Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

NewEgg still wants $245 for the AMD 965.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 11, 2009 2:20:12 AM

Well well ... the specs are in for INTELs new i5 ... and they walk-all-over the AMD-965. But, NewEgg is stone-walling the 965-price. Still $245. Should be abput $180. For how long can they do this without selling the AMD part?

Or will they just drop-the-part outa spite ! PAY INTEL WHAT THOU OWEST !!!

More about : newegg 245 amd 965

a b à CPUs
September 11, 2009 2:47:44 AM

The i5 does not walk all over the 965. And retailers dont adjust prices due to how well or bad the competing company's chips are. The chip makers do that.

Stop this Intel fanboy nonsense.
September 11, 2009 2:53:42 AM

+1 to someguy7's post, seems lots of Intel fan boys are popping up.
Related resources
September 11, 2009 3:02:58 AM

+2

the i5 doesn't walk all over the 965
and i still think that's great performance for $245 considering that all the other existing hardware needed is cheap
September 11, 2009 3:06:03 AM

+3 enough said.
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2009 3:07:36 AM

IMHO I never would recommend the 965. The price premium over the 955 was just not worth it to me. Maybe if the person was not going to overclock....

Best solution

a b à CPUs
September 11, 2009 3:12:10 AM
Share

Quote:
The I5 walks all over the 965. 22 out of 25 tests in a and a tech's comparo. Love all the amd fanboi's thinking the 965 isn't a piece of *** when in reality it is.

The 965 has a 700mhz advantage in clock speed over the 750 and it STILL gets beaten down by the 750. Cry for us Amd Fanboi's :lol: 



Clock speed is irrelevant. It may technically win most of those benchmarks but get out of here with that walks all over it nonsense.
September 11, 2009 3:37:00 AM

Quote:
The I5 walks all over the 965. 22 out of 25 tests in a and a tech's comparo. Love all the amd fanboi's thinking the 965 isn't a piece of *** when in reality it is.

The 965 has a 700mhz advantage in clock speed over the 750 and it STILL gets beaten down by the 750. Cry for us Amd Fanboi's :lol: 



speaking of fan boys........ :pfff: 
September 11, 2009 4:05:46 AM

Did u ever here that sayin, dont feed the troll? When then guys "dont feed the troll"!
Lol
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2009 4:11:20 AM

Easy. Clock speed means nothing between to different archs.. If one has a 700mhz clock speed advantage and it is competing in the same market segment as the lower clocked cpu that is what matters. The AMD has a higher base black. The Intel has turbo/HT.. well not in the case of the I5. Point is you compare cpus/systems that cost about the same to build and see whats better.

"The 965 has a 700mhz advantage in clock speed over the 750 and it STILL gets beaten down" Keep in mind that turbo will make up alot of the 700mhz anyways.
September 11, 2009 4:13:31 AM

I need some trools for my aquarium. Any good trool interested?
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 11, 2009 6:07:43 AM

Doesn't the I5 "Turbo" up to 3.2Ghz for most of those tests that it is compared to a 3.4Ghz Phenom II? Not to much of a clock speed difference there.

Yeah I agree the I5 is better, but it doesn't really walk all over the Phenom II. However the Phenom II does need a price cut now that the I5 was released. It's a matter of when AMD does the cut, not the retailer.
September 11, 2009 6:19:39 AM

I am running the 940 b.e. and it is not a piece of $hit so I really doubt the 965 is either. beat down, walked all over, lol.
September 11, 2009 7:27:25 AM

Whaaa?

I quote from Tom's article...

"The engineering sample we're using runs at 2.66 GHz by default and supports a single bin of Turbo Boost acceleration, locking it in at 2.8 GHz."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-lynnfield,2...

For a cpu rated at 2.66 ghz and binned by the turbo at 2.8 ghz, yeah, that's called walking all over the amd offering especially since it's priced lower. Hmmm, the AMD is more expensive, less performance, clocked 700 mhz higher, meaning less room for overclocking and I ain't going to get into detail with overclocking... Overall, this has got to be the worst beatdown I've seen in the cpu market yet.

Not only did you people count you chickens before they hatched, you tried to count the eggs before they were layed... Not good at all...

@Someguy

I suppose your a novice and never heard of overclocking.

@psychosaysdie

They just don't get it do they?...
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 11, 2009 7:46:03 AM

threednonsense said:
Whaaa?

I quote from Tom's article...

"The engineering sample we're using runs at 2.66 GHz by default and supports a single bin of Turbo Boost acceleration, locking it in at 2.8 GHz."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-lynnfield,2...

For a cpu rated at 2.66 ghz and binned by the turbo at 2.8 ghz, yeah, that's called walking all over the amd offering especially since it's priced lower. Hmmm, the AMD is more expensive, less performance, clocked 700 mhz higher, meaning less room for overclocking and I ain't going to get into detail with overclocking... Overall, this has got to be the worst beatdown I've seen in the cpu market yet.

Not only did you people count you chickens before they hatched, you tried to count the eggs before they were layed... Not good at all...

@Someguy

I suppose your a novice and never heard of overclocking.

@psychosaysdie

They just don't get it do they?...


LMAO Did you even read that article. All 4 processors at clocked at 2.8Ghz, that is not a 2.8Ghz I5 walking all over a 3.4Ghz Phenom II.
September 11, 2009 8:36:49 AM

loneninja said:
LMAO Did you even read that article. All 4 processors at clocked at 2.8Ghz, that is not a 2.8Ghz I5 walking all over a 3.4Ghz Phenom II.


Yeah, I did, but obviously you didn't because I don't see no 965 Deneb in that article. I don't see what's so funny either.
September 11, 2009 3:32:04 PM

I just have to laugh at the statements being made about the I5's beating down the Phenom II's. MY PII does everything I need it to do, runs very stable at 3.6 ghz, is a great processor for my gaming rig and who cares about some bench marks, I care about real world performance and the Phenom II's handle that just fine. To say that the Phenom II's are a $hit processor is just a pure fanboy statement.

Looking at the new release on the 1156 socket's for Intel also makes me laugh, because they are releasing this as a main stream product line, and yet looking at the price's for the I7 860 and 870 your looking at $300-580 dollars just to get into there main stream products plateform. Looks like just another socket release from Intel to get you money. Don't get me wrong, sure the bench's look good for the new I5's and I7's on the 1156 socket. However, we all know that Intel does well on alot of the benchs compared to AMD, to base a purchase based only on Benchs, is just a waste of money. I will stick with my Phenom II 940 b.e. at 3.6ghz and wait for the 5800's cards to come out and really upgrade my build when they do.

If all you fanboys want to give Evil Intel (the evil empire) your money, then please feel free to do so.

AMD for life! :sarcastic: 
September 11, 2009 3:33:09 PM

Quote:
Glad someone could see the truth.


WEll -- comparing the new i5 & old BE.965 perhaps I shouldn't have said "walks all over..." but something kinder like: GROUND INTO THE DUST ... or "MARINATED, GRILLED and EATEN. hehehe

But really ... my question is one of "timing". As an occasional builder I will NOT jump on the unscrubbed i5 platform ; only kids can tolerate that pain! My fav Ubuntu OS will do just fine with MSI_G70/ AMD_965/nv_260 supercomputer kit. In the ol'-dayz I did polymer-folding simulations on an < APPLE2+ > ... the moden x4 kit is all very impressive.

So .... when will AMD gag-N-bag da price on its BE_965 ??


September 11, 2009 3:38:40 PM

nss000 said:
WEll -- comparing the new i5 & old BE.965 perhaps I shouldn't have said "walks all over..." but something kinder like: GROUND INTO THE DUST ... or "MARINATED, GRILLED and EATEN. hehehe

But really ... my question is one of "timing". As an occasional builder I will NOT jump on the unscrubbed i5 platform ; only kids can tolerate that pain! My fav Ubuntu OS will do just fine with MSI_G70/ AMD_965/nv_260 supercomputer kit. In the ol'-dayz I did polymer-folding simulations on an < APPLE2+ > ... the moden x4 kit is all very impressive.

So .... when will AMD gag-N-bag da price on its BE_965 ??




Who cares about the price on the 965. Atleast AMD doesn't try to charge $580-$1000 dollars for there flagship processor, and release the same processors at lower clocks(2.66ghz) for $300 dollars, knowing that you can just OC it to the performance level of there flagship processor. If I wasn't happy with my rig, I would just buy a 955 B.E. and call it a day, at $185 dollars looks like a very good deal to me.
September 11, 2009 3:43:26 PM

I would say "walk all over" wouldn't be accurate. However, the i5 is faster than the 965BE in most benchmarks. It's also only 95 watts. The 965BE does have the unlocked multi, but it doesn't have much headroom because of its stock 140W rating.

I do agree that prices drops are in order. I think $190-200 should be the range for the 965BE.

Until AMD drops their prices NewEgg will probably have to stay higher with less volume so they don't eat a loss.
September 11, 2009 3:44:31 PM

medjohnson77 said:
Who cares about the price on the 965. Atleast AMD doesn't try to charge $580-$1000 dollars for there flagship processor, and release the same processors at lower clocks(2.66ghz) for $300 dollars, knowing that you can just OC it to the performance level of there flagship processor. If I wasn't happy with my rig, I would just buy a 955 B.E. and call it a day, at $185 dollars looks like a very good deal to me.


You do know that back in the day AMD used to charge $1000 for their flagship desktop parts, right?

They don't do it now because they simply can't, their processors aren't good enough.
September 11, 2009 4:15:53 PM

I believe back in the day any company that produced computer parts charged high prices for there products. I understand that all companys have done it, My dad payed around $700 dollars for a Kaypro II computer and thought he got good deal back in 92.

I think the point I was making is that to say any of the Intel line at this point in time grinds, smacks, etc. etc. AMD's Phenom II's line up is just something a fanboy would say. Like I have said in the real world, Phenom II's are a very good processor, and handle everything that can be thrown at them. Just as the I5's and the I7's and the core2quads, and core2D are very good processors, Software, and most games are so far behind the hardware right now, I don't think we will see most hardware can really do until they catch up. If all these processors handle every thing thrown at them very well, who cares if one line or the other gets 10 more frame rates, or a 10-15% better bench mark score. Given the way the Phenom II's perform, I believe AMD is and has been giving us very good offerings at a reasonable price. Can one really look at Intels offerings and there $300-580 dollar pricing for there new main stream processors over others and say the same? I believe the only reason Intel is still charging these kinda price's is because there's people buying them. So keep buying them, and get that extra 15% of bench mark performance so that way Intel will continue to charge $580 bucks for a main stream processor. If AMD did the same right now, I would not be bying there processors.
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2009 4:23:16 PM

threednonsense said:
Whaaa?

I quote from Tom's article...

"The engineering sample we're using runs at 2.66 GHz by default and supports a single bin of Turbo Boost acceleration, locking it in at 2.8 GHz."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-lynnfield,2...

For a cpu rated at 2.66 ghz and binned by the turbo at 2.8 ghz, yeah, that's called walking all over the amd offering especially since it's priced lower. Hmmm, the AMD is more expensive, less performance, clocked 700 mhz higher, meaning less room for overclocking and I ain't going to get into detail with overclocking... Overall, this has got to be the worst beatdown I've seen in the cpu market yet.

Not only did you people count you chickens before they hatched, you tried to count the eggs before they were layed... Not good at all...

@Someguy

I suppose your a novice and never heard of overclocking.

@psychosaysdie

They just don't get it do they?...



Fist off all the I5 750 clocks up to 3.2Gghz.

The AMD 965 was overpriced even before the new Intel cpus. Yes it is clocked higher but they can still overclock. Yes please dont go into details about overclocking. Considering that you dont even know the specs of the one of the chips we are talking about...

Overall this by far NOT the worst beatdown in the the cpu market yet. When did you start to pay attention the cpu market? Last week maybe?

For all you rabid Intel fanboys here. I am not saying the AMD is a better chip. It always was overpriced. What is not is a piece of sh#T. It does not get walked all over by the i5 750.

The i5 is better and will force to AMD to drop prices. You Intel fanyboys are just as bad as the resident AMD trolls we got around here.

Here is a classic from physco "Here's what i learned from that article. Clock for clock the X4 gets destroyed by the I5. The X4 needs that 700mhz advantage to stay with the 750. Without it it just plain sucks" Again with the clock speed. Great logic there. Just as bad as the AMD trolls. Compare the cpus as is. None of this without that and that it sucks. IT HAS IT. i5 has turbo and it works great. Turn it off and match the clocks of the two cpus is if you really want a clock per clock comparison. Which you don't. You just simply want to wave your Intel pom poms.

September 11, 2009 4:27:04 PM

someguy7 said:
Fist off all the I5 750 clocks up to 3.2Gghz.

The AMD 965 was overpriced even before the new Intel cpus. Yes it is clocked higher but they can still overclock. Yes please dont go into details about overclocking. Considering that you dont even know the specs of the one of the chips we are talking about...

Overall this by far NOT the worst beatdown in the the cpu market yet. When did you start to pay attention the cpu market? Last week maybe?

For all you rabid Intel fanboys here. I am not saying the AMD is a better chip. It always was overpriced. What is not is a piece of sh#T. It does not get walked all over by the i5 750.

The i5 is better and will force to AMD to drop prices. You Intel fanyboys are just as bad as the resident AMD trolls we got around here.

Here is a classic from physco "Here's what i learned from that article. Clock for clock the X4 gets destroyed by the I5. The X4 needs that 700mhz advantage to stay with the 750. Without it it just plain sucks" Again with the clock speed. Great logic there. Just as bad as the AMD trolls. Compare the cpus as is. None of this without that and that it sucks. IT HAS IT. i5 has turbo and it works great. Turn it off and match the clocks of the two cpus is if you really want a clock per clock comparison. Which you don't. You just simply want to wave your Intel pom poms.



You said, "Intel pom poms" :lol: 
September 11, 2009 9:02:39 PM

someguy7 said:
Fist off all the I5 750 clocks up to 3.2Gghz.

The AMD 965 was overpriced even before the new Intel cpus. Yes it is clocked higher but they can still overclock. Yes please dont go into details about overclocking. Considering that you dont even know the specs of the one of the chips we are talking about...

Overall this by far NOT the worst beatdown in the the cpu market yet. When did you start to pay attention the cpu market? Last week maybe?

For all you rabid Intel fanboys here. I am not saying the AMD is a better chip. It always was overpriced. What is not is a piece of sh#T. It does not get walked all over by the i5 750.

The i5 is better and will force to AMD to drop prices. You Intel fanyboys are just as bad as the resident AMD trolls we got around here.

Here is a classic from physco "Here's what i learned from that article. Clock for clock the X4 gets destroyed by the I5. The X4 needs that 700mhz advantage to stay with the 750. Without it it just plain sucks" Again with the clock speed. Great logic there. Just as bad as the AMD trolls. Compare the cpus as is. None of this without that and that it sucks. IT HAS IT. i5 has turbo and it works great. Turn it off and match the clocks of the two cpus is if you really want a clock per clock comparison. Which you don't. You just simply want to wave your Intel pom poms.


For a processor at about 2.8 ghz to beat a 3.4 ghz cpu in almost all benchmarks and priced 50 dollars lower? That's beat downs man. I don't know where you've been but that's horrible. And, I did say "overall".

Perhaps, I don't know the specifications of the chips, and I ain't claiming to be an expert on it, but that's a quote from Tom's website and I linked to it, so unless your telling Tom's to wave their pom pom's, I suggest you take a back seat with the rest of the chumps.

To the rest of your comments, you got your facts twisted man. Read the article...

The only ugly trolls here are the people that are putting in opinions without getting their facts straight.
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2009 11:44:26 PM

"The only ugly trolls here are the people that are putting in opinions without getting their facts straight." Oh like ones that use a article written on this site that uses a ES sample chip with turbo crippled to max out at 2.8ghz?

Oh perhaps somebody that can say this " Perhaps, I don't know the specifications of the chips, and I ain't claiming to be an expert on it, but that's a quote from Tom's website and I linked to it, so unless your telling Tom's to wave their pom pom's, I suggest you take a back seat with the rest of the chumps." Followed by " The only ugly trolls here are the people that are putting in opinions without getting their facts straight."

I still say the AMD 965 was overpriced from its launch. Reguardless of the new i5 it was overpriced related to the AMD 955. But anyways. The end systems WILL end up costing basically the same amount even at this point in time. Intel boards still cost a little more than a AMD board. Combine that with the price of DDR3 that you must use for the Intel and the option for cheaper ddr2 on the AMD. There is your 50 dollars right there.

"For a processor at about 2.8 ghz to beat a 3.4 ghz cpu in almost all benchmarks and priced 50 dollars lower? That's beat downs man. I don't know where you've been but that's horrible. And, I did say "overall". Yeah you said " Overall, this has got to be the worst beatdown I've seen in the cpu market yet." So two systems costly basically the same amount of money with one cpu beating the other is most benchmarks is the wost beatdown you seen the market yet? PLEASE....

While it does win in the benchmarks it does'nt win by large margins. Toss because one chip can win lets say 22 out of 25 benchmarks a couple percent DOES NOT mean it beats down the other chip. A beat down is when chip is throurougly beating the other in tasks/benchmarks/performance. Like When core2's 1st came out. Like when the AMD dual cores 1st came out. Like the higher end i7s in almost all tasks besides gaming.

"I suggest you take a back seat with the rest of the chumps." Oh wow name calling from rabib clueless fanboy that joined yesterday...

And lastly "To the rest of your comments, you got your facts twisted man. Read the article..." None of "my comments" that you quoted is not even talking about the article. I would not even waste my time reading that garbage when there are countless other reviews I have read with the RETAIL chip running AT RETAIL specs.

But just for the sake of argument I looked at it just now. And this is how it starts. "First up is our Core i5 setup—arguably the most controversial configuration because it isn’t representative of any actual CPU model Intel is launching. The engineering sample we're using runs at 2.66 GHz by default and supports a single bin of Turbo Boost acceleration, locking it in at 2.8 GHz. Hyper-Threading is not supported, making this a quad-core processor able to execute four threads concurrently. In essence, it's a Core i5-750 without the ability to hit 3.2 GHz in single-threaded situations." And the article only uses a 2.8ghz x4. Yet you run off your clueless fanboy mouth about 2 chips that ARE NOT even in the terrible article. EPIC FAIL.

And there are only a couple of benches in the article itself. Gaming and 3dmark.

I guess myself and "the rest of the chumps" will go have seat in the back for a while until another clueless troll like yourself posts some more nonsense.
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2009 11:54:45 PM

medjohnson77 said:
Atleast AMD doesn't try to charge $580-$1000 dollars for there flagship processor,..


Not since they lost the performance crown some 3+ years ago. Of course, if you check K8 prices from some 5 years ago, you'll see that AMD is like any other company - they charged a really hefty premium for the best you could buy at the time.
September 12, 2009 12:34:43 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
Not since they lost the performance crown some 3+ years ago. Of course, if you check K8 prices from some 5 years ago, you'll see that AMD is like any other company - they charged a really hefty premium for the best you could buy at the time.


But it's only evil if Intel does it!
September 12, 2009 1:09:02 AM

Your only making yourself look worse by pointing out that the chip was crippled and is not like the retail version which would in turn really slaughter the 965 which happens to be AMD's TOP OFFERING. And it can't beat Intel's lower offering that's priced at a lower 200 dollars? What they were trying to say is that, the chip is actually better than the engineering sample they received. Did you even bother to read that quote before you posted it?

Let's weigh this out shall we? So fine, let's say 600 mhz disadvantage, 50 dollars cheaper for the Intel cpu, overall a decent platform would be about the same for both... And we all know the story with most AMD overclocks compared to Intel's.

Also, your talking about two different articles here...

Yeah, how's that back seat btw?

Trolling is basically when somebody is ranting just to rant or to start trouble. And since your contradicting yourself that's like looking yourself in the mirror and finding out that you really are a troll.

Btw, my comments were comical punchlines and sayings.

Here's the other link just for reference.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-gaming,2403...

@technologycoordinator

Yeah, of course, but hey, they make good cpu chips, so whatever.
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2009 2:50:24 AM

No it does not really slaughter the AMD 965. And AMDs top cpu can not beat the cpu. And yes it is overpriced.

What I am doing is calling out you clowns that come in here and just say stupid crap.

No trolling is when some tool just makes stupid comments that you consider comical punchlines and sayings.


Yeah the worst beatdown you have seen yet.... You fail miserably.
September 12, 2009 3:32:35 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
Not since they lost the performance crown some 3+ years ago. Of course, if you check K8 prices from some 5 years ago, you'll see that AMD is like any other company - they charged a really hefty premium for the best you could buy at the time.



If your going to qoute me faz, please read the follow up before you do. I think I pointed out in my thoughts on All companys doing the same, however let me ask you this. When AMD was charging the hefty price for there top line back then, what was Intel charging for there top line?

When I said who cares what there charging for the 965 is because two points,

1. go with the 955 for only $185 same processor, 200mhz less clock speed, which mutes threedonsense point of Phenom II's getting spanked, walked on, whatever by the new I5's and the price point he brings up to even further his fanboy statements.

2. Amd is not charging at this point in the game, 3x the amount for there higher end processor. As I have said before, paying $600-1000 dollars to any company for a chip is a complete joke! I am sure that every company wants to make a profit, but $600-$1000 dollars for the same chip, just higher clocks is crazy.

As I have said many times, for people who really need to have the extra power a Intel I7 brings to the table, and are using that chip to make money as a living then it is not so crazy or a waste. However, my Phenom II 940 b.e. at 3.6ghz works just fine for me. It handles everything that I throw at it with out even stressing it. So no it is not a $hit processor as one has stated, and since it handles everything I can throw at it which is alot, at what point do you just say I don't need more power out of a CPU? Both Phenom II's and I7's are good CPU's and the I5's also appear to be good CPU's, but there is one big difference in pricing between the two companys, (how they price there chips) I choose not to support a company by buying there CPU's that mark up there so called flagship processors 3x of the amount of a there lowerend high performance chips that can OC to the same performance level of the $1000 dollar CPU's they sell. I am not saying they shouldn't mark up there higher clocked chips, IMO though, a $600-800 price premium for them, is just wrong. If the shoe was on the other foot right now or if Intel processors really did just walk all over Phenom II's right now in real world performance, I would be buying Intel processors right now instead of AMD. Truth is this, Intels processors in real world performance, gaming, do not show such a big difference to justify me buying there CPUs over AMD. I think there are alot of people out there that feel the same as I do.

@TC
And BTW the evil Intel remark was just :sarcastic:  :whistle:  :lol: 
September 12, 2009 5:10:10 AM

someguy7 said:
No it does not really slaughter the AMD 965. And AMDs top cpu can not beat the cpu. And yes it is overpriced.

What I am doing is calling out you clowns that come in here and just say stupid crap.

No trolling is when some tool just makes stupid comments that you consider comical punchlines and sayings.


Yeah the worst beatdown you have seen yet.... You fail miserably.


Making up your own rules as you go along and can't back up what you say with facts. Nuff said.
September 12, 2009 5:17:58 AM

medjohnson77 said:
If your going to qoute me faz, please read the follow up before you do. I think I pointed out in my thoughts on All companys doing the same, however let me ask you this. When AMD was charging the hefty price for there top line back then, what was Intel charging for there top line?

When I said who cares what there charging for the 965 is because two points,

1. go with the 955 for only $185 same processor, 200mhz less clock speed, which mutes threedonsense point of Phenom II's getting spanked, walked on, whatever by the new I5's and the price point he brings up to even further his fanboy statements.

2. Amd is not charging at this point in the game, 3x the amount for there higher end processor. As I have said before, paying $600-1000 dollars to any company for a chip is a complete joke! I am sure that every company wants to make a profit, but $600-$1000 dollars for the same chip, just higher clocks is crazy.

As I have said many times, for people who really need to have the extra power a Intel I7 brings to the table, and are using that chip to make money as a living then it is not so crazy or a waste. However, my Phenom II 940 b.e. at 3.6ghz works just fine for me. It handles everything that I throw at it with out even stressing it. So no it is not a $hit processor as one has stated, and since it handles everything I can throw at it which is alot, at what point do you just say I don't need more power out of a CPU? Both Phenom II's and I7's are good CPU's and the I5's also appear to be good CPU's, but there is one big difference in pricing between the two companys, (how they price there chips) I choose not to support a company by buying there CPU's that mark up there so called flagship processors 3x of the amount of a there lowerend high performance chips that can OC to the same performance level of the $1000 dollar CPU's they sell. I am not saying they shouldn't mark up there higher clocked chips, IMO though, a $600-800 price premium for them, is just wrong. If the shoe was on the other foot right now or if Intel processors really did just walk all over Phenom II's right now in real world performance, I would be buying Intel processors right now instead of AMD. Truth is this, Intels processors in real world performance, gaming, do not show such a big difference to justify me buying there CPUs over AMD. I think there are alot of people out there that feel the same as I do.

@TC
And BTW the evil Intel remark was just :sarcastic:  :whistle:  :lol: 



How about we run some benchmarks? And hey, I only got an e5200 overclocked to 4.0 ghz on air. Nothing for you to sweat about of course. Pffft. You ain't got nothing to worry about, my whole system cost less than only your cpu excluding my 100 dollar wireless keyboard and mouse.

I'm tired of these people ranting false comments, let's see what your system can do...
September 12, 2009 5:58:52 AM

Quote:
So just because the benchmarks dont beat the X4 more the I5 isn't worth it? So what your trying to say is that you like being 2nd best? It's all good bro :lol: 


To each their own you know? Personally, I'm already trying to ditch my e5200 as of now. LOL!
September 12, 2009 10:53:16 AM

Why aren't people comparing the i5 with the 955? I think it's wrong that people say i5 stomps over the 965, when in terms of real-life applications, they almost perform the same.

I just bought a 955 a few days ago knowing that I had no interest in Intel since they seem to launch a new socket every year or two. I mean it's great if people want to upgrade every year or two, but it's a nice thought that with AMD, you can upgrade just a CPU, not the motherboard and CPU altogether.

AMD is still great for the money. Intel will always perform better, but why pay more for the same thing? I'm a gamer and I don't need the extra performance Intel offers. I would prefer to put more of my hard-earned money into a graphics card than a CPU. (Hence getting a $250 4890 Toxic with a $190 955)
September 12, 2009 12:19:53 PM

Let's set this straight. Since 965BE is AMD's flagship processor, I believe that it is trying to do what Intel has been doing with its flagship 1366 i7. Why not compare it this way? 955 vs i5 and 965 vs the socket 1366 i7.
Such business practice is to carve themselves a new market segment that's called enthusiasts. This segment has less worry about price. So selling in less quantity, higher price makes sense as they can recover the cost of R&D and make a profit from this segment. Afterall, it is AMD's flagship, meaning it has to have a "premium".

Also, when comparing, besides architecture, SSE instruction sets matter too.
September 12, 2009 12:47:07 PM

alikum said:
Let's set this straight. Since 965BE is AMD's flagship processor, I believe that it is trying to do what Intel has been doing with its flagship 1366 i7. Why not compare it this way? 955 vs i5 and 965 vs the socket 1366 i7.


Because that way it wil not work fine for AMD. The enthusiast sector usually go with high-end dual-GPU solutions, a sector where i7 and 1366 is clearly winning since the PII bottleneck high-end GPUs on SLI or XFire. The enthusiast sector has never gone with PII since 1366. An enthusiast want the best experience without caring too much about money. i7 is the clear winner here and AMD really didn't care to compete there.

The problem of AMD right now is that before i5-i7 for 1156 they had the mainstream sector with their very good CPUs at low price points for single GPUs users. Now that i5 and 1156 has come they are in trouble since they don't have the advantage nor in price nor in speed in that same sector as before. Before the advent of the 1156 platform mainstream users usually chosed AMD for the low price considering that single GPU gaming comes down to the better GPU one can have (a thing that saving on the CPU cost will achieve fine). If one used the PC other than gaming things were a bit different but let's not consider it here.

Now that AMD has not the same price-win situation in the mainstream sector they will have to drop prices to compete. Intel had the enthusiast sector in his hand before, now it has also the manistream one if prices don't drop and even if they do they will have some difficult times indeed.
September 12, 2009 12:53:41 PM

kokin said:

AMD is still great for the money. Intel will always perform better, but why pay more for the same thing? I'm a gamer and I don't need the extra performance Intel offers. I would prefer to put more of my hard-earned money into a graphics card than a CPU. (Hence getting a $250 4890 Toxic with a $190 955)


Good point. The only thing you didn't notice is that right now building a mainstream system with a single GPU cost LESS with Intel and with better results. What you say was right before, now the things have totally changed. The question now is: why pay more for less speed?

Only fanboys will do that, intelligent customers will buy the best platform the money can buy and now it is Intel, both in mainstream and enthusiast sectors.
September 12, 2009 1:19:46 PM

selea said:
Because that way it wil not work fine for AMD. The enthusiast sector usually go with high-end dual-GPU solutions, a sector where i7 and 1366 is clearly winning since the PII bottleneck high-end GPUs on SLI or XFire. The enthusiast sector has never gone with PII since 1366. An enthusiast want the best experience without caring too much about money. i7 is the clear winner here and AMD really didn't care to compete there.

The problem of AMD right now is that before i5-i7 for 1156 they had the mainstream sector with their very good CPUs at low price points for single GPUs users. Now that i5 and 1156 has come they are in trouble since they don't have the advantage nor in price nor in speed in that same sector as before. Before the advent of the 1156 platform mainstream users usually chosed AMD for the low price considering that single GPU gaming comes down to the better GPU one can have (a thing that saving on the CPU cost will achieve fine). If one used the PC other than gaming things were a bit different but let's not consider it here.

Now that AMD has not the same price-win situation in the mainstream sector they will have to drop prices to compete. Intel had the enthusiast sector in his hand before, now it has also the manistream one if prices don't drop and even if they do they will have some difficult times indeed.


I agree with you there, not on the 965 being too expensive but that they should cut prices for the rest of the line to stay competitive. Since 965 is their flagship, the price has to be high to indicate that it's their flagship. What I meant in my earlier post was 965 isn't being too expensive because it is their flagship, but other chips (955 and below) are being too expensive because they can afford to cut price and they have to, in order to stay competitive. I'm for Intel being the more value for money but against the thread starter and some others calling 965 too expensive because it just simply has to.

For those of you who still do not understand the business sense, consider Mercedes AMG. It's not the fastest car neither is it value for money. But it is because that it's their flagship, it just has to be at the level.
September 12, 2009 5:05:36 PM

You have misunderstood the point about being a flagship. The 965 is not competing against Intel's i5. Yes you're right about it getting beaten but AMD wants itself a slice of the pie in the enthusiast market too. Though it has been outperformed, it is still there to compete, not against the i5 but the 1366 i7. It is still a choice for consumers, either the cheaper 965, or the 1366 i7. Sure as consumers it may not make sense, but this is a business logic.

It should make sense once I draw a chart out for you but I just don't have the time right now. Just think about this, the market consists of segments. Right now, we're seeing low-end, mainstream and enthusiasts. AMD was doing very well in the low-end and mainstream and struggled slightly in the enthusiasts before i5 came out. Now that i5 is out, AMD struggles in 2 markets, mainstream and enthusiasts. In order to secure the mainstream, they will have to do price cuts. As for enthusiast, there's just so much that they can do, unless they can hurry R&D and production of Thuban which is unlikely to be out anytime soon. If 965 is dropped in price to lower than i5, which is a newly defined mainstream, then that means AMD is not getting a share of the pie in the enthusiast segment. Meaning, they will have no more enthusiast share. This is not wise to do unless they are really struggling hard financially, which of course they are not.

They should cut prices, but not the 965. Only 955 and below. However, down to the end, it'd be AMD's decision, not my call :D 
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2009 5:17:31 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I would say "walk all over" wouldn't be accurate. However, the i5 is faster than the 965BE in most benchmarks. It's also only 95 watts. The 965BE does have the unlocked multi, but it doesn't have much headroom because of its stock 140W rating.

I do agree that prices drops are in order. I think $190-200 should be the range for the 965BE.

Until AMD drops their prices NewEgg will probably have to stay higher with less volume so they don't eat a loss.

Amen to that :ange: 
September 12, 2009 5:37:29 PM

Quote:
Whats amd's roadmap look like? What's coming out next for them? I might trash amd a lot but i only do it because people love to bicker. :lol:  Amd coming out with a 6 core processor? When? Price? Clock speed? The X4 has a shot but not at it's current price. How does the 955 compare against the I5? I imagine alittle less then the 965. The question you have to ask yourself is this. How many people are going to spend the same amount of money for a 955 when amd's flagship 965 can't even eclipse's intel's 199 dollar processor? I understand people hate intel so they buy amd but at what end? It's not a smart buy if your just picking amd because you can't stand what intel does. Intel makes great product's. They're in business to make money. Just like everyone else in the world.


Mate, I'm afraid you may have misunderstood my point. I'm looking at things at the business point of view, not consumer. Sure, for consumer (most), everything is value-for-money, but for business, it's not that easy. Like I said, I agree that they should slash prices for "955 and below". As for the 965, think of it as an achievement for them. They might not sell a hell lot, but they are still selling, hence the premium. One thing you should understand about business is never to kill your own line with another. Let's just assume that AMD moves 965 right into the mainstream segment, and leave enthusiasts alone, what would the rest of its processors go? When 965 is right at the "value-for-money" level, it will push 955 down even further and at the same time killing off 945, 810 and so on. I don't think AMD will do that just for the sake for competing against i5. Well, like I said, it's just my analysis. AMD has the final call.
September 12, 2009 7:46:39 PM

@psychosaysdie

Yeah, it is a very good chip. But, I been wanting to get the 1156 platform since the early hype benchmarks. i3... I actually forgot about that...

@Alikum

Yeah, but most companies like making money. Idk what's going on with AMD. I know for sure it's not going to be long before AMD drops it's prices though. i5 was only recently released so give it time. Think about it, if they were to drop prices by a lot, it'd be hard not to suggest AMD at that point. Although, the i3 is probably only going to mess that up again.
September 12, 2009 8:54:35 PM

selea said:
Good point. The only thing you didn't notice is that right now building a mainstream system with a single GPU cost LESS with Intel and with better results. What you say was right before, now the things have totally changed. The question now is: why pay more for less speed?

Only fanboys will do that, intelligent customers will buy the best platform the money can buy and now it is Intel, both in mainstream and enthusiast sectors.


Mind you, I'm more inclined towards AMD/ATI with my new system, but I'm no fanboy. I'm all for buying the best platform for the money, but I like to buy things that have been out on the market at least 4-6 months prior to my purchase. Just because the i5 does perform faster, it is still a new product and I'm not the kind of person to buy a new product on the day it launches. I'm still gonna be glad I bought my 955 since I know it will beat the crap out of everything I want it to do.
September 12, 2009 10:19:54 PM

threednonsense said:
How about we run some benchmarks? And hey, I only got an e5200 overclocked to 4.0 ghz on air. Nothing for you to sweat about of course. Pffft. You ain't got nothing to worry about, my whole system cost less than only your cpu excluding my 100 dollar wireless keyboard and mouse.

I'm tired of these people ranting false comments, let's see what your system can do...



I am sorry to have to break it to ya, but if your whole system only ran you $235 there is no point in wasting time with benchmarking mine and yours. Your system is not in the same ballpark as mine, simply because my raid setup cost more then your whole system, my grafix card(s) cost more then your whole system, I'm not making false statements or claims, in any of my post.

I have built several builds for clients with the E5200-E8400 in them, so I know what they can do at stock, and OCed in real world performance, so here's the highlights of the test, your system lost.


@ Psychosays,

I like being second best hey? Thats funny, seems if my system performs and does everything I need it to do and performs very fast, gaming, etc. etc, and yet we have Intels I5's and I7s that just show in benchmarks there alittle faster then mine, You come up with the very false sence or Idea that the Phenom II's are a $hit processor and they just suck. Sound about right Psycho?

What we have here is faliure to comunicate, some men you just can't reach..... :lol: 

@ threednosense,

Sounds like your E5200 at 4ghz is the only real prosessor or system you have ever had the money for, or the real world experience to work with in you entire life time. While the E5200 is a good processor, In real world performance its not going to run with the Phenom II, so your Ideas on this = fail. Being a custom system builder I do not base my purchase's soley on Benchmarks, many things factor into what I build for myself and what I recommend to clients for their builds. IMO, people who build there systems soley on Benchmarks, (trying to get the best benchmarks nothing else matters) are living with momy and daddy still, and are not paying for there equipment, or they are just willing to pay whatever high price a company wants to charge to get the best benchmarks they can get. Then you have the type of people who get on here, have a E5200, see a few benchmarks on the new Intel hardware, and have no realworld experience with any or very few processors other then there E5200 and try to tell all of us how it is. Once again you thoughts=fail. :lol: 
September 12, 2009 11:21:33 PM

I'm just your average consumer here just newly learning about computer building and hardware by reading these articles. But based on what I've read on tomshardware, anandtech, firingsquad, etc, I see no reason why you would buy a Phenom 965 when you can just get a cheaper and faster i5?

On topic though, I think it's not up to newegg to set the price, it's up to the manufacturer.
September 12, 2009 11:29:05 PM

I agree with you Godzealot about not getting the 965 at this time, It is not worth it IMO. I would however looking into the 955 or the 720 b.e. because they are priced lower then the I5's, before just running out and getting the I5. Waiting a few weeks for prices to drop, which I doubt it, but they might, and giving alittle time to see what the I5 can do might be a good idea.
September 12, 2009 11:31:33 PM

Why spend money like an idiot for the little extra boost in power? And why not overclock a good cpu that is proven to do well? Your showcase of arrogance with no meaning on the internet is really one that is the real fail here. In real life, the processor is way more than enough. Also, your ignorance is one to point out because raid setups actually lessen access times and is basically only good for video editing type of stuff due to it's large increase in i/o stats. I haven't gamed much lately at all, but in a few months I am planning get some new games that are coming out.

So, your already drawing conclusions before we even did the benchmarks. Nuff said. Like I said before, your trying count the eggs before they were even laid. Not good at all...

And then it's people like you would turn around and say "Why do you need all that power anyways?"

I came from a socket 478 and I am a very experienced computer user and after I got a feel for overclocking on the e5200. This was just so that I could get another computer and use it in real life situations. Btw, benchmarks whether or not you accept this, do have somewhat of a representation of how fast the processor is depending on the type of benchmarks. It almost sounds as if your trying to dodge the situation of having to run a few benchmarks. If they are so irrelevant, why do most computer sites commonly use these tests? Also, my previous computer had about 4 grand dumped into it before the whole thing broke and basically wasn't worth fixing, and yes my e5200 system was the best I ever had for what I paid, so I don't know what your trying to get at...

The thing is, if you really knew about overclocking the dual core cpu's from Intel you would know how well it scales and even anandtech has reviews where the AMD offerings fell behind when both are clocked at higher speeds. AMD offerings just don't scale as well when overclocked compared to Intel's offerings. Let's try to stay factual and on topic here.

So, just because I didn't waste money on an i7 or decided that Intel was the better purchase, I haven't used many of computer systems? Now I know why you like to use the term "fail" so much.
September 13, 2009 12:04:50 AM

threednonsense said:
Why spend money like an idiot for the little extra boost in power? And why not overclock a good cpu that is proven to do well? Your showcase of arrogance with no meaning on the internet is really one that is the real fail here. In real life, the processor is way more than enough. Also, your ignorance is one to point out because raid setups actually lessen access times and is basically only good for video editing type of stuff due to it's large increase in i/o stats. I haven't gamed much lately at all, but in a few months I am planning get some new games that are coming out.

So, your already drawing conclusions before we even did the benchmarks. Nuff said. Like I said before, your trying count the eggs before they were even laid. Not good at all...

And then it's people like you would turn around and say "Why do you need all that power anyways?"

I came from a socket 478 and a very experienced computer user and after I got a feel for overclocking on the e5200. This was just so that I could get another computer and use it in real life situations. Btw, benchmarks whether or not you accept this, do have somewhat of a representation of how fast the processor is depending on the type of benchmarks. It almost sounds as if your trying to dodge the situation of having to run a few benchmarks. If they are so irrelevant, why do most computer sites commonly use these tests?

A thing is add is, if you really knew about overclocking the dual core cpu's from Intel you would know how well it scales and even anandtech has reviews where the AMD offerings fell behind when both are clocked at higher speeds. AMD offerings just don't scale as well when overclocked compared to Intel's offerings. Let's try to stay factual and on topic here.

So, just because I didn't waste money on an i7 I haven't used many of computer systems? Now I know why you like to use the term "fail" so much.



I have already benched and worked with a E5200 rig I built and it ran right at $700 dollars to build so, no need to bench yours. Your right, it is a good processor, however your rig and mine are not going to be in the same ball park in benchs.

Why spend extra money like an Idiot for a little extra boost in power you ask?? I believe that was my point to you in almost every post I put up, that a x3 720 b.e. or a 955 b.e. or a 940 b.e even if going soley by benchmarks is just under the I5's and I7 and they are cheaper. I am going to put this in "LARGE TYPE" so just maybe you won't miss my point this time given the fact you have in all my other posts here.

PHENOM II's, I7's ARE ALL GOOD PROCESSORS AND NONE WALK ALL OVER THE OTHER IN REALWORLD PERFORMANCE. Depending on your use, needs, some perform better for certain types of use.

Sure I look at benchs as part of my (over all) research and final choice for what I buy and build, however it is not the end all choice factor. The only point I am making has to do with your lack of real world experience with the Phenom II's, and coming on here posting that the I5's walk all over the phenom IIs. It is your opinion and right to say such things, but it doesn't make it anymore of a true statement. If you have come from a 475 socket to the E5200 and it is all you have a grasp on using, then your statement of the PII's being walked all over simply by you viewing benchmarks, and never using the system your making the statement about, does =fail.
I have used all the processors and worked with them with the exception of the I5's, and don't see where they are just going to be the new blow everthing out of the water processor including the I7 920. You however must think they are.

As to why sites use benchmarks to test hardware, it is a reference to study, compare, amoung many other things to study and consider in building a rig.

For just a second put away all your marketing hype that has you so snowballed and think....

In one of the other threeds on here someone had benched the I5 and It was at 3.2ghz and had the HT enabled, and had a cpu score of 5300 or around that in mark06.

my 940 be at 3.6ghz has a score of right at 5000 in mark06. Wow were looking at a difference in around 300 points, and this is with DDR2 vs DDDR3 and Intels new I5 at 3.2 with HT enabled.

Sure raid 0 lessens access times alittle, but for what I do with my rig, the speed advantage's out way the small loss in access times. In gaming online alone out of six players in games I play, I am always in the top 3 in my load times, in loading maps. With 2 640 wd blacks in raid 0, and HD tune 2.55 I am looking at a access time of 12ms, which is not to bad. I have also tested and almost keep a 300gb Raptor drive on this rig, even with its better access times of 7ms I liked the raid setup better and felt it was more responsive for my needs.

I guess I better go right out and buy the new I5 because It just walks all over my system hey? :pfff:  :lol: 
September 13, 2009 12:25:14 AM

965=140w
i5 = 95w
enough said.
!