Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD: Core i7 as being out of touch with the marketplace

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel i7
  • AMD
  • Intel
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share

Do you think intel is out of touch - per amd?

Total: 91 votes (10 blank votes)

  • Yes! AMD is the top CPU maker and they are always right!
  • 9 %
  • Maybe! I love AMD
  • 18 %
  • No! AMD is falling further behind!
  • 36 %
  • Double No! AMD must be insane? marketing dept again!
  • 15 %
  • Triple No! AMD is totally lost!
  • 24 %
November 15, 2008 12:36:38 AM

TG says: "AMD comments on Intel Core i7
AMD's Bob Grim, senior manager of product marketing for AMD's desktop group, categorized Intel's Core i7 as being out of touch with the marketplace. He said, "Expensive motherboards, expensive memory...all expectations says that the processor will be expensive as well." Intel's Core i7 processors priced at $294 for 2.66 GHz, $562 for 2.93 GHz and $999 for 3.20 GHz. See Intel's pricing page"

It looks like amd is still stuck in 07's (2007) with the "native quad marketing" per TG daily AMD says "intel is out of touch" - i guess amd still has not tested a $180 Q6660 clocked to a lowly 3.2ghz will beat any amd quad core?

Core i7 will start at around $300 and the core 2 quads will still be around to beat amd - is amd insane?


Intel has been selling $1500 Qx9770 a 965 extreme looks like bargain too me?

Really bad news "cramer" on CNBC recommended AMD today - keep in mind he liked crox@30 and rimm@100 too!

The poll is in fun - feel free to slam me!

More about : amd core touch marketplace

November 15, 2008 12:41:41 AM

So let me guess: what's "in touch" with the marketplace? Tri core? :lol: 
November 15, 2008 12:53:32 AM

In the current financial market AMD may have a point. Look how well the Intell Atom is doing and that is a very low cost product. How many high end Core i7's will Intell sell?

AMD pulling up the rear in more than one aspect of the word is for the budget minded and thrifty. I know there are other cheap Intell chips but in reference to just the i7 again they may have a good argument.

AMD the recession cpu. :D 

Related resources
November 15, 2008 12:56:54 AM

altho the "out of touch comment" is stretching it a bit, i think his main point is correct in that the Core i7 is way too expensive when paired up with DDR3 and those costly mobos. but of course, it will come down in price with time (and hopefully competition).
November 15, 2008 1:14:15 AM

Heh, so not stagnating the market is out of touch?

That's more than just "stretching" it. That's being backed into a corner and not being able to compete in the high end, and trying to spin that fact into making AMD seem like the average man's value-conscience chip maker of choice.

It's quite absurd, especially since we know AMD would be doing the exact same thing if they could.
November 15, 2008 1:18:35 AM

That reminds me of the good old P4 with Rambus. It wasn't really faster than the P3 and the memory, while not giving it significant advantages was also quite hard on the wallet. What was AMDs top product back then again? The Athlon, just like today. Sadly the market has changed and AMD (and their Processor designs) has not.
November 15, 2008 1:18:42 AM

dieseldre2k said:
altho the "out of touch comment" is stretching it a bit, i think his main point is correct in that the Core i7 is way too expensive when paired up with DDR3 and those costly mobos. but of course, it will come down in price with time (and hopefully competition).


yes but....

p5e rampage maxumus striker striker ii - just a few asus all $300 give or take

ddr3 is same price as ddr2 1=1.3 year ago

the cpu are the same price as the last batch and the batch before!


q9650 - $550
q9550 300

exactly the same
2 times before that

q6700 $500
q6600 300

way way way before that

560j $550 (2004!)

before that
3.0c 2003 $500 - google top few articles "the price is high" - lol! the same!


amd is insane and desperate, ati will save them and the foundry thing was a good move
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2008 1:45:56 AM

^ Hopefully...
November 15, 2008 1:52:41 AM

All i see happening is the difference in game performance from high end to midrange becoming smaller with the cost difference becoming bigger.
How many home uses who ain't a gamer need a quad core??
You could say what about video editing but joe smo average home user isn't going to worry about his app taking a few minutes longer.
I'm guessing the $$ to keep a business afloat is in the midrange/low cost parts.
Quads are pretty poor value for joe smo and at the moment most games will run better on a faster clocked dual than a more expensive slower clocked quad.
It's the sales people on the shop floor telling porkies to get their sales bonuses that are getting the quads sold.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2008 1:58:21 AM

^ People realised this some time ago that they didn't need a QX9650 to surf Youtube and that's why netbooks are so popular. Which is also why we have the economic crisis too! Why pay $1000 for your computer to boot 5 sec faster & etc.

People already have fast enough computers. They just know that now.
November 15, 2008 2:12:16 AM

yomamafor1 said:
So let me guess: what's "in touch" with the marketplace? Tri core? :lol: 


Yea, I sure wouldnt turn to AMD for CPU marketing strategy. For all their infinite wisdom on what people want, they arent exactly on a meteoric rise.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2008 2:20:58 AM

If AMD marketed like Apple...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2008 2:33:56 AM

I don't like any of the options

it should be...


"I don't care this time round as my core 2 duo/quad is plenty for me"

thats perfect... it completely describes me as of right now



O belinda... you just realized why mid-end / mid-high end is the place to be... you have the performance... at lower cost... the chart on price to performance is a curve... a dramatically steep curve... the point where people tend to draw the line is around 800... for enthusiasts maybe 1200 for hard core enthusiasts maybe 2000 and for those with tons of money... well they have tons of money so they don't have a limit... but the more expensive it gets... the less the increase in performance... except for super computers... they are just uber cool :p 
November 15, 2008 2:43:07 AM

It would seem AMD marketers couldnt sell ice in the desert.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2008 2:46:01 AM

Well, i7 is out of touch with the Market AMD is competing in right now :D . It's a nice way of saying "the i7 is so far ahead of us we can't compete in that market right now" Such is the way of Intel though. When Intel does not have a serious competitor, they don't just control the market, they dictate what the market is, which can be bad for the consumer. Hopefully Deneb will be a good enough improvement to let AMD stay competitive, but even so they have an up hill climb.

Now Skull Rail is something that I think is out of touch with the market, considering games rarely make use of more than 2 threads and the slow down of buffered RAM, but hey so were some of the early FX platforms ^_^.
November 15, 2008 3:10:02 AM

Intel is out of touch with consumer marketplace because i7 is made for businesses and academics. Which happens to be right where it will succeed in these economically unstable times. AMDs last remaining strength was high end server chips and the Xeon version of the i7 will wipe the floor with them. Its not a move forward for the consumer, but it is for Intel.

They are so far ahead in the consumer market that they took a timeout and focused on developing a chip tailored made for servers. Oh and they threw some money around and out popped the atom. And they are going to start dabbling in the discrete graphics market as well. They are focusing their resources at everything but the next generation consumer chip because they need AMD to stay afloat and AMD needs some market share to stay alive. So they make money by the cartload selling us whatever they want at prices we will pay. They drop prices as new stuff comes out, but its still marked up and quite profitable. Its really a matter of AMD pushing Intel to innovate and when AMD isn't there to push, Intel just does its own thing and waits for AMD to catch up because it knows that if AMD goes away and no one but Intel makes x86 chips, then government will step in to split them up.
November 15, 2008 3:41:38 AM

I think it needs to be said that the current crop of AMD CPU's provide enough processing power for most users. I, like everyone else, always want more... but then again, I am one of the few who isnt running office type apps either. Besides games, most apps dont require the latest and greatest CPU.
November 15, 2008 3:46:00 AM

Slobogob said:
That reminds me of the good old P4 with Rambus. It wasn't really faster than the P3 and the memory, while not giving it significant advantages was also quite hard on the wallet.


I don't see why. No-one really wanted Rambus, whereas almost every new PC will be using DDR3 in a year or two; similarly, the fastest of the original P4 chips was slower than the fastest P3 in most situations, whereas Nehalem is significantly faster than Core 2 in highly multithreaded applications and at least as good in others.

I'd certainly agree that limiting yourself to expensive new motherboards and expensive new RAM is a brave move, but when AMD offers so little competition, Intel don't much need to care; and both motherboards and RAM will get cheaper over the next few months.
November 15, 2008 3:49:40 AM

dragonsprayer said:
TG says: "AMD comments on Intel Core i7
AMD's Bob Grim, senior manager of product marketing for AMD's desktop group, categorized Intel's Core i7 as being out of touch with the marketplace. He said, "Expensive motherboards, expensive memory...all expectations says that the processor will be expensive as well." Intel's Core i7 processors priced at $294 for 2.66 GHz, $562 for 2.93 GHz and $999 for 3.20 GHz. See Intel's pricing page"

It looks like amd is still stuck in 07's (2007) with the "native quad marketing" per TG daily AMD says "intel is out of touch" - i guess amd still has not tested a $180 Q6660 clocked to a lowly 3.2ghz will beat any amd quad core?

Core i7 will start at around $300 and the core 2 quads will still be around to beat amd - is amd insane?


Intel has been selling $1500 Qx9770 a 965 extreme looks like bargain too me?

Really bad news "cramer" on CNBC recommended AMD today - keep in mind he liked crox@30 and rimm@100 too!

The poll is in fun - feel free to slam me!


I think you are reading way too much into the comments. All he was saying is that Intel happens to be releasing a very expensive new platform at a time when many consumers are strapped for cash. That happens to be an absolutely true statement, however I don't think it's fair to say that this is evidence that Intel is out of touch with the market. Intel basically had to release Nehalem now as they had been promising it and any delay would be taken as bad news by investors even if the delay was intentional.

Regarding your comments about the Q6600, I'm certain that AMD is well aware that an overclocked Q6600 will beat their current product offerings. However, you can also be certain that they know that 99.9% of consumers will never overclock their processors and that their own Phenom 9950 processor is equivalent in performance to the Q6600 at stock speeds and sells for the same price.
November 15, 2008 3:49:55 AM

caamsa said:
In the current financial market AMD may have a point. Look how well the Intell Atom is doing and that is a very low cost product. How many high end Core i7's will Intell sell?

AMD pulling up the rear in more than one aspect of the word is for the budget minded and thrifty. I know there are other cheap Intell chips but in reference to just the i7 again they may have a good argument.

AMD the recession cpu. :D 


Not picking on you Caamsa, just offering a slightly different point of view.

In the corporate datacenter space, the initial cost is an insignificant piece of the TCO pie. Each system will be replaced, bad economy or not, when the old one is about to go end-of-support. Many corps prefer a 'whole of business' support model, so if your corp has support, for instance, from HP then whatever the supporter deems to be the server best suited to their model will be what is chosen. And in the corp datacenter space, AMD will see the lowest % of market share.
November 15, 2008 4:04:35 AM

we build qx9650/qx9770 for 1 out of 20 customers - it is show piece

the 920 will clock to 3.6-3.8ghz and at $300 is a significant step up from a 3.6ghz. remember we only build overclocked systems

with things they are know that is dropping off even more - i still ship q6600 go at 3.6ghz as i have for almost 15 months.

amd is not even close to matching the q6600 for desktop speed and gaming - i7 looks really good but i some doubts

my qx9650 at 4.2 air cooled or water cooled really buries amd
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 15, 2008 4:07:08 AM

caamsa said:
In the current financial market AMD may have a point. Look how well the Intell Atom is doing and that is a very low cost product. How many high end Core i7's will Intell sell?

AMD pulling up the rear in more than one aspect of the word is for the budget minded and thrifty. I know there are other cheap Intell chips but in reference to just the i7 again they may have a good argument.

AMD the recession cpu. :D 


Thats how it always is. Think about it. Do you think that Intel sold more E6800s or E6300s? I can tell you without even looking that they sold more E6300s due to large businesses buying PCs with them in bulk. My job at Citi had all E6300s and my current job has all E6300 Dells as well.

This is also why the cost of the higher end CPUs are more than the lower ones. Not just the higher stock speed but because they know they will sell more at the low end than the high end. Same goes for AMD when they have a more competative chip.

If there is a slow down both parties will be hit. Intel will survive like they always do selling the low end, the bread and butter of the desktop market. We enthusiasts (that includes Alienware, XPS, Falcon, Blackbird and any others like that) are a small part of the top of the market. So its not going to be that much different in reality. Just less enthusiasts buying due to bad economic times.

On a good note though, Gas is still going down. Saw it for $2.16 today.
November 15, 2008 4:08:54 AM

so true jimmy

e6300 is pretty far back? i could see a 6420!
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 15, 2008 4:16:31 AM

^Yea. I was just using it as an example. The low end CPUs always sell more because 90% of the people only use a PC for music, internet and maybe light gaming. And large corporations only use programs that need a moderate dual core like the E6300 or now the E5200s. So thats what sells more.
November 15, 2008 4:18:56 AM

intel is wierd i never figured out why the q6600 which is 2 chips plus the cost of putting the together sells for same price almost as dual core

i think they are just killing amd on purpose and pushing quad cores - why? i guess since they are going to 8 core soon and need multi threaded programing

their stock price too by selling too low - i printed this for for over a year, that the prices intel charges are too low

q6600 should be $300 or more today - they have too many cpu's too

way too many cpu's 4000 7000 6000 8000 2000 9000 x 6 each way to many!
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 15, 2008 4:26:15 AM

^Not really. The cost of manufacturing one is very cheap in reality. Remember Intel has had 65nm tech for quite a while so it is very mature. What they are doing is competing with Phenom. Remember that before Phenom came out it was still about $300.

After Phenom came out Intel needed to lower the price to stay competative. It has since settled at its $180 dollar price range which is a good deal still compared to most other CPUs.

I have figured that if I built my same PC today (except my GPU make it a HD4870 1GB and mobo a P5Q) it would cost me about $700 -$800 instead of $1500. So about half for the same CPU, same amount of RAM and everything else. Sucks but I wanted it back then.
November 15, 2008 4:39:05 AM

amdfangirl said:
If AMD marketed like Apple...



I agree with you 100% If you advertise and have a catchy tune or a funny commercial then you could sell dog crap to most people.

This is one big reason why Intell IMO "was" able to sell their cpu's when AMD actually had a better product.

Think about the (if you are old enough) The Chevy Chevette. Crap car but it has the name Vette in it and that quirky little commercial "Chevy Chevette it will drive you happy"

Then take the Honda's and Toyota's and they make a small cheap car but make it much better.....and still do. So why the hell do people even buy domestic cars? Because most people are not that informed.

So now AMD has a chance to advertise and take advantage of all those uninformed consumers. :D 
November 15, 2008 4:50:10 AM

Ironically, AMD's image is hurt by the fact that they don't have an expensive top end model that kicks some serious ass. They are still seen as being behind Intel because of this, even though their current CPUs are similar in performance to Intel's in the value area (not counting overclocking capabilities).

Meanwhile, Intel forges ahead with a new platform that is expensive but offers a significant performance boost. If anything, it is the slowdown in the business sector that may hurt sales, since the Core i7 platform will mostly benefit servers.
November 15, 2008 5:07:11 AM

AMD is not in good health right now in CPU market while its vice-versa in GPU.
But still they have made a valid point if they come up with Core2 beater with thier die shrunk to 45nm. Moreover the market is divided largely in 5 categories and Mid High End and Mid End is market to catch.

Ultra High End --- 1 - 5%
High End --------- 5 - 15%
Mid High End----- 15 - 25%
Mid End----------- 25 - 45%
Low End----------- 5-10%

So tell who would in this world will buy Corei7 starting $250+
while they can have Wolfdale series of Intel in Dual or Quad Core $80-$300.
The price will come down in near future but till the preference will not be on Core i7. If AMD release any tangible and head to head with Core i7 which is highly unlikely.
November 15, 2008 6:45:45 AM

yomamafor1 said:
So let me guess: what's "in touch" with the marketplace? Tri core? :lol: 


You got it. When I decided to upgrade from an X2 4600+, I went 8750. It was in touch with my market niche. :wahoo: 

My 8750 beats AMD's Athlon X2's, matches B2 9600's without the TLB errata, and is competitive against similarly priced Core 2 products.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e...

Can't wait to see the performance of 45nm triple cores.

When 8 cores becomes the norm down the line, I'll look for a 6 or 7 core product instead. :kaola: 

No CPU should go unloved just because it's had a lobotomy. :pt1cable: 

I really don't know what's happening to my sig. It posts sometimes, but not at others. Here it is:

AMD Phenom 8750, Gigabyte 780G motherboard, 2 gigs Kingston DDR2 800, MSI 3870x2, Antec Nine Hundred case, Antec Neo 650 PSU.
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2008 7:12:38 AM

Im sure Intel will lower the prices of the Core2duo even further as the i7 rolls out, this will hurt AMD even more
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2008 7:31:19 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
It would seem AMD marketers couldnt sell ice in the desert.


It depends if they keep it in a freezer or not.
November 15, 2008 8:42:38 AM

JuiceJones said:
Heh, so not stagnating the market is out of touch?

That's more than just "stretching" it. That's being backed into a corner and not being able to compete in the high end, and trying to spin that fact into making AMD seem like the average man's value-conscience chip maker of choice.

It's quite absurd, especially since we know AMD would be doing the exact same thing if they could.



AMD could make a CPU that's a speed demon. But who could afford it these days when the economy is about to collapse? Intel's high end chips are not going to sell because of that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi4yxKNWehU

You have to understand something about the PC market. A vast majority of people shopping would rather save money then waste it on something they really do not need.

There is no need for any one to purchase the most expensive system when it will be obsolete in just 2 years. Both machines played the game perfectly. But the Intel based machine costs nearly $1,000 more.

The choice is clear!
November 15, 2008 9:27:53 AM

amdfangirl said:
^ People realised this some time ago that they didn't need a QX9650 to surf Youtube and that's why netbooks are so popular. Which is also why we have the economic crisis too! Why pay $1000 for your computer to boot 5 sec faster & etc.

People already have fast enough computers. They just know that now.

U say all the words we need ;) 
I Have E2180 and i found it enough to me .
We already have fast enough PCs
compare it with 2003 PCs .
Even in games Ps3 and 360 have more Exclusive Games then PCs (Word on the wound) :D 
after they use it for 3~6 Months Bring it to PC :fou: 
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 15, 2008 9:38:00 AM

caamsa said:
I agree with you 100% If you advertise and have a catchy tune or a funny commercial then you could sell dog crap to most people.

This is one big reason why Intell IMO "was" able to sell their cpu's when AMD actually had a better product.

Think about the (if you are old enough) The Chevy Chevette. Crap car but it has the name Vette in it and that quirky little commercial "Chevy Chevette it will drive you happy"

Quote:
Then take the Honda's and Toyota's and they make a small cheap car but make it much better.....and still do. So why the hell do people even buy domestic cars? Because most people are not that informed.


So now AMD has a chance to advertise and take advantage of all those uninformed consumers. :D 


Ok I don't even know where to begin. There are a few things. Hondas were not always great cars. In fact in the 80s they were doing so bad in the US they almost had to pull out till Ford bailed them out. In turn, Honda makes their cars for very cheap in Japan and resells them for a lot more than the costs here making a very nice profit.

Seconds, Toyotas may have a great reputation but tell that to the 2006 Toyota Corolla I rented that had 4K miles and the engine blew on.

Its not true that people are misinformed. More people are informed about cars than PCs. With cars there are many factors including enviroment. My family has owned Fords for most of our lives and never had a problem with them. Hell my Contour has only been getting problems caused by mechanics who screw a simple job (read: oil change) up.

But as I said, more people are misinformed about PC than cars. You would be suprised how many people actually take from experience, family suggestions and experiences and reviews about cars than PCs. Most people don't know that a eMachine is utter crap. But they buy it because its cheap and at Wal Mart. And eMachines only has low end CPUs in them. They are made for the ppl who don't really need a PC at all except for maybe Word and Excell.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 15, 2008 9:44:01 AM

enigma067 said:
AMD could make a CPU that's a speed demon. But who could afford it these days when the economy is about to collapse? Intel's high end chips are not going to sell because of that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi4yxKNWehU

You have to understand something about the PC market. A vast majority of people shopping would rather save money then waste it on something they really do not need.

There is no need for any one to purchase the most expensive system when it will be obsolete in just 2 years. Both machines played the game perfectly. But the Intel based machine costs nearly $1,000 more.

The choice is clear!


Yes to someone like you who is easily taken in by marketing trickery the choice is clear. Go away.

When they take a CPU that vastly outperforms it instead of one thats the same price and performance range of course ppl will think the same BS as you. But put the same price Intel and AMD CPU next to eachother and watch what happens.

BTW what ever happened to the AMD fanboys, like yourself, always complaining when the Phenom was compared to a Extreme chip.... yet now you use it as spin.... huh... guess it doesn't go both ways does it....
November 15, 2008 10:13:06 AM

Heres what I see i7 going against it. Tri channel, cost, true lack of improvement weve come to expect over previous gen. All three of these reasons are tied together, and unavoidable.

Tri channel runs the costs of the mobos up, plus the inevitable cost of having to use 50% more ram. Having to run all those traces on the tri channel mobos makes this again, unavoidable. I havnt seen the tangible improvements in DT using tri channel, correct me if Im wrong, but it seems aimed almost directly toward server. Even in a MT scenario, having each individual thread running faster is important, and i7 doesnt do alot here. Im NOT downing it, its just what I see.

To be fair, heres what I see against Phenom. Prices are ok, but performance is lacking, not to the degree most people would notice too much, but enough to keep it from excelling anywheres.

I think AMD may have just found themselves with a competitive chip in Deneb, time will tell, but being cocky and coming out and saying i7 is off target smacks of sour grapes. We all know that i7 has basically been changed to the AMD approach, IMC, native quad etc, and its a good cpu, and I think AMD is upset by this, ands it shows by these kinds of remarks. Being as this may be the case, AMD has no sensible right to go after i7 in this way, makes then look bad, and as I said, people that know whats going on, its all sour grapes.

To me, if Deneb comes out looking good (Shanghai for that matter in server), AMDs marketing is already starting to do the pooch, by allowing these kinds of statements, as IF Deneb and Shanghai do perform well, they should try the catchy routine, or just stay quiet, and let those chips do the talking. Just because they may have entered back into competition, this kind of rhetoric wont go down well with people in the know
November 15, 2008 10:39:48 AM

caamsa said:
Quote:
If AMD marketed like Apple...
I agree with you 100% If you advertise and have a catchy tune or a funny commercial then you could sell dog crap to most people.


lol thats pretty much what apple do anyway. half their stuff you could take a dump in a case and you'd get better performance. (sorry people, had to work through primary school on a mac - 6 frustrating years of annoyance due to shoddy performance has lead to a deep deep hatred)
November 15, 2008 11:55:52 AM

Quote:
Tri channel runs the costs of the mobos up, plus the inevitable cost of having to use 50% more ram.... I havnt seen the tangible improvements in DT using tri channel.

You can buy just 2 sticks, and the chip will run dual channel.

The only costs are having your RAM in DDR3, and having to purchase an enthusiast board, if you adopt early. You know that with time, a budget platform will come out with dual-channel RAM and lower price chips, the same setup AMD uses. And as you said, dual-channel won't really hurt DT.

Quote:
AMD could make a CPU that's a speed demon.

If that's true, then they'd release it. Just like the FX days. You forget at least 1/4 of CPU buyers spend more than $180 on the CPU - that's the price of the Phenom 9950, AMD's current best chip. AMD would not willingly ignore that; they are desperate for sales. Must be a yield/stability issue.
November 15, 2008 12:25:19 PM

i7 is just something to put in the "car", I don't think intel is making a bid deal out of it really.
November 15, 2008 1:12:54 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Heres what I see i7 going against it. Tri channel, cost, true lack of improvement weve come to expect over previous gen. All three of these reasons are tied together, and unavoidable.

Tri channel runs the costs of the mobos up, plus the inevitable cost of having to use 50% more ram. Having to run all those traces on the tri channel mobos makes this again, unavoidable. I havnt seen the tangible improvements in DT using tri channel, correct me if Im wrong, but it seems aimed almost directly toward server. Even in a MT scenario, having each individual thread running faster is important, and i7 doesnt do alot here. Im NOT downing it, its just what I see.

.

Not going to dismantle your post jaydee because I think alot of your good points are taken out of context but the x58 is dual channel capable. Tri-channel would be the obvious best choice since the boards support it and someone going for the gold with multiple high end graphics cards would most likely go that route.
To me personally, the selling points of the i7 are the fact it is CF and SLI and from all indications it doesnt bottleneck the GPU capabilities. I would love to have one but I will wait to see some real world numbers, bugs worked out and not sell myself short and see what Deneb has to offer. You dont call the fight before both boxers are even in the ring.
November 15, 2008 1:28:16 PM

There's nothing that can touch nehalem in the server space. It's a monster.
November 15, 2008 1:34:40 PM

Does this mean therell be 2 channel only mobos? Cause, the real cost is all the tracings for tri channel, making them several layers than a dual channel board, and even less ram wont change the costs there
November 15, 2008 1:34:57 PM

Honestly, one of the dumbest purchases I have ever made was my E8600. Even at 4.8 Ghz, which I did have stable, I see no performance difference from my old E6750 @ 3.6 Ghz! Synthetic benchmarks will purr with my E8600, but I could really couldn't care less about synthetic benchmarks... I still think the E6750 was a great CPU and it did sell a lot. Back when I bought mine they were constantly out of stock, and the only way I could get one was in combination with a motherboard from Tigerdirect. Now, the E5200 is by far the greatest CPU on the market if you are even half price conscious. An $80 CPU with a 12.5 multiplier that overclocks nearly as well as an E8600 is just insane. I had one I built for a customer up to 4.5 Ghz! I think that i7 proves that Intel IS out of touch. We may pay for $1000 worth of an upgrade, but most wont. We need more E5200s that are amazing values and will perform with the high end with an easy overclock. We don't need an entire new and expensive platform with terribly slow DDR3 triple channel RAM. If AMD can produce a quad that is around the performance of a Q9550 and they market it for less than $250, then I will say that they have the right idea and are positioned correctly. It is not just the global recession that is a problem for Intel right now, though they love to blame their low estimates of profit on the recession. The problem is we don't NEED the Intel i7, there is absolutely nothing that requires that much performance at the moment, and there most likely wont be for a good while.
November 15, 2008 1:47:26 PM

I must say that i7 has potential for a gamer, at least its looking that way for CF/SLI setups, and possibly the newer faster singles coming next gen, i7 may show a nice boost.
This doesnt pertain to the vast majority of people out there, and from MY perpspective, i7 looks maybe good, but dont really know yet, as far as a overall gaming cpu, BUT overall big picture? I somewhat agree with you Raven, as average Joe just doesnt need all this power
November 15, 2008 1:51:57 PM

Hell, most gamers with less than $600 invested in graphics wont need anything more than an E5200 @ 4.0, it bridges the gap between the budget conscious and the enthusiast thanks to it's overclockability. Yes, with 3 GTX 280s overclocked you will see a performance difference with i7, you will get 80 average FPS instead of 60 average FPS....
November 15, 2008 1:55:53 PM

Its not the FPS for me.I like to play with the details maxed out at the highest resolution possible. I cant tell 70fps from 90fps but I like the eye candy.
November 15, 2008 2:03:59 PM

most games can be maxed out way before you need 3 GTX 280s, as a matter of fact I am not sure that they are even necessary...
November 15, 2008 2:06:19 PM

Well they arent mandatory lol. Most people dont need a car that can go over 55mph but the curb appeal of one that can do 160 is still there.
November 15, 2008 2:06:28 PM

But heres the thing. Until SW devs start making beter games, maybe VM and who knows what else, the cpus will be ready BUT waiting. I just read a comment about cpu mfrs battling to get to 32 cores, bot someone said, the REAL battle is the SW devs coming up with uses for them. Right now, we arent done with fastest, but have squeezed it pretty hard for perf, and were on the edge of wider, multi cored cpus, but currently, most SW gains little from either scenario, mostly faster, but then again, people are all b#$%^&*( about how huge their apps are, and how much of a resource hog theyve become, whether its a OS or a AV, but in order to use this power, well only need more, but currently, for the most part HW is waiting on SW, in huge ways
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!