Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

It looks as if AMD did a price cut as well

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 20, 2009 9:30:09 AM

Also there are some great mobo / CPU combo bundles on offer - you can get a PhII 940 and your selection of top mobo's for under $340 - like to see i7 come close to that
January 20, 2009 9:41:02 AM

blackpanther26 said:
The Phenom II 920 sells for $195 now and the Phenom II 940 sells for $235 on Newegg.com.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343%201050746347&name=Phenom%20II%20X4


I was going to buy an upgrade now with Intel i7 or C2Q but with this price cut i'll have to reconsider again if the price reduction is worth to loose some performance but reduce also the upgrade cost. Another thing is that the i7 motherboard costs are too high.

Related resources
January 20, 2009 10:26:59 AM

powerbaselx said:
I was going to buy an upgrade now with Intel i7 or C2Q but with this price cut i'll have to reconsider again if the price reduction is worth to loose some performance but reduce also the upgrade cost. Another thing is that the i7 motherboard costs are too high.


Go on... You know this combo makes sense... http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...
January 20, 2009 10:48:14 AM

jamesgoddard said:
Also there are some great mobo / CPU combo bundles on offer - you can get a PhII 940 and your selection of top mobo's for under $340 - like to see i7 come close to that


Wonder how those AM3 boards will fare.
January 20, 2009 10:57:53 AM

pr2thej said:
Wonder how those AM3 boards will fare.


I don't see there being a price primium for AM3 boards - because most of the current chipsets that support AM2+ will support AM3...

i7 costs because Intel charge a huge premium for the x58 setup - it's not due to mobo makers - there will never be 'cheap' i7 platforms due to this...
January 20, 2009 11:00:31 AM

There is the whole DDR3 business though, surely thats going to pump the price of the AM3 mobos? Or is DDR3 just not a necessity for PII?
January 20, 2009 11:05:52 AM

It's not going to affect the mobo price, at all, as the only differences between an AM2+ and an AM3 mobo is a different memory socket, and slightly different voltage and memory traces between CPU and memory..

The reason i7 mobos are expensive (really expensive) is more do do with Intel milking the profit out of x58.

And also - DDR3 prices are coming down all the time - I believe DDR3 1066 spot prices are at parity with DDR2 800 now...


January 20, 2009 11:06:55 AM

Oh and - as we can see from all the current PhII systems running happy on DDR2 - no DDR3 is not a necessity... But it will probably bring 5% or so performance.
January 20, 2009 12:06:41 PM

that's great news ..
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2009 1:06:43 PM

jamesgoddard said:
It's not going to affect the mobo price, at all, as the only differences between an AM2+ and an AM3 mobo is a different memory socket, and slightly different voltage and memory traces between CPU and memory..

The reason i7 mobos are expensive (really expensive) is more do do with Intel milking the profit out of x58.

And also - DDR3 prices are coming down all the time - I believe DDR3 1066 spot prices are at parity with DDR2 800 now...



link please?
January 20, 2009 1:23:22 PM

DDR3 is looking damn pricey in the UK, i just checked it out.
6GB DDR3, £130 odd....same brand / range @ DDR2 just happens to be on a £34 special today, reduced from £40. For arguments sake, 4GB DDR3 £95ish.


So....AM3 comes out, x58 margins get slimmed?
January 20, 2009 2:28:20 PM

BadTrip said:
link please?


To what part are you looking for?
January 20, 2009 2:37:37 PM

good find! thanks for sharing.

I was going to build a new gaming system, and I might have to have a second look at AMD.


Thanks again.
January 20, 2009 2:55:44 PM

Why is everyone comparing phenom II with icore7? It really should be compared to the ~Q9550. This is a similar price point and what it really is competing at.
January 20, 2009 2:59:54 PM

Given the fact of the price drops I wish I would of waited a two weeks to get the 940 Dragon. Oh well still a good processor, I am at 3.6ghz @ 1.38 volts stable...
January 20, 2009 5:08:36 PM

runmymouth said:
Why is everyone comparing phenom II with icore7? It really should be compared to the ~Q9550. This is a similar price point and what it really is competing at.


Because performance is close enough to make the price differencial between a i7 and PhII important
January 20, 2009 5:36:34 PM

I am just saying that the same comparison can be made with the Q9550 which costs the same as the low end icore, and the phII. The Icore is way ahead of both in many areas but where a lot of hardware fanatics are, gaming, there is not much benefit to icore7, so that makes people look at the E8600 or Q9550 which is related in price and performance to the phII.
January 20, 2009 5:40:21 PM

jamesgoddard said:
Because performance is close enough to make the price differencial between a i7 and PhII important


Actually, the P2 is closer in performance to the Yorkies than the i7's. i7 is thrown out there often to underscore what a great deal it is but in truth, it is competing with the Yorkfield, not the i7. You compare the Yorkie and the P2 side by side price wise, it doesn't have that "dramatic" effect as comparing it to the niche market CPU.
January 20, 2009 10:19:36 PM

@ runmymouth

Stop calling the core i7 an "icore7", its not made by Apple!
January 21, 2009 12:44:59 PM

Quote:
@ runmymouth

Stop calling the core i7 an "icore7", its not made by Apple!

isnt everything i-name? Just how I remember it but you are correct sir.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 21, 2009 1:13:40 PM

jamesgoddard said:
To what part are you looking for?


The part where you somehow know exactally how much Intel is charging for the X58 chipsets since you seem to have the inside knowledge that no one else does....

BTW, $200 bucks for a X58 mobo thats still pretty damn new with full 2x PCIe 2.0 slots is not that bad. And thats the price all high end mobos come out at. Look at the X48 mobos. They came out pretty high priced too (about $300) but some now are sub $200.

runmymouth said:
I am just saying that the same comparison can be made with the Q9550 which costs the same as the low end icore, and the phII. The Icore is way ahead of both in many areas but where a lot of hardware fanatics are, gaming, there is not much benefit to icore7, so that makes people look at the E8600 or Q9550 which is related in price and performance to the phII.


I will agree with you in single card gaming but multi card gaming is a whole nother realm.

As for the comparison, not sure why people don't take the Q9550 into account. Its shown it easily performs on par if not better than a Ph II 940 and thats with a lower clock too.

nsimo86 said:
@ runmymouth

Stop calling the core i7 an "icore7", its not made by Apple!


Apple only wishes they made a product that could actually compete against their competitor.

Sorrry. Just had to take the shot at Apple.

BTW.... what ever happened to the bitten Apple symbol? Seems to be hiding these days.
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2009 3:26:05 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Apple only wishes they made a product that could actually compete against their competitor.

Sorrry. Just had to take the shot at Apple.

BTW.... what ever happened to the bitten Apple symbol? Seems to be hiding these days.

Apple seems to be having a few problems.
You probably saw this
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Apple-Display-Port-DVI-Dist...

and then of course is the problem with Steve Jobs leaving because of health problems.
Plus Apple got hit with a few lawsuits about the displays in their iMac line.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/01/05/apple_sue...

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/31/apple_hit...

On the bright side for Apple are the Mac fanatics who will pay ANYTHING at ANY PRICE for Apple products and accessories.

This is one area in which AMD could take quite an advantage with their graphic card line.
See this Apple fanatic who has paid $210 for a Mac version of an ATI 3870 card
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFWjNJjCD6A
IF AMD made a Mac version of a ATI 4870X2 they could sell it at a huge profit to MacPro users.
January 21, 2009 3:32:21 PM

intel has always charged a premium for their premium chipset. Their are hundreds of reports, articles even quotes from motherboard manufacturers to verify this.

here's one.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=263...

another

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/7702-intel-reveals-p43-ch...

another

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/30/intel_chipset_p...



My cursory example shows that intel does charge a premium for its newer chipsets, but I was surprised to learn that they are only a small part of the price difference. The combination of "new", features such as included e-sata controllers, raid controllers, firewire, triple and quad 16 / 8X pci-e leads me to believe that the motherboard makers, marketing and intel marketing altogether result in the high priced new tech motherboard prices.

I personally cannot justify $250 to $300 for a motherboard when a P45 with all the features I need and a Q9550 cost hundreds less and comes with performance 10 to 20% of the i7 and is still VERY FAST!

Unless you are running a workstation for video editing, modeling, engineering, science etc., the absolute cutting edge system is simply not the best performance for the dollar.

Even then, you are probably better of with that Q9550 or Phenom II 940 and getting a render farm for the video editing, or sharing a CAD system for heavy crunching with other engineers and then run your own stuff on the main stream hardware.

Hey, I'm just glad we have such powerful machines at such reasonable prices! Can you imagine running an HD Media center PC on a $39 dual core AM2 X2 cpu on integrated 790G video for $80 without AMD? intel would never have gotten there without them. We would be running 4 Ghz PIV's or worse Itanium derivatives that use 300 watts each had AMD not been there to push intel.

Buy the good AMD tech when you can to keep them alive, but just like me, you have to do what's best for your household, business, employer etc. I run both and I'm pleasantly surprised with values from both companies.
January 21, 2009 4:20:13 PM

weinheimer said:
intel has always charged a premium for their premium chipset. Their are hundreds of reports, articles even quotes from motherboard manufacturers to verify this.

here's one.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=263...



OK, I read your 1st link.........

$38 for Entry Level Chipset.
$50 for the Top-End 975x Chipset..........

So where is the Gouging for the High-End Chipset? $12?????

I saw links saying the x58 chipset was actually cheaper than the x48 Chipset, but all the sources point to the same rumor and I could not find an offical price sheet.

The $40 Discount does make the Chip a reasonable option vs some of the Intel 775 Quad Options, until you find a Sale on them. (Fry's has great deals all the Time on Intel CPUs - NewEgg Very Rarely.)
January 21, 2009 4:20:21 PM

weinheimer said:
I personally cannot justify $250 to $300 for a motherboard when a P45 with all the features I need and a Q9550 cost hundreds less and comes with performance 10 to 20% of the i7 and is still VERY FAST!

Unless you are running a workstation for video editing, modeling, engineering, science etc., the absolute cutting edge system is simply not the best performance for the dollar.


Very Fast but already behind next generation performance which you already have nowadays with i7. Video Editing and format conversion (e.g. DVD to DIV/X) is not so unusual these days, takes a lot of time and in these fields i7 has performances above 20% over C2Q or AMD PII.

So in a year time from now, C2Q and today PII will be mainstream and in 3 years they will be outdated. But this happens with all CPUs so what i7 assures you is at maximum 1 more year in this lifecycle.

I'm pretty sure that i7 will loose focus when 32nm CPUs come out with a integrated PCIe controller...

The rest is pretty much about personal preference on a brand, usage and/or money willing to spend.
January 21, 2009 4:23:12 PM

Oh and I just found this for the AMD Fans.......

"Use $15 promo code AMD1815 so the 920 is $180 and 940 is $220. "
Not sure if its still valid, but that info was from a couple days ago.
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2009 5:10:06 PM

Yay, maybe I won't wait till next month to upgrade my CPU after all. I was already thinking about upgrading the RAM with DDR2 1066 being much more affordable now. I need to spend some of the money I've been saving on my car though, it's time for a paint job, so we'll see what I got left over after that and I pay some bills.

As for AM3 its suppose to have a faster Hyper Transport speed. I wouldn't be surprised though to see the first AM3 boards using 790 chipsets though as they will only require slight modification for AIBs and I'm sure the newer chipsets will demand a small premium for the increased hyper transport speed.
January 21, 2009 8:02:30 PM

I agree, these prices are phenominal, but Intel isnt charging more for the mobos because of the chipset. Tho the chipset may be more expensive, unless you want to do alot of video/audio encoding, and need xf or sli, as most of the Intel 58 mobos are, and unless you have a need for tri channel memory, then i7 isnt for you. All these things are what increases the costs on those mobos, and in a way, it is Intels fault for setting it up this way, but its not that theyre overpriced, its that they have all those features.
For gaming, the P2 and the i920 are close, and really dont merit the price difference, but at most everything else, the i920 does merit its costs, if the user actually has those needs.
Anyways, good job AMD, finally something for the folks
January 21, 2009 9:28:14 PM

The truth is that currently 99% of gamers don't need anything over PII 3.0 GHz, because even with 4870 all games (EVEN Crysis) are GPU limited. That means AMD are back in the game because now, what really matters are all CPU's down of PII 940/ Q9400. Anything else is for enthusiasts and they are probably under 2% of all gamers

I am eagerly expecting the AM3 phenoms as there will be a whole bunch of new CPUs which will slam in the current mess and probably dump the prices even more. Also you will be have a LOT more choice than now, because you will have competition for a broad range of gamers.

My brother just bought a PII 940 and even on stock settings with 4870 he is GPU limited already on all games , and even Crysis on VERY HIGH runs around 30 FPS on native (1680x1050). And he is also able to clock it to 3.6GHz with minimal effort.

I doubt he (as gamer) will need new CPU in the next 2 years, when probably the Buldozer will be already out. I am expecting new price wars, which of course is good for us ;) 

Enjoy
January 22, 2009 2:51:06 AM

jj463rd said:
This is one area in which AMD could take quite an advantage with their graphic card line.
See this Apple fanatic who has paid $210 for a Mac version of an ATI 3870 card
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFWjNJjCD6A
IF AMD made a Mac version of a ATI 4870X2 they could sell it at a huge profit to MacPro users.


Ick... that guy looks like more a heroin fanatic than a Mac fanatic.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 22, 2009 3:12:46 AM

weinheimer said:
Hey, I'm just glad we have such powerful machines at such reasonable prices! Can you imagine running an HD Media center PC on a $39 dual core AM2 X2 cpu on integrated 790G video for $80 without AMD? intel would never have gotten there without them. We would be running 4 Ghz PIV's or worse Itanium derivatives that use 300 watts each had AMD not been there to push intel.


No one doubts that we would have better prices only with AMD there. But are you seriously dissing Itanium that would have pushed us more into the 64bit computing era and is a much more efficient 64bit CPU than what we currently have with x86-64?

The thing is that Itanium was full fledged 64bit. It had 32bit emulation but was made for 64bit. Hence why it is still around and being sold for that specific purpose (to 64bit only servers and such). Because it is a better 64bit architecture.
January 22, 2009 3:44:04 AM

jimmysmitty said:
No one doubts that we would have better prices only with AMD there. But are you seriously dissing Itanium that would have pushed us more into the 64bit computing era and is a much more efficient 64bit CPU than what we currently have with x86-64?

The thing is that Itanium was full fledged 64bit. It had 32bit emulation but was made for 64bit. Hence why it is still around and being sold for that specific purpose (to 64bit only servers and such). Because it is a better 64bit architecture.


Heh, I was just thinking about how much AMD screwed over 64-bit computing the other day. Meh.
January 22, 2009 11:34:01 AM

http://xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20090121052847_AMD...

If AMD really did slash the prices to those levels, I think they finally have a product I would consider.

The 920 is now close enough to the Q6600 with which in in performance par with that I would select it due to the lower power requirements. (Not TDPwise, but actual usage.)

January 22, 2009 12:27:47 PM

Quote:
Wow a Deneb 3ghz and a 790GX mobo for the same price as a i7 920, and can use DDR2. Those will fly off the shelves and force intel to drop the i7 prices. Wow, AMD is getting aggressive.


Not Really, The Phenom II is a Core2Quad competitor, not i7.
Pricing there is about the same with the lower end onese cheaper than PII and the higher end ones more expensive. The PIIs fall in the middle performancewise between the low and high-end Core2Quads.
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2009 1:17:19 PM

jimmysmitty said:
No one doubts that we would have better prices only with AMD there. But are you seriously dissing Itanium that would have pushed us more into the 64bit computing era and is a much more efficient 64bit CPU than what we currently have with x86-64?

The thing is that Itanium was full fledged 64bit. It had 32bit emulation but was made for 64bit. Hence why it is still around and being sold for that specific purpose (to 64bit only servers and such). Because it is a better 64bit architecture.


It's amazing how miss informed some people can be. Native 64 bit arch was in theory a good thing. However we have lazy people known as software designers who don't wanna learn anything new. That's why AMD made AMD64 ~ because software coders couldn't be bothered to make code for a special arch. There are thosands or even millions of unique Windows programs... only a small percent need to do the job of the native 64 bit server...
January 22, 2009 1:33:55 PM

amdfangirl - its not so simple as you think :) 

I am software developer and I can tell you that for some application like Java or .NET the migration to 64bit is fairly easy as you only need to rebuild the app. But its never so simple. Most of the applications use controls and components which are not nesesarily managed code. They need code changes and some times providers are not so fast in rewriting to 64 bit. Also all other applications that are not managed must be rewritten to some extend. Thus creating an complicated problem of anyone needing anyone to rewrite its code.

When you depend on so many things and even 1 of them is not provided to you in 64 bit you dont have a choice but either change controls/components (which costs money) or write them yourself (time AND money)

64 bit will eventually come, but it needs pushing. Microsoft said that Vista will be last OS supporting 32 bit but as I see Windows 7 still support 32 bit. So I guess 64 bit is once again delayed

January 22, 2009 2:56:29 PM

rawsteel said:
amdfangirl - its not so simple as you think :) 

I am software developer and I can tell you that for some application like Java or .NET the migration to 64bit is fairly easy as you only need to rebuild the app. But its never so simple. Most of the applications use controls and components which are not nesesarily managed code. They need code changes and some times providers are not so fast in rewriting to 64 bit. Also all other applications that are not managed must be rewritten to some extend. Thus creating an complicated problem of anyone needing anyone to rewrite its code.

When you depend on so many things and even 1 of them is not provided to you in 64 bit you dont have a choice but either change controls/components (which costs money) or write them yourself (time AND money)

64 bit will eventually come, but it needs pushing. Microsoft said that Vista will be last OS supporting 32 bit but as I see Windows 7 still support 32 bit. So I guess 64 bit is once again delayed


The other issue is "Legacy Software".
Most companies have software they use to run their business that is not easy to replace and often no longer even maintained by the company that wrote it, if they are even in business.

As a result moving from an x86 to Itanium version of Windows which had limited x86 emulation was not an easy process.

It's one thing for a person to update all of their apps.
Its quite another for a business.

It's often a Chicken and the Egg Thing....

"People run Windows because all of the software requires Windows but the Software requires Windows because that is what people use."

This basic reason is why the Itanium version of Windows did not fly well. The Software would have required re-writing. But why would you re-write it if there was a small user base. But the User Base will not grow until the software is written....
January 22, 2009 3:29:59 PM

zenmaster said:
The other issue is "Legacy Software".
Most companies have software they use to run their business that is not easy to replace and often no longer even maintained by the company that wrote it, if they are even in business.

As a result moving from an x86 to Itanium version of Windows which had limited x86 emulation was not an easy process.

It's one thing for a person to update all of their apps.
Its quite another for a business.

It's often a Chicken and the Egg Thing....

"People run Windows because all of the software requires Windows but the Software requires Windows because that is what people use."

This basic reason is why the Itanium version of Windows did not fly well. The Software would have required re-writing. But why would you re-write it if there was a small user base. But the User Base will not grow until the software is written....



Exactly ;) 
January 22, 2009 8:11:36 PM

blackpanther26 said:
The Phenom II 920 sells for $195 now and the Phenom II 940 sells for $235 on Newegg.com.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343%201050746347&name=Phenom%20II%20X4



Yep, I'm conflicted. Not over Phenom II vs. Core 2 or whatever. My big decision is should I wait for AM3 or upgrade when the income tax arrives?

I need 6 months income saved up (just in case, so no $1000 upgrades) but I can afford a processor in two weeks and a new GPU in June. Just no major overhauls, which makes me lean to a Phenom II 940 for the price that only bought a 920 a week or so ago.

Just hope AMD has good yields and overpriced anticipating Intel price cuts. I want them to have enough cash to move to the next architecture in 2010.


January 22, 2009 8:51:18 PM

yipsl said:
Yep, I'm conflicted. Not over Phenom II vs. Core 2 or whatever. My big decision is should I wait for AM3 or upgrade when the income tax arrives?

I need 6 months income saved up (just in case, so no $1000 upgrades) but I can afford a processor in two weeks and a new GPU in June. Just no major overhauls, which makes me lean to a Phenom II 940 for the price that only bought a 920 a week or so ago.

Just hope AMD has good yields and overpriced anticipating Intel price cuts. I want them to have enough cash to move to the next architecture in 2010.


The 940 is worth the cash is only for the unlocked multi
January 22, 2009 8:53:14 PM

I bought a 940 and paid $300. I was happy with it at that price but a week later at $240, you get alot of bang for your buck. While I did notice a slight improvement in games (which werent running bad on my X2 6000+) the biggest difference is in multi-tasking. Right now I have outlook, yahoo messenger, utorrent, aim, media center (watching live tv), playing video with media player, playing music with itunes, am browsing the web and have alot of other small things running and my processor usage is generally staying at 08-15% Just getting everything reinstalled on my machine so havent tried any video editing or more processor intense stuff that much but so far the processor has definitely lived up to what I was expecting and had been waiting for since Dec 07 when I built my rig.
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2009 11:40:13 PM

rawsteel said:
amdfangirl - its not so simple as you think :) 

I am software developer and I can tell you that for some application like Java or .NET the migration to 64bit is fairly easy as you only need to rebuild the app. But its never so simple. Most of the applications use controls and components which are not nesesarily managed code. They need code changes and some times providers are not so fast in rewriting to 64 bit. Also all other applications that are not managed must be rewritten to some extend. Thus creating an complicated problem of anyone needing anyone to rewrite its code.

When you depend on so many things and even 1 of them is not provided to you in 64 bit you dont have a choice but either change controls/components (which costs money) or write them yourself (time AND money)

64 bit will eventually come, but it needs pushing. Microsoft said that Vista will be last OS supporting 32 bit but as I see Windows 7 still support 32 bit. So I guess 64 bit is once again delayed


I'm more a art enthusiast than a computer one, just ask me about painting techniques and etc.

I'm not sure about you software devs but is coding for different CPU archs different or hard?

From what I know a 64 bit Itatium is different to a 64 bit Athlon X2.

Its alot about software devs who don't recode their software for newer platforms... not everyone uses Java or .Net.

Well I suppose it depends on M$, since the 64 bit version can actually run 32 bit code because of the x86-64 extension on most modern processors. I don't see the whole point of having a native 32bit kernel. I don't see the point in making a 32 bit windows 7 if windows vista can execute all the 32bit they want.
January 23, 2009 1:58:26 PM

Its not the best source, but
:The question is how low Intel can go with its Core 2 prices as AMD is offering similar or same clocked quad-cores for almost the same money and at least in some cases, quad-core will pay off. If we look in our crystal ball we believe than AMD will lead Intel to even bigger losses in 2009, as it's pricing is much less than many expected. "
From FUaD http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...
January 23, 2009 2:09:02 PM

rawsteel said:


64 bit will eventually come, but it needs pushing. Microsoft said that Vista will be last OS supporting 32 bit but as I see Windows 7 still support 32 bit. So I guess 64 bit is once again delayed


Yes we can blame Microsoft and Intel's IGP division for two things:

1. A reluctance to really ditch 32 bit even though memory prices are quite low.

2. Windows Vista Home Basic, which even Microsoft's Windows development team documents didn't want marketed as Vista (but simply as Windows).

I was going to go 64 bit with Vista but made the mistake of not going there. I'll definitely go 64 bit with Windows 7. My wife kvetches about needing more RAM for modding games and graphics programs, but she's worried about XP 64 mucking with the compatibility of her older programs like Morrowind.

So, I"ll go 8 gigs with Vista 64 and a Phenom 940 and see if I can convince her.

jamesgoddard said:
The 940 is worth the cash is only for the unlocked multi


I could get a good cooler and see how it goes. My case has enough cooling, but I don't know how well this board with the SB700 overclocks. I expect that 3 gigahertz would be enough for now anyway, considering the IPC improvements over my triple core (plus the extra core).

Can't wait to finally get my dead 3870x2 back from Newegg. I decided to try everything MSI tech support recommended but it's dead in the water. Could have sent it back weeks ago, but LOTRO's the only game I'm playing and it does okay with my IGP. I doubt I got Crossfire support anyways.

Almost bought a 4850 but canceled the order an hour later. New cards are due in June and I don't have time to play anything but LOTRO. Does anyone else consider that MMO's might be the bane of PC gaming? Since I started playing LOTRO, I've only bought one single player CRPG (The Witcher), but I play LOTRO for up to 8 hours on my days off. My wife plays too.

February 6th, I'll order that 940. I'd pay for overnight shipping but Newegg doesn't do next day Saturday deliveries.

January 23, 2009 4:39:10 PM

I dont think mmo's are bad for pc gaming. There will always be a home on the pc for real time strategy and shooters (especially since they've become popular on consoles as well). And I also think that for the most part, people who play MMOs and those who play FPS dont overlap much anyways.
January 23, 2009 5:15:07 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Its not the best source, but
:The question is how low Intel can go with its Core 2 prices as AMD is offering similar or same clocked quad-cores for almost the same money and at least in some cases, quad-core will pay off. If we look in our crystal ball we believe than AMD will lead Intel to even bigger losses in 2009, as it's pricing is much less than many expected. "
From FUaD http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...


there may or may not be any shred of reality come from that claim but as you said, it isn't a good source. i think its a little fanboi optimism on their part but its inevitable AMD will be more of a presence in the market if they don't shoot themselves in the foot again. large orders ON TIME and fairly consistent performance in batches and they will grab some market. they have to really have their supply chain tweaked or they will grind themselves into dust without anyone's doing but their own.
January 23, 2009 9:55:54 PM

nsimo86 said:
I dont think mmo's are bad for pc gaming. There will always be a home on the pc for real time strategy and shooters (especially since they've become popular on consoles as well). And I also think that for the most part, people who play MMOs and those who play FPS dont overlap much anyways.



That's true. The only FPS I've ever owned are the following: Wolfenstein 3D (because killing Nazis is just too cool) and a used copy of Far Cry which I didn't play very far into. My wife didn't want a game with guns around while our son's in elementary school. She doesn't mind magic and hack and slash, but guns are too real world.

Playing LOTRO has impacted my purchase of CRPG's, but there haven't been too many good fantasy one's lately. I can only play The Witcher late on Saturday nights and haven't finished it yet, but it's quite good. Of course I won't even go back to it until I get the 3870x2 back from Newegg. Should have tried them instead of MSI in the first place.
January 23, 2009 10:25:51 PM

How do you like LOTRO? When I first heard about it years ago, I was really excited about it and wanted to try it. Then WoW took off and it seemed to me that a lot of the people who shouldve been playing LOTRO were playing WoW instead and it deterred me from ever trying it. Now warhammer is out and is very intriguing (I briefly played the tabletop game). Basically I'm afraid I'll get sucked into a MMO and it'll consume my life.

Also I've become addicted to CS 1.6 again due to the gun game mod. I have all these new games like L4D, crysis, and bioshock, yet I spend 10+ hours a week playing CS...Not exactly pushing my phenom 2 and crossfired 4850s to their limits!
!