor.

See a common theme there?



Intel currently dominate - launch a smokin' CPU at sub $300 and they are only taking market share (and money since it costs more to make Nehalem than Yorkfield) from themselves. But you go ahead... stay in your little dreamland.




Example:

If Nehalem has 15% better IPC in single threads, that means at 2.66 GHz it is roughly equivalent to a 3.0 GHz Yorkfield, with improved multi-tread performance due to IMC.

The Q9550 at 2.8GHz is currently $550 on the egg - a 2.66 GHz Nehalem **should** (if it does have even a 10% IPC gain) beat that. Why are Intel taking nearly HALF the money they'd lift from themselves?


404FanboiLogicNotFound


Nehalem will be decent - if that $285 is a true price point it is nothing special.


Wow. Sorry but that doesn't work for me. Price is not as big of a factor as is performance. There could be more to it than you want to believe.

Your R700 makes some sense but AMD still could have gotten more for it than just $300. Then again AMD is positioning ATI as a price/performance more than nVidia.

But I still will not believe that just because of a certain price it means its a bad performer. People could have said the same thing about Phenom since the price is much lower than their previous gen arch was upon release. But we waited more for benchmarks to see what Phenom could do.

Really. Stop prejudging just based on what the price could be.
July 24, 2008 4:52:32 PM

Just because something is inexpensive does not mean it is not going to perform well compared to the previous generation. The 4800 series from AMD proved that.

Also note: This is a completely new architecture, and anyone wanting to use it will have to build a new computer. That is most likely why the price is low; to encourage people to make the shift from LGA 775 to LGA 1336.
July 24, 2008 4:57:36 PM

Hey, I hear AMD's top Deneb will debut at 3.5 GHz and clocks to 5.1 GHz easily on stock cooling. Oh and it matches Nehalem's IPC, but clocks faster and has some great new techs that Intel didn't see coming a mile away. So it's AMD's turn to shine again and Intel will be beat into the ground once more by superior technology. Oh and the price of this top-end Deneb? $499. That's right, bitches, we're back! AMD4LIFE!!!

What's that? Sources? Who needs those?!

(See? I can make up wild stuff up too. Now stop warring until we have some solid info about RETAIL (as in, non-beta, non-ES, non-vaporware, non-speculative) Nehalem and Deneb from reputable sources.)
a b à CPUs
July 24, 2008 5:02:29 PM

hmmm.......but phenom was an underperformer.....hence the low price....plus amd wanted to gain market share...so the lower price.but things went horrible for them with that bug.

R700 was priced in such a way so that ati can gain market share.and also hurt nvidia buy having them lower the price of a newly released card by almost $200 within weeks......but intel already has all the market share it needs and its increasing everyday even with intel having a $1300+ quad core.so y the low price.
mayb u r rit....mayb intel is lowerin price becoz they suddenly feel in love with me so that i can buy their new system.....but i wouldnt hold my breathe on this thought........intel becoming nice is like saying vista running faster than xp with 512MB ram
July 24, 2008 5:06:28 PM

jimmysmitty said:

But I still will not believe that just because of a certain price it means its a bad performer. People could have said the same thing about Phenom since the price is much lower than their previous gen arch was upon release.


And Phenom in its current incarnation is confined to the bottom of the performance market.

Your proving my point.




IF that Nehalem price point is true - then Intel know they have a POTENTIAL* problem - like AMD did when they priced Phenom.




*The scale of the problem will depend on how AMD do with Shanghai/Deneb. Right now, its not an issue as they own the medium and high end anyway.
a b à CPUs
July 24, 2008 5:10:27 PM

...so now we're choosing to interpret Intel's not changing their pricing policy as a sign Nehalem doesn't work??


You guys are beyond belief...
July 24, 2008 5:14:04 PM

So far I completely agree with Amiga500's logic: Intel is *n-e-v-e-r* that nice with costumers just to be nice. It's a new CPU arch, new chipset, new socket... Oh, and don't forget their record Q2 earnings: it's *definitely* not as if they needed any marketshare right now. AMD/ATI have been playing safe with RV770 - since they took a beating for years -, but I can bet they regret not selling those 4850s for $50 more. They will end up grabing a lot of marketshare, but wait and see their margins by the end of Q3.

Intel would never miss the chance of a big profit while dominating the market (just as Nvidia, DAMMIT or any other company). Something simply isn't right.
July 24, 2008 5:24:02 PM

I would argue the exact opposite. I think its a great move for Intel to keep the price pressure on AMD. Remember there will be a price drop on the Yorkfields in August, so its difficult to compare Nehalem vs. Yorkfield pricing when one of them is 2 months away, and one of them is dropping.

Again, time will tell. AFAIK, Nehalem is pretty much ready for launch.

a c 127 à CPUs
July 24, 2008 5:25:10 PM

Amiga500 said:
And Phenom in its current incarnation is confined to the bottom of the performance market.

Your proving my point.




IF that Nehalem price point is true - then Intel know they have a POTENTIAL* problem - like AMD did when they priced Phenom.




*The scale of the problem will depend on how AMD do with Shanghai/Deneb. Right now, its not an issue as they own the medium and high end anyway.


Actually its not the chip but seems the mobos and older SB is whats making Phenom clock lower. Of course performance wise it is not as good as C2Q but still they released it at a lower price. Of course the biggest market is in the dual cores where AMD has very little competition as K8 is an aging arch (hopefully the refresh will help it a bit) and the tri cores are useless in most games/apps since they are optimized for duals and very few optimized for anything more.

Scotteq said:
...so now we're choosing to interpret Intel's not changing their pricing policy as a sign Nehalem doesn't work??


You guys are beyond belief...


This is what I am saying. His whole argument is that if its better it should be more expensive. And yet AMDs 4800 series doing the same sort of thing is just for market share..... IDK. People use the dumbest reasons for things now a days.

I truly give up Amiga. If you feel like prejudging something without benchmarks and no true performance info than so be it. I will let you keep your mind closed.
a b à CPUs
July 24, 2008 5:41:21 PM

dattimr said:
So far I completely agree with Amiga500's logic: Intel is *n-e-v-e-r* that nice with costumers just to be nice. It's a new CPU arch, new chipset, new socket... Oh, and don't forget their record Q2 earnings: it's *definitely* not as if they needed any marketshare right now. AMD/ATI have been playing safe with RV770 - since they took a beating for years -, but I can bet they regret not selling those 4850s for $50 more. They will end up grabing a lot of marketshare, but wait and see their margins by the end of Q3.

Intel would never miss the chance of a big profit while dominating the market (just as Nvidia, DAMMIT or any other company). Something simply isn't right.

I would say that Intel understands the need for pricing them at non outrageous levels. Yes, they make more profit per unit if they are priced higher, but they sell more units at a lower price. Combine that with an entire new chipset and socket, and they can't be priced excessively if Intel wants any hope of persuading current LGA775 owners to upgrade. This also allows them to keep the pressure on AMD by dropping current 45nm duals and quads down to $200 and below.

Keep in mind that the die size on Nehalem is actually smaller than the die on the HD4870, so they can keep prices low and still have decent margins.
July 24, 2008 5:42:43 PM

Seriously, it's just speculation. We, as enthusiasts, are always waiting for the next great tech to arrive at our rigs and this speculation is a natural reaction. If Nehalem delivers superior performance for that price it will be better for everyone (except for AMD). However, that's not the usual big-mighty-Intel strategy. It sounds damn strange.
July 24, 2008 5:51:19 PM

cjl said:
I would say that Intel understands the need for pricing them at non outrageous levels. Yes, they make more profit per unit if they are priced higher, but they sell more units at a lower price. Combine that with an entire new chipset and socket, and they can't be priced excessively if Intel wants any hope of persuading current LGA775 owners to upgrade. This also allows them to keep the pressure on AMD by dropping current 45nm duals and quads down to $200 and below.

Keep in mind that the die size on Nehalem is actually smaller than the die on the HD4870, so they can keep prices low and still have decent margins.


While I generally agree with almost everything you stated, don't forget that we are not talking about Joe Average's Nehalem: we are talking about the enthusiast version/socket. They are *not* supposed to sell like cakes because they are *not* the mainstream version. They are usually just a demonstration of the power of the new design and are aimed at a small group of people. So, being this the case, I don't think Intel is so concerned about how much Joe Latesttech will spend on his new computer: he would spend much more quite happily if it delivered.
a b à CPUs
July 24, 2008 5:54:53 PM

Jimmy - Yah... If it was more expensive, then scream about the Evil Monopoly screwing the common man in the name of coprorate profits. If it's the same/less, then scream that's a sign it can't possibly be good because if it were they're raise their prices...

Nevermind that Intel's pricing policy, in terms of item cost per tray, hasn't changed much at all through the last few releases. EE's are 1K each for a tray.. Midrange starts in the mid~200's and up, based on clock speeds. Resellers can and do charge more/less based on demand, but that's always been the case.

What changed!?!? Nothing.

It's all a steaming pile. Nothing's been released, and the only 'reviews' we have to go on are engineering mules. Hype, Hyperbole, and a little e-Peen on the side.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!